SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I did put it in when I was cross-examining the Defendant Dönitz.
THE PRESIDENT: It is very likely with our Dönitz papers.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Perhaps Your Lordship will allow me to just read it slowly, for the moment. The document says this:
“The question of an unrestricted U-boat warfare against England is discussed in the enclosed data submitted by the High Command of the Navy.
“The Navy has arrived at the conclusion that the maximum damage to England which can be achieved with the forces available can only be attained if the U-boats are permitted an unrestricted use of arms without warning against enemy and neutral shipping in the prohibited area indicated on the enclosed map. The Navy does not fail to realize that:
“(a) Germany would thereby publicly disregard the agreement of 1936 regarding the conduct of economic war.
“(b) Conduct of the war on these lines could not be justified on the basis of the hitherto generally accepted principles of international law.”
Then, I ought to read this, or point it out. I have dealt with it before, it is the second last paragraph:
“Points of view based on foreign politics would favor using the method of unrestricted U-boat warfare only if England gives us a justification by her method of waging war to order this form of warfare as a reprisal.”
[Turning to the defendant.] Now, I want you to take it by stages. You see the paragraph that says: