Q. Didn't you have the possibility to reach the superior authority through your own channel and express your own different opinion?
A. No, that was impossible. Possibly you are mixing this up with a possibility which existed during the First World War where a Chief-of-Staff, if he was of a different opinion, was entitled to make this his different opinion known in the files.
Q. That did not exist in the Second World War any more?
A. No, since the year, I believe, 1938, it was clearly established that this possibility did no longer exist.
Q. How is it that your signature appears under orders?
A. In such a case, an order is concerned which did not contain any fundamental decision and such orders which contained no estimate on the addressee. As Chief, I was entitled to sign those orders which were not of a fundamental nature and which did not contain any estimates.
Q. What did your signature or rather the signature "Chief of General Staff on behalf of" mean?
A. The signature "For the Army High Command, the Chief of the General Staff, on behalf of" was applied in documents which were of a less important meaning and which the expert himself could start going.
Q Was there a direct exchange of opinion between you or the members of your staff with subordinate staffs?
A That was of course possible and it was desired but it is in the nature of the activity of a chief and an expert in such a staff that unfortunately they are far too much tied to their desk and telephone.
Q What was the subject of the so-called chief discussions?
A I had two kinds of chief discussions. One was the so-called Monday chief conference within my staff. Present at this conference were all department chiefs of the staff in order to assure good cooperation between the individual departments, and to be able to direct the work of the whole staff in one direction. In this conference, the situation in the own area during the past week was dealt with apart from the general situation and then directives were meted out for the work of the coming period.
Q Did you intimate that it could be criticized during these conferences that your collaborators could voice their own opinion?
A That was an essential purpose of these conferences. I personally never hid my own opinion, and I have welcomed every open discussion because I wanted to educate my collaborators not to be an automatic thinking but to form their own judgment.
Q What about the -- communications with the OKW?
A I want to supplement -- the second kind of chief conference which I had not yet mentioned. The other kind was a meeting with the chiefs of staff of the subordinate authorities and those officers with which we had to cooperate. Such conferences took place only if there was a special reason for them. For instance, if a fundamentally new regulation of orders had been ordered, these conferences had the purpose to assure the cooperation of the staffs and to regulate it and to clear up any doubts or questions which might have existed.
Q In these chief conferences too, was criticism and utterance of opinion permitted?
A That was what we lived off.
Q And now about the communication with the Commander-in-Chief of the OKW--how did that take place?
A That depended on the technical communication situation. Generally speaking, communication took place by radio, teletype, then there was exchange of messages by courier. There were telephone calls and occasionally there was an oral discussion; respectively we received orders.
Q Whom did you talk to orally?
A I personally usually talked to General Warlimont and to General Butler, the experts talked to the persons concerned within the Armed Forces Operational Department.
Q Was criticism allowed there too?
A That depended quite frequently on the personal relationship I have in my opinion always expressed very clearly and definitely my opinion and the opinion of my assistants but it was not always successful.
Q Were there visits by representatives of the OKW in the Southeast?
A Unfortunately only a few.
Q And what about the other way around? I mean visits by you at the OKW?
A They were more frequent. I mean more frequent than officers came from the OKW to see us.
Q You now are talking of your visits to the OKW, I would say.
A Yes.
Q Did you report to Hitler himself personally?
A No, that was not in accordance with my position.
Q Let us assume you would have been able to make such a personal report. Would you have been in a position to make objections?
A I might have possibly tried it once.
Q And with what result?
A This is merely an assumption but I don't think I would have succeeded a second time.
But I don't know it because I didn't actually report to Hitler personally.
Q Did you frequently report orally to Keitel, the Chief of the OKW?
A I personally only reported twice to Keitel during the Southeastern period.
Q What reports did you have to make to the OKW?
A In the way of regular reports, there were the daily reports; during the first months also the so-called ten-day reports which later on ware dropped and then so-called monthly reports or evaluation of the situation which had to go in at about the beginning of the month.
Q What was the contents of the monthly reports?
A Essentially that was a summary of the development of the situation and an evaluation of that situation.
Q You have already said that you yourself never reported verbally to Hitler; did you at any other time have any occasion to talk to Hitler?
A Once in the year 1937 I talked to Hitler when I reported to him in a lecture room on a lecture trip, and when I introduced the officers to him. That was a talk of about 10 minutes.
