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."
Then I continue in the second paragraph of the next page, page 31: "The Chief of the SD Ernst Kaltenbrunner, known to me from my publishing activity in Vienna, chanced to tell me in the Summer of 1944, that he, during recent discussions, became acquainted with General Foretsch who impressed him as being possessed of superior military ability. Pointing this out to the Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler, the latter replied he knew it, but Foertsch was politically not reliable and was not to be considered for higher posts of command."
Then on the third page, second paragraph, page 32: "In the tense months before the Munich Conference of 1938, before the beginning of the war in 1939, and during the war years, Foertsch and I have missed no chance to speak our minds openly. He knew of each other that we had a clearly national, yet, also cosmopolitan attitude, knew of each other's disappointment about the development of National-Socialism, and we had the same fears regarding it degeneration. Foertsch was a soldier in the best sense of the term, he served his people, and his country consciously. He never considered a war as anything else than a last resort. Any idea of a preventative war was distasteful to him; anyone like Foertsch and myself who had fought four years as front line infantrymen in the first world-war, had enough of front line duty for the rest of our lives."
The next document is Foertsch No. 10, I offer as Foertsch Exhibit No. 7, which is an affidavit b the former General of Infantry Westphal. This affidavit was also taken in the Allendorf Camp, and sworn to before the American Officer; it is on page 34 of the English, thus Westphal states: "From 5 March to 31 July 1940 I was first General staff officer in the Corps General Staff of the XXVIth Army Corps. In this capacity I was subordinate to the Chief of Staff of this Army Corps, the then Colonel in the General Staff Hermann Foertsch. I maintained correspondence with the later General Foertsch throughout the war, and also saw him occasionally in 1941, 1943 and 1944. In 1945 when Foertsch was Commander-in-Chief of an Army in the West, and I chief of Staff of the Commander-in-Chief West, I met him repeatedly.
The same applies to the first six weeks after the capitulation, when we jointly demobilized German troops in Bavaria."
On the second page, second paragraph, in the middle of the page: "Personally I considered that General Foertsch was one of the superiors I liked most during my almost 30 years of service, because he always stressed the human clement. As one of those human traits I also considered his frequent interference in favor of the civilian population during the Western campaign in 1940.
Then the witness gives some examples of General Foertsch's attitude, and among other things on page 3 of the document under (C): "In Antwerp it became accidentally known that two soldiers of the Corps General Staff had immorally approached Belgian women under the false pretense of a medical examination. Foertsch as their disciplinary superior immediately committed the two soldiers to the court martial, to whose jurisdiction they belonged, for trial." Then under (D): "In the second half of May 1940 the XXVIth Corps fought for the Gent-Bruegge channel. During this fighting two British soldiers were brought in, who had been captured behind the front-line in civilian clothes, and carrying arms. In the opinion of the concerned court-martial they had forfeited their lives under martial law as guerillas. General Foertsch conferred with me, because the still very young soldiers earned his pity. He attained that the two Britons were not arraigned, but were marched off as regular prisoners-of-war." And finally under (E): "In April 1945, various persons involved in the Munich revolt had been sentenced to death upon order of the supreme command. The sentenced persons were imprisoned within the area of the 1st Army, I think it was in the Traunstein prison. Although the OKW repeatedly demanded the execution of those persons, General Foertsch, after a conference in his army headquarters with his chief of staff, Brig. General Mauser, and myself, ordered that the death sentence be not executed on the above mentioned persons."
From the last example his basic attitude towards the military and other measures of the supreme command also becomes evident." And on the next page: "Whenever I met him, so already in 1940, he was always filled with harsh criticism especially again the Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces, who was always desirous to please Hitler. Such a basic attitude corresponded to his intellect, as well as to his very strongly developed pessimistic views."
The next document is document Foertsch No. 11, which is offered as Exhibit No. 7.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit No. 8, isn't it?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Exhibit No. 8, yes, Your Honor. This is an extract from a letter which Foertsch wrote to his wife on 21 April 1941 from the front. This is a document from that time, and expresses his attitude as to the Greece capitulation. It runs as follows: "Yesterday and today stirring days with great tension and many phone calls. The Greeks at the Albanian front laid down their arms today at 1200 hours. They waited until they could capitulate to the German Army, not to the Italians. Indeed, I can not blame this valiant army for this."
