I think I can confine myself to read in this. The affiant then goes on to state that no excesses wore reported to him and that there was only one incident known to him, which is submitted here as exhibit No. 506. This is the well known case of the shelling by the Navy.
The statement was certified by me on 3 October 1947 and sworn before me.
I now submit document Rendulic II No. 41, I submit this as exhibit No. 46. This is an affidavit by Ernst Erich Strassel who was chief of the propaganda company in the German army in Northern Finland under the command of General Bietl and he also remained in this position under his successor, General Rendulic. I have several statements by this affiant and will not want to read his statements again about his relationship to Rendulic. He describes what the propaganda was. I merely want to point out here this affiant as chief and leader of the propaganda company had all kinds of war correspondents under him, reporters, illustrators, radio and foreign language broadcasting reporters, news reporters, cinema units, a printing platoon and other mechanical and clerical assistants. The affiant was stationed with or in the neighborhood of the company and he states in this affidavit he was in close contact with the Army High Command and therefore he knew General Rendulic from close acquaintance. I would like to refer to this again when I come to further statements by this affiant.
Then I submit document Rendulic No. II 42 as exhibit No. 47. This is also an affidavit by Ernst Erich Strassel, chief of the propaganda company, who has just been mentioned. I will read individual parts of it, first of all in the third paragraph.
JUDGE BURKE: What is the exhibit 42, please?
DR. FRITSCH: It is exhibit 47.
JUDGE BURKE: What is exhibit 47, in what document book.
DR. FRITSCH: It is an affidavit by Ernest Erich Strassel, dated 27 October 1947.
JUDGE BURKE: What document.
DR. FRITSCH: The document is Rendulic No. II 42.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I believe that document also got the No. 41 in the English document book, that is at least the way I have it.
Dr. Fritsche: I am sorry Your Honor, obviously there is another mistake of the copying department, may I again draw your attention to document 41. This is the general affidavit by Ernest Erich Strassel, dated 25 October. Then the next affidavit instead of No. 41 should read No. 42, document No. 42, that is Strassel's affidavit dated 27 October. It is on the English page 6. This document No. 42 is Exhibit No. 47. I read the third paragraph:
As far as the evacuation is concerned I only gained some personal experiences by witnessing some details and assigned my reporters to the various phases of its execution. I recall that the Army has done much in order to relieve the difficult situation of the population in accordance with orders issued by Generaloberst RENDULIC, for instance the placing at disposal of vehicles, gasoline, food supplies, field kitchens, medical personnel, medical supplies and so on. The troops and population were on good terms, not only because pity was the ruling factor, although the troops just coming from Finland had no chance yet to fraternize with the Norwegian population. Looting and excesses of any kind were prohibited and threatened with severe disciplinary action. To my knowledge serious frictions occurred nowhere.
I now read the fifth paragraph:
"I have not experienced cases of atrocities or lack of consideration by German troops in the treatment of the population. I also have never heard of this either. In the prominent Stockholm newspapers however, at the time of the evacuation, continuous atrocity reports appeared therein describing the sufferings and deprivations of the Norwegian population, including women and children, caused by German troops. These reports were made to appear quite genuine by additionally submitting photos.
The leading news agencies such as Router, Associated Press, etc. covered those descriptions for the whole world. All cases, which were reported immediately to the Army Command through the German Military Attache in Stockholm, have been thoroughly investigated by the Germans and in many cases Norwegian representatives were present at these investigations. These natters were handled by me and forwarded to Stockholm for clarification. There it was ascertained that mostly it was a case of many Norwegians having reached the Swedish border in a pitiful, half-starved and frozen condition and who had followed the order of the London Norwegian Civilian Government to try and escape the evacuation. They had made their way into the mountains, either in groups or singly, and tried to reach the Swedish border. Many succeeded. Some, however, did not make it owing to the extreme winter conditions and the impassable terrain and some reached the Swedish border in a completely exhausted condition. These unfortunate people were then used for a large-scale baiting of the German troops. The Army of course had, as far as I know, no objection that these people went to Sweden, because it was only important they they reached safety.
I have not heard of cases of Norwegian civilians having been shot during the evacuation. The health condition of the population was normal, as far as I was able to for an opinion. The partly essential evacuation of the seafaring fisherfolks on cutters and boats did not represent a particular burden or a perilous strain to them.
