AFTERNOON SESSION (The herring reconvened at 1330 hours, 22 Oct.
1947)
THE MARSHAL: The persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. TIPP: Dr. Tipp for von Leyser. If the Tribunal please, would it be possible to excuse von Leyser from tomorrow's session, both the morning and afternoon so that he could prepare his defense?
THE PRESIDENT: There will be no objection on the part of the Tribunal.
DR. TIPP: Thank you very much.
MR. RAPP: If your Honors please, at this time I would like to inquire from defense counsel the sequence of presentation in their case. If I understand it correctly, after Dr. Sauter has finished up with the defendant Geitner, the defendant Weichs will be the next defendant we are concerning ourselves with. Is that correct, Dr. Laternser?
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, it is correct as far as the sequence is concerned what Mr. Rapp has just said but Fieldmarxhal von Weichs is still in the hospital. I saw him last night and my impression of his health was an extremely bad one. When I was there he had an attack with the result that at that particular moment I had grave fears for him. It is, therefore, my suggestion that Field marshal von Weichs should remain for some more time in the hospital and that his case be deferred to a later place. This is my motion to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further statement from you, Mr. Rapp?
MR. RAPP: Not at this time, your Honor. I felt that perhaps the Court would make a comment in this respect, however.
THE PRESIDENT: We have no objection as to the order in which the defendants present their case. I think it should be understood, however, that any delay or any absence of the defendant Weichs is without prejudice to either the prosecution or the defense and I believe that has been previously understood.
Is that your understanding, Dr. Laternser?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, I have understood, you, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Who is to be the next defendant called then?
DR. LATERNSER: If Fieldmarshal von Weichs should be left out, General Rendulic would be the next one to be called.
THE PRESIDENT: And is his counsel prepared to follow immediately?
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I am not in a position to comment on that because the attorney is not here but I don't know the contrary; as far as I am informed, he is quite prepared to open the case.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. The thing that we are interested in is that the case go on without any interruption. We do not care as to who presents their case or the sequence of them, just so that there is no interruption.
DR. LATERNSER: The defense counsel are aware of this, your Honor, and we shall see to it that there will be no delay.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Very, well, you may proceed then.
CROSS EXAMINATION
WITNESS: Dr. Heinrich Bub BY MR. RAPP:
Q. Witness, will you tell us which individuals and what units knew of the so-called mock executions?
A. Do you mean apart from those which I mentioned before or outside of our agency?
Q. Well, let's be, in this particular case, repetitious and tell me the whole scope, in your headquarters and those units or organizations or individuals outside of your headquarters who knew about such mock executions.
A. Who apart from the Commander and apart from the ADC who worked on the case direct and apart from the individuals who because of the entries in the War Diary usually to the Field Ia, who knew about these things inside of the headquarters, I do not know. As far as people outside our headquarters are concerned, the SD official whom I mentioned this morning had such knowledge.
Q. Anybody within the subordinate units subordinate to the Commanding General of Serbia?
A. I am afraid I cannot answer that.
Q. How about the police units?
A. That question gain I should not like to judge on.
Q. Is it known to you that the SD had their own way of reporting events to their headquarters?
A. Of course they had that -- I never saw a report of that sort but I take it for granted that they had that.
Q. Now, do you know whether or not there was any care taken to avoid possible discrepancies in these reports as far as the number of people killed were concerned?
A. Discrepancies had to be avoided. Otherwise, attention higher up would have been caught.
Q. So what you want to say is that this fraudulent reporting was not only engaged into by headquarters of the German army in the Southeast, but also by members serving at the headquarters of the SD in the SD in the Southeast. Is that right?
A. Meissner himself, the Higher SS and Police Leader, I don't think that he knew anything about those discrepancies in figures.
Q. I didn't ask that question, witness. I merely talked about the headquarters as such.
A. The headquarters of the SS and Police Leader in its entirety did not know that these figures were not correct which were reported to the higher offices.
Q. Witness, you told the Court today that you were opposed to the carrying out of reprisal measures. Is that right?
A. It was my personal innermost conviction, yes.
Q. When did you gain that conviction -- then or now?
A. Then. Already at the time when I was transferred to the office and heard about it.
MR. RAPP: Thank you. I have no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any re-direct examination on behalf of counsel?
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Dr. Sauter for Herr von Geitner.