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I object to the admission of this document, showing the defendant Foertsch's attitude towards the capitulation of Greece, which has not been presented as a question in this case, and, secondly, because the writing has not been identified. Finally, if the Tribunal overrules the Prosecution's objection, I ask that a full copy of the letter be made available to the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be overruled, subject to the presentation for further examination on behalf of the Prosecution of the entire letter.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Your Honor, just to supplement this, the letter is complete in the original, and I have certified the extract.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand you have the complete letter?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Yes, I would like to submit it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not wish this letter at this time. It may be furnished to the Prosecution, they are asking for it.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: I think the Prosecutor has seen it. I always hand it to the Prosecution.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: May it please Your Honor, Dr. Rauschenbach may be misunderstanding; our contention is we have always furnished the defense counsel with a, copy of everything which we have put into evidence, and that this is the only copy which is made available by Dr. Rauschenbach, and it goes into evidence and it is retained by the Secretary-General. I simply ask Dr. Rauschenbach to furnish us with a copy of the letter which is put into evidence.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: I understand. I'll get another photostat copy made and hand it to the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Subject to the ruling previously made, the exhibit will be received.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: The next document, Document Mo. 12, I will offer as Exhibit No. 9. It is an affidavit by Wolf Ruediger Hauser, and was made in the Steinlager -- Stein Camp -- Allendorf, and it is certified by the competent American officer. Hauser states the following, after stating how he met General Foertsch in the first paragraph, on the first page of this document, page 39:
"General Foertsch was esteemed at the War College not only as an outstanding teacher of tactics, but also especially respected as man and educator by us students. He proclaimed and championed a military profession of the highest type, supported by moral responsibility, such as has been demonstrated only by the great soldiers and personalities of all countries."
Then on page 2:
"Also the American Captain (now General) Hartness attending our lectures as guest student, always expressed the highest regard of General Foertsch, whom he esteemed equally as man and soldier, when talking to us -- his fellow students and comrades. After seven years, during which we had no official contact, General Foertsch was again, as mentioned above, during the last months of the war, my direct superior in his capacity as supreme commander of the First Army. Particularly during this time which charged especially heavily every soldierly leader, General Foertsch personified that soldiery of high moral standards, of which he had taught us at the War College. Fully exerting his own personality and position, he opposed again and again the commands given by Hitler, and did everything in his power to keep away from the country every unnecessary severity of the war, to avoid destructions and spare lives. He also used his whole influence again and again, to bring to an end the war which had become senseless in his opinion."
The documents which I have submitted so far concerning the personal and military development and the character of the defendant General Foertsch. I have only read short extracts in order not to take up to much time, but I recommend that the one or the other documents should be read in there entirety, in order to get a complete impression.
I now come to Foertsch Document No. 13, which I offer as Exhibit No. 10, and this will begin the presentation of evidence about the question of the position of the chief of the General Staff, which played a very decisive role with General Foertsch. Now, in this document, No. 13, Exhibit 10, on page 42 of the Document Book, there is an extract from the Manual for tho General Staff Service in War, which which has already been mentioned by General Foertsch on the witness stand. I road from the introduction, figure No. 2, which is on the first page of my extract and is on page 42 of the document book:
"Tho commander boars the responsibility for the action. The General Staff Officer is adviser and helper and the conscientious executor of the decisions and orders of his commander. He has to observe tho limits erected by this relation to his commander. His activity will only be fruitful in the long run if he enjoys the full confidence of his commander."
And then Section III:
"Service with the Commanding Authorities in War and Duty at the Front in Times of Tension.
"A. Principal Matters.
"1. The higher commander bears for his sphere of command the sole responsibility.
"2. The officers and officials of Staff are his aides. The following directives define their functions. Only the rough outlines are given here. They form the basis for detailed directives to be worked out by the commanding authorities, and which are to be attached to the mobilization preparations.
"B. Tasks and Functions of the Officers and Officials.
"AA. High Command of a Group of Armies, Army High Command, Corps General Staff.
"1. The Chief of the General Staff.
"3. At the head of the Staff is the Chief of Staff. He is in all concerns the first adviser of the higher commander.
A close relation of confidence between the two is indispensable as a permanent basis for fruitful working of the commanding authority.
"4. Preceding operational and tactical decisions, the higher commander, unless immediate giving of an order is necessary, has to hear the Chief of Staff. It is the right and the, duty of the latter to submit his opinion and to make proposals.
"The decision and responsibility lies solely with the higher commander. The Chief of Staff has to devote himself to the execution of the will of his higher commander, even if his views and decisions diverge from his own.