Q Did you ever talk to Himmler?
AAs far as I know never.
Q Did you ever talk to Sauckel: He was the Plenipotentiary for the employment of Labor?
A Yes, I had one discussion with Sauckel. That was in April 1945, when he was Gauleiter without a Gau and traveled around in my sphere of command.
Q Did you talk to any other prominent members of the Third Reich, did you talk to Hess, Goebbels, Kaltenbrunner?
A Once I had official dealings with Hess. That was in 1934, or it may have been in 1935. I don't know exactly. Twice I have talked to Goebbels on propaganda questions of the Wehrmacht. That was an official conversation. I had one talk or discussion with Kaltenbrunner. That was in March 1944, before the march into Hungary, and with Ley I had the mere beginning of a conversation, which, however, was not continued because the other party was not in a position to carry on a conversation.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Your Honor, I shall now start with the presentation of my Document Book I, which contains affidavits and other documents which refer to the proceeding part of the examination. Occasionally I shall have to ask the witness questions in this connection.
First of all I am submitting Document I, which I shall give Exhibit I and this is an affidavit by a Professor of the University in Freiburg, Adolf Lampe. Under Roman Numeral I of this affidavit there is a short explanation of his own person of this witness, which may have a certain importance for the evaluation of this affidavit, and at the same time I point to the annex to this Document I, which shows that the witness Lampe was in connection with the Hitler plot of the 20th of July 1944.
Under Roman. Numeral I it reads:
I.
I make the following statements in regards to my person and my political attitude in order to make a true evaluation of my testimony possible:
I have actively opposed National-socialism since 1922 at every possible opportunity. This opposition of mine ended in my arrest in September 1944 by the Gestapo (German Secret Police) as a collaborator of Dr. GOERDELER, which took me to Berlin for prosecution by the Peoples' Court. Instead of detailed statements, which I am willing to submit on request, I add a certified copy of the "Fuehrer-Order" as proof, by reason of which I was expelled from office in December 1944. Freedom and life I have only regained by the collapse of the political system.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, please, I believe counsel is reading too rapidly, which necessitates the interpreter interpreting or reading too rapidly, and if we could slow down a little bit I think it would be of help to the Tribunal, at least it would to me personally.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: I beg pardon, Your Honor, but I assume since the interpreters have the English document that they can read as fast as I can.
THE PRESIDENT: For my own personal satisfaction, at least, I would prefer it a little slower.
DR. FAUSCHENBACH: The following are the real contents of the affidavit:
"In Ray of the year 1918 I became acquainted with Hermann Foertsch, when I, as a young reserve officer, was transferred to the Sturm-Battalion 7 of the Boehme-Army on the Western front. Despite the fact that I did not serve in his company I became there closely attached to Herr Foertsch and has opportunity to become acquainted with, and value, his exceptional qualities as a leader of men, as well as his very human personality."
Then I shall go over the first passage of the next page and continue in the second passage:
"After my resignation from the unit in September 1919, I at first lost all contact with Hermann Foertsch. This connection was removed again in February 1933, when I read a news item he had written as public relations officer of the Reich Army Ministry. This connection was reestablished by me again by correspondence, and I met Hermann Foertsch for the first time again in Berlin at the beginning of April 1933."
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, please, I am not clear as to Dr. Rauschenbach's purposes. I am wondering if he intends to offer this affidavit into evidence or not.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: At the beginning I had already said I am submitting it as Exhibit No. 1, and the purpose is the following: I am offering this affidavit, in order to have a description of the personality of General Foertsch, and have it supplemented by affidavits in tho same way which has come out during the examination. This will have a certain significance for its further development and its activities in the East.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, we object to the introduction into evidence of this affidavit, because it does not apply to Rule 21 of the Uniform Rules of Procedure. The affidavit itself is signed on page 6 of the document book by the affiant, but the certificate does not comply with any of the provisions of Rule 21. Rule 21 provides that the witness shall sign the statement before defense counsel or one of them and defense counsel shall have certified thereof, or the witness shall have signed the statement before a Notary and the Notary shall have certified thereto, or Thirdly, tho witness shall have signed a statement before a Burgermeister and the Burgermeister shall have certified thereto. In case neither defense counsel or Notary is readily available without great inconvenience, the witness shall have signed tho statement before a competent Prison Camp authority, and that authority shell have certified thereto in case the witness is incarcerated in a prison camp.
It does not appear that the person certifying to the signature of the affiant in this affidavit is within any of those four provisions, and we ask therefore that the offer be rejected.
DR. FAUSCHENBACH: The certification was made by the Secretary of the University in Freiburg, and such persons are generally in Germany of the same rank as a Burgermeister, and since in accordance with the regulation which has just been mentioned the Tribunal may recognize a different kind of certification if there are no misgivings about it I would ask to have this done. The original is available, and in addition we have the fact that according to German law apart from courts universities are specifically entitled to receive affidavits. So that is the reason why this witness has done it in this way. And it would cause unnecessary written work to send the witness to a Notary just to sign it again. But of course that could be done at any time. I believe all other documents will not be concerned in this matter, with the exception of maybe one case.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I am not familiar with the provision of German law to which Ur. Rauschenbach refers. It may be true and it may not. I think if that is the case it should be proved in some manner. I would also like to call Your Honors attention to the fact that the Uniform Rules of procedure of the Military Tribunals drafted on 1 April 1947 and-
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Fenstermacher, may I inquire if and when this should be returned and it would be acknowledged before a Notary, you would then have no objections.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I would have no further objection as regarding this Rule 21. I would have this further objection, this affidavit has no probative value as about the anti-Nazi activities of this defendant which is not in issue here. There is not a word in this indictment that charges the defendant with being a National Socialist. I submit it as irrelevant and immaterial, and has no probative value whatever.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Your Honor, charges have been raised expressly that all defendants here and, therefore, General Foertsch, too, had pursued a policy of extermination and terror as it was in accordance with such personalities as Sauckel etc, that is to say with National Socialists, and that takes on a certain ideological connection. Besides, may I point out that the Prosecutor has up till now asked every witness and every defendant about his attitude toward the Nurnberg laws. He has asked them about what their attitude was concerning the Jewish question, and all those are questions which refer to National Socialism, and I believe that in order to describe correctly the personality of the defendant and his development and thus his possible inclinations and tendencies towards such terror and extermination measures, one will have to concern oneself with this question; and, therefore, I ask not to be limited in this.
JUDGE CARTER: Mr. Fenstermacher, if you contend that this has no probative value, then why do you object to the formality of not being sworn to when it evidently was sworn before someone with the intention that it was a sworn statement?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor will recall that throughout our direct case we wore constantly thwarted because we had not complied with the strictness of Rule 21. Dr. Rauschenbach has been counsel in other cases here and he knows the rules, and he certainly should have complied with them. He has had plenty of time. He was fully informed about them. The Rule 21 is very express, The limitations and the exceptions are specifically noted.
JUDGE CARTER: Well, it appears to me that if we just hold this up until you take it out and have it sworn, to, it is just an unnecessary delay and there is no reason for it at all.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Well, Your Honor, we rely upon the rule, but I have already answered that, if Dr. Rauschenbach can comply with it. We have no objection on that ground. On the technical ground. Then. I refer to my second ground for judgment.
JUDGE CARTER: Well, of course, if the first one was waived, why you could still make your second.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I don't like to be strict, Your Honor, but we faced it constantly in our direct case.
THE PRESIDENT: How many documents wore denied admission, if any, to the Prosecution because of the character of the acknowledgment?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor will recall a good deal of Norwegian. material which was denied admission on that ground.
THE PRESIDENT: There was one affidavit or one indictment which was returned, I believe, and that was the only one in connection with the Norwegian case.
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, I believe that we have faced a considerable amount of obstacles in connection with the jurats of the Norwegian exhibits. Your Honors will recall--I know offhand of four to five-where the question arose whether or not the city councilman in some town in Finnmark was authorized to take a deposition of a witness or whether or not the witness had to come down here and report.
I think the main purpose, if I may emphasize the statements of my colleague, Mr. Fenstermacher, is that we don't want to set a precedent in the case. Now if the situation is that in this particular case the jurat is not correct in conjunction with Ordinance No. 7, we don't see any objection that this particular jurat at this time in order to save thime has to he repeated, but we would like to call the Court's attention to the fact that in conceding this particular issue, we would not like to set a precedent for future affidavits, and that it should be called to the attention of Defense Counsel that they, as well as the Prosecution, are bound to comply with these orders.
JUDGE BURKE: Is there any reason, Dr. Rauschenbach, why they might not have complied with Rule 21?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: No Your Honor, I cannot name any specific reason, but I would just like to point out one thing.
The Prosecution has submitted quite a number of documents which either were admitted without an objection or after an objection on the part of Defense which sometimes did not even have a date or a signature, and I believe if that was the case, this affidavit could be admitted, too. I think it is only one amongst many, and I just did not happen to take care about the accordance with Ordinance No. 7.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honor pleases, the documents which Dr. Rauschenbach is how referring to are captured documents and do not hear any point at all insofar as this being the only document which does not comply with Rule 21. I think we shall find as we go along in Document Rook I that there are several others.
THE PRESIDENT: If that is to be the attitude of the Prosecution, the objection will be sustained, but this Tribunal is interested in getting to the facts and not interested in technicalities.
MR. FENSTENMACHER: May I have Your Honors' permission to insist upon our objection at this time and take it up with General Taylor and refer General Taylor's attitude.
THE PRESIDENT: We are not interested in General Taylor's attitude. We are interested in the attitude of this Tribunal. You are presenting this case.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Well, at this time, Your Honor, I would like to insist upon our objection.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained, and the Court will rule accordingly in connection with all matters then. Proceed. We will take up some other matters.
I suggest, Dr. Rauschenbach, that the matter be referred back to the affiant for such proper jurat as may comply with the rules.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: I shall then present Document No. 3 which I shall then offer as Exhibit No. 1. It is Document No. 3, Exhibit No. 1. This document is certified by the leader of the community, that is the Buergermeister, and I believe that, therefore, there are no objections against this.
It is an affidavit by the former Brigadier General.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me, Doctor. Are you withdrawing what you previously termed as Exhibit 1 and terming this now as Exhibit 1?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Yes. I shall then offer Document No. 3 as Exhibit 1, and the other document I shall later on present with a different exhibit number. The former Brigadier General Hanshenning von Holtzendorff states the following:
"I know the General (Infantry) Hermann Foertsch, from our common activity leasting for five years, in the Reich War Ministry in Berlin."
That is the third passage of the first page.
"There we worked in the Army Department, later on Home Department, he as a Captain and Major, I as a civil sub-department chief where we saw one another every day and discussion continuously official end unofficial questions."
I shall now pass over the next three passages and I shall continue on the bottom of this first page.
"He is a highly educated man, clever at writing, and he has occupies himself a lot with historic research work. In the framework of a collection, edited by Minister Groeder, containing biographies of great soldiers of all times, he wrote an excellent essay on George von Fruedsberg.
"At that time his main sphere of activity was the liaison between the Reich War Ministry and the press. By his intelligent way of dealing with people and his impartiality, he got a respected position here, where he had to deal with the representatives of all parties before 1933."
I shall continue on the next page at the top with the second paragraph on the third line.
"As far as politics are concerned, General FOERTSCH, as a collaborator of General v. SCHLEICHER for many years, was champion of legality anns peaceful evolution. With regard to the NSDAP, he represented SCHLEICHER'S standpoint that one had to force it into responsibility in time and must not leave it in the comfortable position of opposition.
"The political attitude of Foertsch, even after HITLER had gained power, was decisively influenced by SCHLEICHER's ideas with regard to this; this is proved by the fact that FOERTSCH, even after the disgrace of SCHLEICHER, still continued friendly relations with him, though this was rather dangerous for the individual, and furthermore by the fact that he (FOERTSCH) told me soon after SCHLEICHER had been murdered that he had written a letter to him a short time ago in which he thanked him for the "lecture on politics" which he had been allowed to hear when he had been with him recently and which had been of great value for him.
But this unaltered political aim according to SCHLEICHER'S ideas could not be realized without adapting oneself to the changed political conditions of power. That had been acknowledged by SCHLEICHER himself who at that time told his collaborators: "Do collaborate. The more people with common sense enter (the party), the greater the chance will be for a reasonable development."
"Adapting themselves to the given conditions, FOERTSCH as well as others got the opinion that it was necessary to strengthen these forces within the party which used their good influence for a quiet development, in order to be able to prevent the influence of the radicals.
"But in. order to be able to operate in. this direction, it was no longer possible, according to FOERTSCH's opinion, to refuse openly on principle the NSDAP aims and to keep apart entirely, as in this way, one would have deprived oneself of any possibility of influencing the development at all."
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
(Following Recess.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: The next document, which I offer, is exhibit No. 2, an affidavit from the former General Roehricht, taken in the Allendorf camp in Marburg and was sworn before the American officer mere. On the last page of this affidavit I would like to point out the signature of the certificate that of Captain Washburn as the officer. It has already been seen by the prosecutor.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire on what page it is found.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Captain Washburn, W.L. Washburn, captain F.A., adjutant in the Allendorf camp. I would ask that it be inserted in the document.....
THE PRESIDENT: The affidavit you mention is on page 18, I understand, Doctor?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, you may proceed.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: The witness stated the following: "I first met the then First Lieutenant Herman Foertsch during a joint official journey in the spring of 1923. Already at that meeting Foertsch impressed me as a personality, by his ripe judgment, his education, and his honest struggle with the problems of the time.
"Then transferred to the Reich Wahr Ministry/Minister Office in October 1922, I (captain) was attached as 'referent' to the group of the then Major Foertsch. I worked under Foertsch until our simultaneous transfer to the front in the fall of 1935. The sphere of work was of a strictly ministerial character, outside the military operational machinery, representation of the Reichswehr-interests (army and navy) towards officials and the public."
I continue on page 2 of this document, page 18 of the English document book at the top:
"I see in Foertsch the type of the really modern soldier, gifted with military ability, out not a 'militarist', not blinded by unilateral professional interests or adhering to rigid tradition, but with perception and understanding not of the connections, with healthy common sense, calm and a phantast, and the very opposite of a fanatic. He is possessed of a high morale and sense of duty, in his methods he was never obstinate, but a man of reasonable compromise.
"On account of this basic attitude Foertsch was, as collaborator of Schleicher, inaccessible to the propaganda drum of the National socialistic party, which was striving for power with all means; he opposed the Party clearly and with scorn. I clearly remember, what a blow it was for Foertsch, when Hindenburg abandoned the Chancellor Schleicher and thus opened the way for Hitler.
"With Hitler's appointment to the office of Chancellor, which took place place within the frame of the Weimar Constitution, a now situation was also created for the Reichswehr. As the small army, consisting of 100,000 men, and dispersed over the Reich, was neither in a position nor qualified to make its own inner politics, which furthermore would have had to be directed against the Supreme Commander Hindenburg, it was unavoidable to take the changed situation into account in many respects.
"Foertsch was during these years (1953-35) - and others shared his view - of the opinion that it was important to preserve the small Reichswehr in the midst of the beginning revolutionary development, in spirit and manner as a compact Instrument of power, and for that purpose to secure for it a place in the new state. Only thus could it be hoped that with its help at the proper moment (perhaps at the expected death of Hindenburg) the course of events could be influenced.
To this was opposed the totalitarian claim of the party, which could not tolerate an independent foreign element, which in addition was the 'Bearer of arms of the Nation.'" "In view of this never ceasing struggle with unequal means it was unavoidable that the semi-official 'speakers' of the Reich War Ministry, writing in the press and literature, had to make external concessions, particularly in view of the important goal.
I cannot remember that Foertsch's literary activity during these years ever had another goal than the one to maintain and strengthen the position of the Reichswehr - as explained above. If the articles he published were not individually ordered by Blomberg or Reichenau, they had an official character as part of his task as chief of his department. If, occasionally, he wrote with the purpose of making propaganda for the army, they this was not done with the aim of inciting to war, but in order to strengthen the decent soldierly spirit in opposition to revolutionary forces which intended to invade the troops and replace it."
And now on the last page, the last line of the page:
"When Dr. Ley began to introduce 'barracks' methods in his Labor Front, Foertsch dared to comment about them in an article 'Misconception of Military Life' with such superior sarcasm, that it drew attention even abroad, because this note was uncommon. Party offices were enraged. I remember that for example at the Press Ball Ley asked for Foertsch in order to face him personally. Foertsch evaded the discussion with the drunkard.