Witness, about the last point there is something I want to ask you. Did you know Meissner, the Higher SS and Police Leader personally?
A I saw him and I knew that he w s Meyssner. I was never introduced to him, at least I cannot remember that I was.
Q Did you also know the man in charge of the SD personally?
A I don't remember even who it was.
Q The man in charge of the SD was Dr. Schaefer.
A Oh yes, I knew Schaefer, but I did not know whether he was in charge or merely one of the officials of the SD.
Q I am talking now of the same Dr. Schaefer who was with the SD in Belgrade.
A Yes, I knew him.
Q And I leave it open whether he was in charge or an official?
A Yes, quite.
Q But you knew him personally, did you?
A Yes, I did.
Q What was his reputation with your office of the Higher SS and Police Leader Meissner? Just a moment, I am anxious about one thing, whether he was regarded as a moderate or as a very violent man?
A He was known as a man of violent principles.
Q Do you know what the reputation was which Dr. Schaefer of the Sd had?
A Dr. Schaefer was an extremely moderste man if I remember rightly. I believe there were even controversies between him and Meyssner.
Q How do you know the latter fact?
A If I remember correctly, I believe some mention was made of this amongst us ADC's.
Q Witness, you spoke this morning of the War Diary which you knew so well. The War Diary by the Commander of Serbia.
A Yes, I know it very well as far as I have kept it.
Q I read through this War Diary and I have found an entry which I would like to read to you to refresh your memory. It is a document which I shall submit as Document Geitner No. 93 eventually. I have not offered it yet but when the Document Book Geitner No. 4 will be ready, I shall submit it as Document No. 93. I give this number already now for later indentification. This document is a page from the War Diary of the Commanding Ceneral and Commander in Serbia and the date is 28 of May 1943, and this is what it says on that page. Heading: "Commander--Conference with Chief, Standartenfuehrer Dr. Schaefer and 0-1 about new arrangements in carrying our reprisal measures." And then it continues:
"1. Keep up present ratio. Should there not be enough retaliation prisoners, uniformly to be executed by the SD. (Shom) shootings."
Witness, I shall give you a copy now from the War Diary. Will you please look at it and tell me whether this confirms what you have testified to so far and whether this note in the War Diary gives you a reason to supplement what you said about the Shom shootings?
A Yes well this was the same Dr. Schaefer who was needed in order to protect the Commander from any unpleasant consequences concerning the wrong figures reported to above. Meyssner without doubt would have been opposed to the idea of having shom shootings, but somehow or other through the SD channels, the same figures had to be used as were reported by us to higher up. We had to report them because of the ratio which had been ordered; and therefore this conforms to what I wanted to express at the end of the morning's session, namely that this affair was discussed with Dr. Schaefer who was regarded as an extremely moderate man.
Q Could you perhaps give us an example with figures how this was handled in actual fact so that we understand it fully and clearly? Let us assume, for instance, the case that the Commander of your office has ordered that 50 retaliation prisoners rust be shot but less were intended to be shot, and how was it done in actual practice with Dr. Schaefer's assistance? Will you tell us that, please?
A Retaliation prisoners -- they were sometimes located in the SD camps, mostly in Semlin. How far it went in detail, I am unable to tell you---at least I cannot tell it to you any more, but there is one thing correct without dobut, namely that the SD for instance would select five and they were actually shot. The names were reported to us--I must correct myself here. I don't know whether the names were reported to us but possibly they might have been, and then we would report to higher up: 50 prisoners were shot. Schaefer no doubt made such a report. I couldn't observe It but it is my opinion that he reported through his SD channels that 50 people had been shot and that is how these reports tallied.
Q That, you say, guaranteed that both the Commander Serbia and the SD or the Higher SS and Police Leader would report the shooting of 50, although five had only been shot? Have I under stood you correctly?
A Yes, I think it must have been that way.
DR. SAUTER: I have no further questions, your Honors.
MR. RAPP: I have no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it there is no further examination on behalf of the defense counsel. The witness may be excused.
DR. SAUTER: With the Court's permission, I should like to call defendant Curt, Knight von Geitner to the witness stand. If the Tribunal please, I have submitted three document books so far and I would like to ask you to look in the first document book, in the index for Document No. 1--and I would like to correct a mistake in the index.