"Simultaneous absence of the higher commander and the chief of staff from their post of command is to be avoided. If the situation requires a quick decision and the higher commander is absent and not at once to be reached, the chief of staff is in duty bound to decide and to issue orders. Such orders are to be marked expressly as coming from the authority, not from the person of the chief of staff. The chief of staff has to provide his higher commander with knowledge of all official matters which are of importance for him. Vice-versa, the higher commander has to instruct his chief about all orders given directly by him."
The next page, paragraph 5:
"The chief of staff is superior to all members of the staff, if something different has not been arranged individually by service regulation. Over the soldiers, except those who have greater length of service, the chief of staff of a group of armies, or of an army, has the disciplinary power of punishment held by a division commander, while the chief of staff of an army corps has that of a regimental commander.
"6. The Chief of Staff regulates the service of the entire staff, in so far as the service regulations do not prescribe something different for individual persons in certain departments."
Then I skip 7 and come to 8:
"Staff discussions -- in the entire staff as well as in the departments -- serve for quick information, guarantee the uniformity of conception and treatment and make much writing work superfluous."
And then under figure 10:
"The chief of staff regulates the reports to the higher commander. He may participate in them.
"All important affairs must be reported to the higher commander at the proper time in a short and precise form which emphasizes the essentials and so facilitates the forming of a decision, care being taken to avoid a subjective coloring according to a pre-formed opinion.
"11. The Chief of Staff examines all plans before their submission to the higher commander. He is entitled to sigh documents being neither of a fundamental nature, nor containing judgments as to value concerning the recipient. The signature is given in this form:
"'For the Command of the Group of Armies (Army High Command) Corps Headquarters.
"'The Chief of Staff.'" And then on the next page of the document I submit figure 17:
"The Chief of Staff has no right of inspection. Inspection of troops, emplacements, etc., is done on assignment by the higher commander.
"18. The Chief of Staff substitutes for the Higher Commander during short absence. In cases of longer absence the Higher Commanding Authority orders the representation of the Higher Commander."
And then from page 32 of the original there is figure c:
"The Judicial Officer of the Army, Department III:
"72. III is adviser of his commanding authority in all questions of law. Ho is subordinated immediately to the Higher Commander in his capacity as Appointing Authority and reports to him.
"The Chief of Staff is not permitted any influence on the reports of III to the Appointing Authority of the Court. However, the Judicial Officer has to inform the Chief of Staff at once especially of such happenings coming to his knowledge, as pertain to the spirit of the troops or concern persons in special positions (officers, higher officials) And the next document, Document 13-A -
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I don't know how Dr. Rauschenbach is going to try his case. However, I do think that he ought to furnish us some certificates of translation. Now, this particular instrument he has just read into the report was certified by his colleague, Dr. Reich, who suddenly appears as a qualified translator being also at the same time Defense Counsel. That is something new to me. If Dr. Reich supposedly hasn't signed this to be true, then I would like to ask Defense Counsel who signed it to be a true translation. This is highly technical stuff. One word may mean a lot of difference. This is not intended to be picayune of trying to obstruct the progress of this trial, but I do think that we have qualified translators. There is no certificate on the English copy. I have seen none attached to the original. I would suggest if your Honors inquire into this particular phase. As it stands now, I don't think it should be permitted to be admitted as an exhibit as it was offered. Now, there are others, your Honor, just for your information there is no translation certificate on Exhibit 3, on Exhibit 4, on Exhibit 7, on Exhibit 10. I particularly don't care whether or not on these personal affidavits there are translation certificates. I don't want to create a precedent case out of it. On the last document, that is very technical, and I do think a properly qualified translator ought to tell us whether that is a correct translation of the German original.
I am sorry that I have to bring this up, but I do feel that Dr. Rauschenbach in charge of presentation of this case would know these things himself. He has been a long time in Nurnberg and knows the procedure as well as I.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me the Prosecution should be furnished a copy of this document in its entirety.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Your Honor, in order to begin with the question of translation mentioned by the Prosecutor, of course, I haven't translated one single of these documents or certified the translation, but on the last page of the English document book there is certificate of translation and from this it can be seen that Mr. Fred Solomon certifies that the whole document book is a true and correct translation of the German.
And I don't understand what is wrong, apart from Document 13. I think I am not responsible far the translation. That comes from the Translation Department. The copies -- the extract -- from the documents certified by me in German and the document itself is in this case a photostat copy which is submitted as original, which were made available to me by the Prosecution itself, because the original of the German cannot be obtained by us at all.