. NMT06-T0598
Volume VI · Page 598
| Q. Mr. Gritzbach, I would now
like to put before you again the draft which preceded the document you now have
before you. Your Honor, that is Document NI-934, Prosecution Exhibit 478.* I insert this here so that you will find it quickly, I would like you to once again compare the draft with the final version which you already have. Yesterday, earlier, you compared the wording of the two letters. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that yesterday you failed to note that in the Koerner version, the word "moeglich", [if possible] within a week or so, or something of that kind, was omitted; while in the draft, 478, it is included. Koerner thus fixed a definite time limit. Is it correct to say that Koerner's version was more severe than the draft which was submitted to him? A. I have not exactly understood this question. Excuse me, Koerner's version is more severe. Q. More severe. A. More severe because it is more strictly defined. Q. Yes, definitely more severe. Is it correct to say that in the case of the letter you have before you, it is practically an ultimatum? A. Pleiger, no doubt, considered this letter as being a kind of ultimatum, but if you take into consideration the business correspondence with the Ministries and think of the way in which these matters were handled, the expression "ultimatum" is perhaps a little too strong and not quite the right word. It was not an ultimatum. No ultimatum was necessary in fact because the parties in the matter, on the basis of Pleiger's demands, were in agreement. DR. FLAECHSNER: Very well, thank you. |
|
| * * * * * * * * * * |
* Reproduced in B above.