An order was issued that the burning of homes was only to be effected after complete evacuation of the population and the passage of German troops. The houses and villages of the territories to be evacuated served as quarters to the troops and rear-guards, and if they were burned down according to orders, it happened long after the civilian population had moved. At remote bases in the Oedmark and on smaller islands it happened that the German troops left with the population on account of communication difficulties and lack of transportation.
In these cases the individual commanders had to make their own decisions in order to bring soldiers and the civilian population into safety in time and as ordered.
During repeated talks with General RENDULIC I learned that RENDULIC attached great importance to it that the evacuation of the population was carried out in good understanding between the troops and the civilian population. This was fully realized by the soldiers not only because any kind of friction would have made the task of evacuation more difficult but was in accordance with his fundamentally friendly attitude toward the Norwegian population."
And then I just read one paragraph which concerns the town of Kirkenes:
"The town of Kirkenes I saw last approx, at the beginning or the middle of 1944. Kirkenes was for years the main objective of the Russian Air Force which tried to paralyze the harbor of Kirkenes, the latter being the supply base of the polar sea front. I have visited Kirkenes several times and experienced three to four air-raids daily. The last time I visited Kirkenes it was half destroyed on account of the continuous Russian air raids."
The statement is sworn to by me here in Nurnberg on 27 October 1947.
And now I submit document No. II, No. 43. I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention to the fact that the pagination, on page 9 of the document book is wrong, again it should be document No. 43 instead of No. 41. I submit this document as exhibit No. 48. This is an excerpt from the war diary of the 20th Mountain Army. I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention to the report of 2115 hours. It states here:
"The Army Command rejects the proposition made by the Naval Command Norway of the subsequent destruction of Vardoe, as the Army Command cannot see any advantage by this action."
The next document is Rendulic II, No. 44. This is on page 10 of the English and this will be Exhibit No. 44. This is also an excerpt from the War Diary of the 20th Mountain Army. I will point out the report of 07.00 hours in which it is stated that now an order from the OKW has arrived concerning the transfer of various divisions and of the Staff of the XVIII Corps.
And then the next document, Document No. 45 -- this will be Exhibit No. 50 -- is on page 11 of the English text. This also is an excerpt from the War Diary of the 20th Mountain Army, a Daily Report from the 16th of September 1944.
The report for 1730 is important here. I will read it:
"Ia of Armed Forces Commander Norway reports that 2 exceptionally large convoys have been located in the Arctic Sea of which neither the direction nor the strength and composition could be ascertained. The convoys are for the first time under the command of the British Admiralty."
The next document is Rendulic II, No. 46, and I submit this as Exhibit No. 51. This is also an excerpt from the War Diary of the 20th Mountain Army dated the 26th of September 1944. That is two days before the issuance of the well-known OWK Order.
I am sorry. I withdraw that.
I point here to point and would like to read from line 9 onwards:
"The appearance of a large convoy, sighted in the Bay of Kola and consisting among others of 2 battle ships, 12 destroyers, 2 auxiliary aircraft carriers and a shipping space of a total of 230,000 gross registered tons, indicates an intended attack against the Liza front. There are, so far no indications of intentions to effect a landing."
And the next document I submit is Rendulic II, No. 47 and this will be Exhibit No. 52. This is also an excerpt from the War Diary of the 20th Mountain Army dated the 18th of November 1944 and I refer to the report of 2325 hours which states:
"In connection with American press reports about an imminent landing of American troops, the Fuehrer has ordered that extreme watchfulness be kept up in the Norwegian Theatre and that a check up be made on all measures of defense."
"Then I submit Document II, No. 48. This will be Exhibit No. 53. This is another excerpt from the War Diary of the 20th Mountain Army dated the 8th of November 1944. In the entry of 1115 hours there is a note which runs as follows:
"Vice-Admiral Brinkmann, acting for the Commander in Chief of Navy Command Norway, was given the responsibility to guarantee a smooth cooperation between the Army Command and Naval Offices and to advise the Army Command on all matters of transportation by water and costal defense within the scope of naval tasks."
The report is dated the 8th of November 1944.
And the next document I submit is Rendulic II, No. 49, and this will be Exhibit No. 54, English page 15. This is an affidavit by Ernst Erich Strassel, whom I would like to point out again was the Chief of the Propaganda Company. Strassel states the following with regard to the Russian propaganda and the German measures taken to counter this: in the extreme North - at times up to 100 different leaflets were dropped on the German troops within one month - always endeavored to play off the purely Austrian Units of the Army (pre-eminently Styrians, Carinthians, and Tyrolese in the mountain divisions of the Arctic Sea front) against the Germans from the "Altreich" (Germany proper). Even in the days of General SCHOERNER and Generaloberst DIETL the Russian propaganda had attempted again and again to effect a weakening of solidarity between Austrians and Germans and to paralyze particularly the fighting spirit of the Austrian units.
Now, when Austrian general, in the person of Generaloberst RENDULIC, took over command, the Russian propaganda, versatile and always quick to respond, immediately took advantage of this fact and caused consternation and anxiety among the German troops (who just had learned of Finland's surrender!) by disseminating news as for instance that this Austrian General would now withdraw the Austrian troops from combat, or turn the Army over to the Russians. This ever increasing agitation was bound to cause battle weariness and a loss of confidence in the commander's efficiency. The award of the gold modal warded off this blow, attempted by the enemy, and removed a looming danger.
This affidavit was certified by me on the 27th of October 1947.
And Rendulic II, Document No. 50, is now submitted as Exhibit No. 55. This is another affidavit by Ernst Erich Strassel. This is on page 16 of the English. This is a description of the relations between Rendulic and Reich Commissar Terboven as experienced by the affiant according to his statement. I read from the third paragraph:
"From the time of Redulic's arrival in Norway a very strained relationship existed, between General REDULIC and Reich Commissioner TERBOVEN. These relations were marked by various differences. It was not by accident that, from the very beginning, these frictions became evident in my scope of work, for TERBOVEN insisted in all matters concerning press and radio, TERBOVEN insisted in all matters concerning press and radio, on his "Prerogative of Sovereignty", which he legally sustained by a respective Fuehrer Decree. In opposition to this, RENDULIC was of the firm opinion tint the press and radio were not to be run on political Party-lines but should be run in correspondence with military principles.
"My position caused the first serious clash of opinion when - at the beginning of the retreat in Northern Norway - MUELLER, a deputy of the Reich Commissioner, took steps with my superiors in Berlin to relieve me of my position, and to replace me by a man, who was evidently more agreeable to the Reich Commissioner, and who had already reached Oslo.
RENDULIC immediately protested strongly against this intrigue by telephing to the Office Chief of Army Propaganda with the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht, Major-General von WEDEL, and succeeded in letting me keep the position of a company leader.
This telephone call was made from Alta in Northern Norway.
The affian then reports about some other rather serious differences of opinion between the Reich Commissar and the defendant General Rendulic. I would like to recommend those passages to the Tribunal's attention.
And I read on page 2 of the document. I would like to point out something and there to continue reading. It is on page 2, a few remarks under A, B, C and D. It is on page 18 in the English:
Once RENDULIC even said in a large circle that in the future either he or the Reich Commissioner would carry the responsibility for measures in Norway. The decision as indicated in this formulation did not come about however, as - a few weeks later -- RENDULIC's work in Norway came to an end by his being placed in charge of the Army Group Courland. In informed circles, however, the opinion prevailed that his recall from Norway was a result of his frank attitude towards the person and the policy of the Reich Commissioner, who through his good political connections had succeeded in obtaining a transfer to Berlin and to Fuehrer Head Quarters. TERBOVEN's opposition to the interview which RENDULIC had had published in the Norwegian press on the occasion of his taking command had shown that the Reich Commissioner did not agree with RENDULIC's policy advocating a conciliatory attitude and appeasing policy towards the Norwegian people.
RENDULIC was no politician, just a soldier. I had to draw the conclusion from his remarks and from his entire attitude that he did not agree with the policy. He was very deeply interested in the consolidation of the relationship between the Wehrmacht and the Norwegians. In reference to this, the above mentioned interview plays an important part. According to my memory, this interview was given shortly before Christmas 1944 and appeared in the entire Norwegian press, distributed through the Norwegian telegraph office. This interview was intended as a conscious attack against TERBOVEN and his policy. RENDULIC was of the opinion, that the personal conduct of TERBOVEN and of his collaborators was, as he expressed himself, the attitude of political party bosses, in particular in their dealings with the Norwegians, and through this interview he wanted to oppose these things and to clarify his position. Apart from this, this personal address was meant to represent an approach of the Wehrmacht to the Norwegian population. Therefore this interview culminated in the following statement which corresponds with RENDULIC's entire personality: "I am an enemy of severity in any form." RENDULIC claimed openly to be a friend of the Norwegians find of their great cultural representatives with whom he had been in close contact as a human being and as cosmopolitan, from the time of his early youth.
This interview, which was in quite another vein than the Norwegian people knew it out of publications and proclamations of the Reich Commissioner, and which accordingly had to have a sensational effect on the Norwegian public, provoked therefore the particular displeasure of the Reich Commissioner who tried to prevent the publication through an order of the highest Berlin authorities. It was merely accidental that the prohibition of the interview arrived only at a time when the publication had already taken place.
Even at the transfer of the Army Head Quarters from Northern Norway to the South of the country the contrasting views of Wehrmacht and Reich Commissariate became very obvious. The Reich Commissioner had made the proposal to the Commander-in-Chief, to keep Head Quarters in Oslo, as it had been under General v. FALKENHORST, and offered in the most generous manner to place at the disposal for this purpose all commodities required for setting up business. RELDULIC refused and set up quarters in Lillehammer, at 200 km distance from Oslo, in order to escape the atmosphere of the Reich Commissariate and of the rear area. I know from personal remarks of the Commander-in-Chief that this separation represented a freely chosen breach between the Reich Commissariate and the Wehrmacht.
The affidavit was sworn to by the affiant on the 27th of October 1947 and certified to by me.
Your Honors, that brings me, for the moment, to the end of my presentation of evidence. At this moment I would like to make a request. I still have some correspondence in progress concerned with obtaining evidence. For the most part, it is correspondence with foreign countries. Therefore, I would like to ask that if any new evidence arrives that I may be allowed to submit it.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I'm sure it will be the attitude, Dr. Fritsch, of this Tribunal that before this case is finally submitted, if you have any material that you feel would be to the interest of your client, the Tribunal will receive it or give it consideration.
DR. FRITSCH: Thank you very much.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You have nothing further at this time, I take it, then?
DR. FRITSCH: Noo Your Honor, I have nothing further to submit.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: What defendant is to be represented next? You are to present evidence on behalf of what defendant?
DR. TIPP (FOR THE DEFENDANT von LEYSER): Your Honor, I am ready to begin with the presentation of the case of von Leyser. I would like to give a brief survey of the case. First of all, I intend to call the Defendant von Leyser as a witness on his own behalf. During the examination of the Witness von Leyser I would like to submit the documents from my Document Books I, II, and III, which, as I know, have already been translated for some weeks. After the cross-examination I would like to call two or three witness who have just arrived today, and I have not yet had an opportunity to talk with them and, therefore, I cannot yet state their names, but I will let the Tribunal and the Prosecution know in plenty of time, in observation of the 24-hour limit. And I am now ready to call General von Leyser to the witnessstand, Your Honor. But I don't know whether this pays during the remaining five minutes.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Well, let's get some of the preliminaries out of the way. We'll get him sworn and....
DR. TIPP: Then, with the permission of the Court I am calling the Defendant von Leyser as a witness on his own behalf to the witnessstand.
ERNST von LEYSER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You will kindly raise your right hand and be sworn. "I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing." (THE WITNESS REPEATED THE OATH) You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. TIPP:
Q General, first of all, would you please make a pause between question and answer to allow for the interpretation?
General, please would you state to the Tribunal your full name, your date and place of birth?
A Ernst Hans Ulvich von Leyser. I was born on the 18th November 1889, in Steglitz Kreis Teltow.
Q Then, would you please describe quite briefly your youth?
A Until ten years of age I was brought up at home. My father was an active officer, and finally Lt. General and divisional commander in the First World War. My mother also came from an officer's family, and, therefore, my life was, to a certain extent, pre-described. In 1900 I was taken to the Cadet Corps in Oranienstein. In 1906 I went to the Chief Cadet Institute Lichterfelde in Berlin, and there I took the cadet examination, and then on the 24th of March 1909 I became a lieutenant in the Vth Guard Regiment, after having passed the officer examination.
Q And now, General, please describe your service career until the beginning of the First World War. First of all, I was employed as a platoonofficer in an Infantry company, and then I was in a Machine gun Corps in Doeberitz. And then I was used as a platoon leader in the machine gun section of my regiment.
Q And now please would you give the Tribunal a short survey of your assignments during the First World War?
AAt the beginning of the First World War I was a platoon leader and served in the field with my regiment, and I remained with this regiment at the Front continuously until September, 1918. In September, 1918 I became brigade adjutant, and in October, 1918 I became battalion commander in the First Guard Regiment.
Q If I have understood you correctly, General, you served at first as a lieutenant and when were you promoted during the war?
A In June, 1915 I was promoted first lieutenant and in June, 1918 I was promoted to captain.
Q And which decorations did you get in the First World War?
A I got the Iron Cross, first and second class, and the Hohenzollern House Order, with swords, and the Austrian Merit Cross.
Q And were you wounded during the war, General?
A I neither had wounds nor any kind of illness.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: We will adjourn at this time until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(THE TRIBUNAL ADJOURNED AT 1630 to RESUME 6 NOVEMBER 1947 at 9:30.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Wilhelm List, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 6 November 1947, 0930, Justice Burke, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal V. Military Tribunal V is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the courtroom except defendants Felmy and Speidel who are excused and von Weichs who is in the hospital.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Burke will preside at this day's session.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed.
ERNST von LEYSER - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. TIPP (Counsel for defendant von Leyser):
Q General, yesterday you described your assignments during the first World War and arrived at the end of the war. Now did you leave the Wehrmacht at the end of the First World War?
A No. At the end of the war the 1st Guards Division to which I belonged at that time went to Berlin but already in January 1919 it went for the Protection of East Prussia against the Bolshevists to the Baltic and then in September or late summer 1919 we had to evacuate the Baltic again. The division was then transferred to the Stettin area. Then later on as a Company Commander I came into the 115th Reichswehr Regiment to Prenzlau and then later on the Spandau. When the army was decreased to 100,000 men I left the army on the 31st of December 1920.
Q Now, please continue quite briefly with your career.
AAnd thin I was transferred to the Prussian Police and first of all I was in Muehlheim on the Ruhr and Essen on the Ruhr. In 1927 I was promoted a Major and was transferred as a trainer to the Police School in Kiel. In 1933 I was transferred as a Battalion Commander to Bochrum Herne and Iserlohn and then to Duesseldorf. In 1935 I was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel and as such I was Deputy Regimental Commander of the Duesseldorf Police Regiment.
Q You said, witness, that you were a police officer were you also concerned with the fighting of internal unrest in Germany.
A Yes, I was. I took part in the fighting in the Ruhr and against the unrest in Upper Silesia. My unit of a hundred men was at that time particularly well equipped for street battles.
Q Now, another question: during these period which you have just described did you have any political activity, General?
A No, I had no time at all for that in my position.
Q But you were a member of the NSDAP. General, might I ask you why you joined the Party at that time and when?
A Yes, I was a member. In the Police Service, of course, I came into contact with all classes of the population in quite a different way than which I did when in the army. The enormous distress which at that time before 1933 reigned in Germany because of the unemployment which I observed, especially amongst the young people who reported to the Police School there, and the increase of criminality which we discovered in the Police showed me quite clearly the terrible position in which Germany was at that time. All the parties had come into power but didn't get anywhere, only the choice between the extreme right and the extreme left remained; but anybody who in the Baltic had learned to know Bolshevism and experience it there could only decide for the other side; but, apart from that, I hoped that in a strengthened Germany which the Party had promised I could take up again my old profession as a soldier, as an officer.
Since I was a particular enemy of the Party-boss system I had to believe in the promises made by the Party, however I camp to discover that this became even worse than before.
THE PRESIDENT: General, the difficulty seems to be that you are not speaking into the microphone. If you will sit back so that your voice will go into the microphone -- that seems to be the difficulty that the interpreters are getting. If you will sit back a little bit perhaps that will remedy the situation.
Q And how long were you a member of the Party, General?
A Since Autumn 1935.
Q And did you take any kind of active part in the Party?
A No, my relations to the Party were rather more than external ones. I reported myself at that time voluntarily to be taken over back into the army and then left the Party again in 1934 when I was taken back into the Army. Above all, the hostility to the church shown by the Party were contradictory to my own feelings and also when I was still a member I still remained a member of the Johanniter Order although this was not allowed.
Q Then please, witness tell the Tribunal something about the aims of this order.
A The Johanniter Order is a purely church order, religious order, for members of the old Protestant nobility. Its aim is to fight sickness, distress and poverty. An important task in the order is also the care for the sick and wounded during the war. I belonged to this order from 1921 onwards.
DR. TIPP: Your Honors, here I would like to interrupt for a moment with regard to these points which have up until now geen discussed. I would like to submit some documents to the Tribunal. The first document which I would like to offer in this connection is in Leyser Document Book I on page 1. This is an affidavit by Wolfgang Mayor von Wittgenstein dated the 13th of September 1947 and on the 15th of September 1947 it was duly sworn to before the Buergermaster.
I don't want to read the whole of this affidavit. After the usual introduction-
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Will you give the Exhibit Number, please?
DR. TIPP: Yes. I offer this as Leyser Exhibit No. 1. After the usual introduction under No's "1" and "2" there follows a description of General von Leyser's personality and then in paragraph 2 it talks about his political attitude. I would like to quote briefly from this paragraph:
"I know from conversations with my parents-in-law that Herr Ernst von Leyser was strongly opposed to the former NSDAP before the outbreak of the war already. His deeply religious feeling was mentioned as the reason for that. This coincides with the fact that he continued to wear the badge of the Johanniterorden (order of the Knights of Malta) despite the fact that this order had been prohibited by the Nazi-regime and that he always attended divine service in uniform which might be considered exceptional with high ranking officers."
I won't quote the rest of this document but I would like to point out that from the last paragraph it shows General von Leyser's attitude towards the Jewish question. I will offer this document as Leyser Exhibit No. 1.
As the next document in this connection I offer Leyser Document No. 26 from Document Book II, page 77. I offer this as Leyser Exhibit No. 2. This is an affidavit by Adolf von Haeseler dated the 30th of September 1947 which was certified on the same day by a notary in Hamburg. Herr von Haeseler also confirms the political and religious attitude of Herr von Leyser and I would like to quote briefly from the paragraph following the introduction:
"I have known Herr von Leyser for about twenty years and have during this time come to like him as a person of firm character, very helpful and public spirited. His humane ideology is demonstrated alone by his membership of the "Johanniter Order" whose duties comprise service to and nursing of the sick, the welfare of the aged and invalids, the care of the bodily and economically weakened members of society, and the education of youth.
Members of the Johanniter Order must profess the evangelical faith with a loyal heart."
And the rest of the document I need not read.
MR. FULKERSON: Your Honors please -
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: What is the name of the counsel that is now addressing the Tribunal?
MR. FULKERSON: Fulkerson.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
MR. FULKERSON: I would like to object on behalf of the prosecution to the last sentence contained in this affidavit which, it seems to me, is a mere assumption on the part of the affiant of the duties of the court.
DR. TIPP: I might briefly state that it doesn't seem to me possible to make such an objection here. What the affiant confirms is sworn to and he must himself be responsible for the fact whether he can swear to it or not and the point made by the prosecutor here is an objection against the contents of an affidavit but, in my opinion, he may argue the point later on but at this stage there is no cause for objection here.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed.
DR. TIPP: Then as the next document I offer the following document from Document Book II, Leyser Document No. 27 on page 79 of this document book, and I offer it as Leyser Exhibit No. 3. This affidavit also deals with Herr von Leyser's political attitude and I will not read anything from this.
And then I come to Document Book III and from this I offer Leyser Document No. 49 on page 141 of this document book and I offer this as Leyser Exhibit No. 4. This is an affidavit by Herr Otto von der Linde which was sworn to on the 12th of September 1947 before the Buergomaster and I will not read this document but I would like to recommend its contents to the Tribunal.