In the index regarding Document No. 1, there is a mistake in the translation. Herr von Geitner is described as an SS Leader. In the original it says SA Leader, and I would be grateful if this correction be made so that it is quite clear that my client was never a member of the SS, because after all the SS would he a criminal organization, with the result that he would have to he punished for that reason alone.
THE PRESIDENT: As I understand, Dr. Sauter, it is my understanding that you wish the index to read as follows: "Confirmation by 6 former members of the Steel Helmet Association of dismissal from office of v. Geitner as a Fuehrer?"
DR. SAUTER: SA Leader, yes, not SS Leader.
THE PRESIDENT: With the SS deleted?
DR. SAUTER: Yes please, and should be substituted by "SA".
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, "SA", Very well.
CURT RITTER VON GEITNER, a defendant, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: The Witness will raise his 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. SAUTER:
Q Witness, how old are you today?
A Sixty-three years of age.
Q Are you a professional officer?
A No, not any more. I was a professional soldier once upon a time, from 1902 until 1919.
Q What did you do after the end of the First World War?
Herr von Geitner, will you please make a small pause after each question?
AAfter the First World War I resigned. It was my intention to join a small factory, which was owned by my family and which was located in Schneeberg, Saxony. For that purpose I studied chemistry for a few terms at the technical college of Munich in order to be prepared for that vocation.
Q And after that what was your position in that factory?
A In 1921 I joined the firm. At first I worked in the plant. After the death of my oldest cousin in 1926 I took over the management of this small enterprise.
Q In the First World War, Herr von Geitner, what was your last rank as an officer?
A By the end of the war I was a captain on the General Staff. I was first the adjutant of an artillery detachment, and later on I had a mounted battery with the Baden Artillery Division, and in September, 1916 I was transferred to the General Staff.
Q What was your rank when you resigned in 1918-1919?
A When I resigned I was a Major.
Q And after that you were in the factory as you told us.
A Yes, quite.
Q And you directed it?
A Yes.
Q Did you, in the time between the two wars--between 1919 and 1939--work actively, politicaly in any sense.
A I was a member of a number of political parties. When I stayed in Munich after the First World War I was a member of the Bavarian People's Party.
Q What sort of a party was that? Please don't forget the pause, Sir.
A It was a middle-class party, on a Christian basis.
Q How long were you a member of that party?
A Until I moved to Schneeberg.
Q When?
A In 1921.
Q And did you leave the party then? If so, why?
A Yes, because in Schneeberg there was no Bavarian People's Party and I, therefore, joined the German National People's Party, the Deuthsch-Nationale Volkspartei, at that time.
Q What sort of a party was that?
AAgain it was a middle-class party, of a conservative and religious type.
Q What is your attitude towards the Christian religion?
AAt all times I was a follower of the Christian Church, and even after 1933 I said so and emphasized it openly. I was not on the side of the German Christians, as they were called. I was a follower of the old Protestant Church.
Q How long did you remain a member of the German National People's Party?
A Until the party was dissolved.
Q When and how did this happen?
A I believe it was in the spring or the summer of 1933, when all other parties were dissolved, apart from the National Socialist Party.
Q Who dissolved all parties at the time, including your party?
A Hitler.
Q Were you also a member of any other party or organization?
A Yes.
Q Which one?
A In 1929 I joined the Stahlhelm.
Q What sort of an organization was that--the Stahlhelm?
A The Stahlhelm was based on the principle s of the veterans, and it wanted to emphasize the comradeship among Front line soldiers and bring it into ordinary life.
Q What was the political tendency pursued by the Stahlhelm? What was its political attitude?
AAs far as the party politics were concerned Stahlhelm was more or less neutral. There were among its members, members of many parties.
Q Essentially it was composed of war veterans I take it.
AAs far as they were of the right age, yes.
Q Did the Stahlhelm of which you were a member have a definite attitude in religious questions, in any particular attitude towards racial questions?
AAs for the religious question the Stahlhelm did not take up an attitude of any sort. As for racial questions one might give this example, perhaps: The second man in charge of the Stahlhelm, the former Major Buesterberg, was partly of Jewish descent. Also, the man who had been in charge for many years in my home province, at the time Dr. Welsch, was also partly of Jewish Descent.
Q In 1933, Herr von Geitner, Hitler came into power. Now, what were the relations between the Stahlhelm and your own relations towards the NSDAP--the National Socialist Party?
