THE PRESIDENT: Just in order that it may be upon the shorthand note.
M. DUBOST: 14 February 1944, gross weight 832 kilos, net weight 555 kilos (destination Auschwitz); 16 February 1944, gross weight 832 kilos, net weight 555 kilos (destination Oranienburg); 13 March 1944, gross weight 896 kilos, net weight 598 kilos (destination Auschwitz); 13 March 1944, gross weight 896 kilos, net weight 598 kilos (destination Oranienburg); 30 April 1944, gross weight 832 kilos, net weight 555 kilos (destination Auschwitz); 30 April 1944, gross weight 832 kilos, net weight 555 kilos (destination Oranienburg); 18 May 1944, gross weight 832 kilos, net weight 555 kilos (destination Oranienburg); 31 May 1944, gross weight 832 kilos, net weight 555 kilos (destination Auschwitz). This appears to me to be all.
To Document 1553-PS is added the statement by Gerstein, and also the statement by the chief of the American service who collected this document.
With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall proceed with the presentation of the crimes of which we accuse the defendants against Allied prisoners of war who were interned in Germany. Document Number 735-PS, Page 68 of the document book, which we submitted a short time ago under Exhibit Number RF-371, is a report on important meetings which brought together Kaltenbrunner, Ribbentrop, and Göring, in the course of which the list of air operations which constituted acts of terrorism was drawn up.
It was decided in these meetings that lynching would be the ideal punishment for all actions directed against civilian populations, which the German Government claimed had the character of terrorism.
On Page 68 Ribbentrop is involved. We read in one of the three copies of the notes of the meetings that were held that day, in the first paragraph, 11th line:
“Contrary to the first proposals of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who wanted to include all terrorist attacks against the civilian population and consequently air attacks against cities . . . .”
The proposals made by Ribbentrop were far in excess of what was accepted at the time of this meeting. The three lines which follow deserve the attention of the Tribunal:
“Lynch law should be the rule. There was, on the other hand, no question of a judgment rendered by a tribunal or handing over to the police.”
In Paragraph b), bottom of the page: