REBUTTAL COMMITTEE REPORT on materials submitted by the U.S.S.R. Division - Items 1-43 inclusive. 1.IPS Doc. No. 3145 Affidavit of Fritz Von Petersdorf. Decision: The Committee does not think that the part of the Affidavit contradicting Kretchmer's statement about the information received by Germany from the Japanese General Staff would be admitted by the Tribunal because the Defence were merely contradicting part of the Prosecution case and not introducing any new matter. The same applies to TOJO's statement, but the information contained in the affidavit might be of use in the Cross-examination of Tojo and should be made available to the Attorney conducting that Cross-examination. 2.Excerpt from Nuremberg Judgment Decision: The Committee does not think that the Tribunal would allow it to be referred to <insert>in</insert> evidence on a question of fact. 3. Excerpt from evidence of Paulus at Nuremberg. Decision: This might possibly be admitted as the Defence has been allowed to introduce such excerpts but (a) the matter to be contradicted is not a new point made by the Defence, but merely a denial of the prosecution’s original case and (b) Paulus’ evidence does not appear to contradict a Defence statement that the U.S.S.R. was ready to join the Tri-partite pact, but merely provides additional material to prove our original point that the Pact was directed against the U.S.S.R. 4.Affidavit of Malukov. Decision: The Committee does not think that the Tribunal meant that the witness could be produced after the close of the Prosecution case or that they would be prepared to admit him now unless the matter is shown to be much more important than they apparently thought it to be at the time and some very good reason is produced why the witness could not have been called before the close of the Prosecution case, and in the opinion of the Committee it is not rebuttal evidence and could not be adduced at this stage. 5.Affidavit of Masatane KANDA, IPS Doc. No. 3087 Decision: The full text of the document should have been identified during the progress of the case for the prosecution and Is not the proper subject matter of rebuttal. 6.IPS Doc. No. 2329-B Extracts from the Book “Great Manchurian Empire.” Decision: The Committee considers that only those parts of the book which contain statements of fact on which questions put to UEDA or other Defence witnesses, e.g. MINAMI, were based are admissible in rebuttal and that those passages should be selected and tendered. It is suggested that these passages be selected and re-submitted to the Committee.