A The Stahlhelm lost its independence. The younger members were transferred into the SA, together with their leaders. They formed, as far as we were concerned within the SA, unit of their own. People whom I had under me up till then asked me to go there with them. I finally yielded to their wishes, not to leave them all to themselves. And I led this unit in the SA. We had been promised that this, our unit, would remain together as it was. This transfer occurred by the end of October, 1933. On the first of February 1933 this unit was dissolved. The staff continued to exist, and I, as their officer, was removed.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me just a minute. I wonder if the defendant did not mis-state himself when he said September, 1933? Did you mean September 1934?
THE WITNESS: It was transferred in October 1933. In February, 1934 it was dissolved. I, as the officer, I was sacked and was given the reason that I was politically impossible as an SA leader of an SA unit. I was retired and, therefore, I had nothing to do anymore.
Q. Witness, if I have understood you correctly, in 1934 you were relieved of your position as the man in charge of this Steel Helmet Detachment, the reason being that your National Socialist outlook was highly deficient?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. What in the following period of time were your relations towards the NSDAP, Hitler's Party?
A. On the whole there were no relations at all. I looked on with interest to what was going on.
Q. Did you later on join Hitler's Party?
A. Yes.
Q. Why and when?
A. In the autumn of 1937 the man in charge of the local group of the Party came to see me, he came to my office. He asked me whether I didn't want to join the Party. He dropped a few hints that I was the man in charge of an enterprise, he said, and therefore it was only right and proper that as employer one should become a member of the Party. I deliberated on the point and finally declared myself to be ready to join the Party, and an important factor, ad far as I was concerned was the success in internal politics, namely the modern elimination of the official factor of unemployment. In January of 1938 I was accepted into the Party. I had to pay up fees for 10 months, and my date of entry was announced to be 1 May 1937.
Q. I should like to ask you, witness, when you joined the Party was it entirely voluntarily or were you, as it were, under duress?
A. Well, the local Nazi boss simply pointed to the fact that I was an employer, and of course he stated on that occasion that a large number of my workers, who were small in number, were also members of the Party, etc. He tried to apply a certain pressure, yes.
Q. Did you hold any office within the party after that?
A. No.
Q. Did you take part in any of the bigger occasions of the Party, such as the Reich Party Rally or training courses, or anything like that?
A. I never went to a Reich Party Rally, nor did I take part in a training course.
Q. How did the fact that you were a member of the Party express itself in actual practice?
A. By paying my fees and by occasionally visiting local meetings.
DR. SAUTER: If the Tribunal, please, I might in this connection offer a few documents to the Tribunal, which are concerned with that period of time in Geitner's life, and about the attitude which he took in the period of time. They are contained in Document Book I Geitner, Document II, which I shall give Exhibit No. 1. The Document III, which I shall give Exhibit No. 2, and Document IV, which will become Exhibit 3. Document II, which is Exhibit I in Document Book I, for Geitner, is an affidavit by the man in charge of the Liberal Democratic Party local at Schneeberg in Saxony. This affidavit has been duly certified by the Mayor and been sworn to by the man who signed it. It says:
"Herr Kurt v. Geitner is a person of whom all citizens of Schneeberg still speak with respect and in constant acknowledgement of the meritorious service he rendered our city.
In this respect is not worthy that he possessed, while he was a member of the local city council, not only the confidence of the Right but also the esteem of the Left, as a result of his frankness and clear thinking.
It was left to the NSDAP to slander this deserving man, as can especially be seen from a declamatory pamphlet. The reason for this was the way in which Herr v. Geitner carefully undermined the lying propaganda of the NSDAP, whereby he first of all pointed out, as a result of his great knowledge of history, the errors of former times and warned against a repitition.
The local representatives of the NSDAP recognized the danger of this man who was mentally and morally superior to them, and therefore turned against Herr von Geitner.
Even if he later on gave in to the pressure of circumstances and joined the NSDAP, he nevertheless remained, as before, an enemy of National Socialism.
In the last war he was called up as a reserve officer and remained a reserve officer.
We prized the frankness, geniality and respectable personality of Herr v. Geitner and gained this esteem during the period which he was active in Schneeberg. We are not in a position to judge what happened after that.
Signed Liberal Democratic Party of Germany Local Group Schneeberg i.S.Alfred Steinbach" And I hand the original duly certified to the Secretary General.