"Foertsch saw in the Party's fight against the church an undermining of the moral bases of the people and of the true soldiery, as he understood it, and did not refrain from expressing his views."
I now pass over the next paragraph:
"In the summer of 1939 I visited Foertsch, who was with his family in the Southern Black Forest for recreation. He judged very pessimistically the political situation of that time, which stood under the sign of the press campaign just started against Poland. With reference to his halfgrown sons who were present, he spoke of the possibility that the future of a whole people could be sacrificed on the gambling table of history. Also at that time Foertsch did not show any enthusiasm about the war. He himself had an unimportant position at that time."
The next affidavit.....
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I object to the admission of this preceding document, as it has no probative value to this Tribunal. It contains only the thoughts and ideas of the defendant Foertsch with regard to the war and activities with which we are not concerned or charging in the indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be over-ruled.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: The next document, document No. 5, I offer as exhibit 3, which is an affidavit from the former General of the Infantry, General von Boeckman. This affidavit, as can be seen from page 2 of this affidavit, is certified. The witness states:
"From 8 September 1934 to 14 October 1955, during which time I was chief of the Foreign Department and he was Chief of the Internal Department of the Reich War Ministry, we were both directly subordinated to the Acting Minister of War, General von Reichenau."
And on page 2 of this document:
"I am convinced that Foertsch was never a national socialist or militarist, because he was an officer filled with a true soldier's spirit, whose philosophy was sharply opposed to that of the party."
The next document I offer as document No. 7 on page 27 of the English Exhibit 4. This is an affidavit by General Theisen, which was taken in the Allendorf camp and the certificate is also in the document book. Theisen states, however, first of all the introduction. The documents, which I am introducing are not relative because everyone concerns a different period. Theisen states:
"I was 'referent' of the Armed Forces department of Reich War Ministry from 15 February, 1928 to 15 February, 1932, first as captain, from March 1927 on as Major. My Chief was at first General von Schleicher, later Naval Captain Goetting. At the time in question I had official dealings with Herman Foertsch then a Captain. Foertsch belonged to the same department and was press 'referent'. According to my memory, he held this position before I came and was still in it after I was transferred. But, after this long time, I am not sure about it. At that time, also, I was occasionally deputy chief of the Armed Forces department. During such time Foertsch was then subordinated to me. I met Foertsch almost daily in the course of duty and had also unofficial dealings with him.
"Foertsch was not at all the 'militarist' or 'agitator' type."
The next document, document No. 8, will be exhibit 5. This is a copy of a letter of the Eugene Field Society and concerns the statements of General Foertsch in the witness stand that he had been offered honorary membership for his book. We don't need to read it here. I will only read the text from page 29 of the English.
I have not the German and I shall have to read it in English; "Dear Fellow Author: At a recent meeting of the Board of Governors of the Eugene Field Society a resolution was adopted to the effect that an Honorary Membership may be conferred upon an author, in recognition of his or her outstanding contribution to contemporary literature. The literary skill, and craftmanship of your published works entitle you to an Honorary Membership in the Society, and I am therefore pleased to advise you that we will, (subject to your approval) enter your name on the Roll of Honorary Members, and issue a certificate of Honorary Membership."
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, please, I object to the admission of the document. Aside from the literary skill presented here, I believe the document is irrelevant, incompetent and has no probative value.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit will be received for such probative value as the Tribunal deems that it merits.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: The next document is Foertsch Document No. 9 offered as Exhibit No. 6, which is an affidavit by Wilhelm Andermann, certified to by the Mayor of his town. He states: "I became acquainted with the former General of Infantry Hermann Foertsch in 1934, when, as business manager of the firm 'Zeitgeschishte' Veragsund Vertriebsgesellschaft m.b.H. Berlin W 35, Luetzowstr. 66, I was in search of the publisher of a picture book about the German Armed forces. Foertsch, Major and Chief of the Department of Home Affairs in the OKW, was known to me till then only by his different press publications, the tone and contents of which were to my liking. When the finished booklet was submitted to the Party Examining Committee for the protection of National Socialist Literature, I was told by this office that the author was undesirable as an out-and-out 'SchleicherMann' i.e., appointed to his post by General Schleicher (murdered 30 June '34), therefore, could not be a National-Socialist."