The next document which I have announced is document III, Exhibit 2, a duly sworn and certified affidavit by the Union of Christian Democrats of the Local Group of Schneeberg, and I don't think it is necessary to read it in detail. I would ask that note is taken of it, but in order to save time I have not read it because it is more or less the same as the one read just now of another party, and my next offer concerns Document IV, which is Exhibit 3. This is a duly sworn and certified affidavit by Hans Maeftig, also a resident of Schneeberg, who is an attorney, and he says as follows:
"I have known Herr Curt von Geitner for about 25 years. As a result of our social and personal relations we were so close that we expressed our political opinions openly to one another. In the years following 1933 Herr von Geitner was often attacked in the local pamphlets of the NSDAP in an extremely men and unjust manner, because he was an opponent of National Socialism.
In June 1946 I found a copy of such a pamphlet among some old papers which I immediately placed at the disposal of his wife because I know that Herr von Geitner never was a National Socialist by conviction, although he was finally forced to become a member of the Party.
Since his wife has asked me to give an opinion about Herr von Geitner so far as politics are concerned, I take the opportunity to say that I even consider it necessary, not in answer to a personal request but from honest conviction, to acknowledge that Herr von Geitner was neither an active Nazi nor a propagandist, that he exerted no pressure on his staff to join the Party, that he was raging mad about that criminal breech of promise when the pogroms of the Jews began in autumn of 1938 after the Godesberger Conference, and that he rejected the persecution of Jews with indignation, as being entirely unworthy of a cultured people; that he derived no personal advantages from the NSDAP, had no connections with higher Nazi circles and rather expressed the fear that he might be arrested some day for his frank opinions.
Herr v. Geitner also remained faithful to the old Evangelical Lutheran Church and expressed his disdain of the opportunists who could not leave the church quickly enough, in order to gain favor in the NSDAP. Naturally his children were also baptized and confirmed.
I need not read the next paragraph. In the last sentence Maettig says:
"Herr v. Geitner told my father as late as in the winter of 1944/45 that he too thought Hitler was seriously ill mentally.
"Since I am not implicated in Nazi activities, I am practicing my profession as attorney as before, belong to the LDP (Liberal Democrat Party) and the local city council and wish Herr v. Geitner who personally, at an earlier date, applied himself so discretely and effectively for the benefit of our city, the best of luck for the future."
This affidavit has been sworn to properly and has been duly certified.
Q Herr von Geitner, following up these documents from a few political parties and residents of your native town, I would like to ask you what was your position in Schneeberg towards the population, and particularly towards the National Socialist elements among the population?
A In Schneeberg, as is usual in a small town, I had contact with all elements of the population. Actually I did not know any difference concerning class or profession, and I believe that I was well liked by many people. One realized that I was interested in the welfare of all classes. I had no sympathy for, shall we say, intellectual or material pride and on the whole I had no difficulties. After the first intoxication had passed in 1933 our people who were National Socialists found themselves compelled to work and they gradually approached me again and again wanting to use my services. In 1933 I was a town deputy and that was to last until 1934, the beginning of 1934. The members of the Socialist Democrat and Communist parties in the town council and also the Democratic parties were removed and without an election were replaced by Nazis. I looked on for a while, and then I realized that as a non-National Socialist town deputy one had simply to toe the line, and wasn't even in a position to express one's opinion openly. Thereupon I resigned from my position as Town Deputy on 31 December 1933, and I resisted all the invitations to change my mind.
Q Witness, I shall now talk about the 2nd World War, and arrive at the period of time and such matters for which you have been indicted here; how old were you when the 2nd World War broke out?
A I was 55.
Q How was it, that, old as you were, you were still called up?
A In the new Wehrmacht I had become a member of the Reserve. I was appointed on 1 October 1935. I heard that as late as January 1936.
Q One question, were you appointed to your position because you asked, for it, or was it done automatically?
A No, I had made no application to that effect.
Q Now, when in the 2nd World War were you called up?
A On 3 September 1939, during the Polish Campaign I was called up and entrusted with the Command of an Infantry Reserve Regiment at Zwickau, which is about 25 kil. from Schneeberg. Then in December 1939 I was asked by the General Command in Dresden whether I wanted to become a general staff officer again, since after all I had been one before. I thereupon asked them not to ask me to do this, that I thought I was too old to assist a commanding general. If they had any use for me they should make me the officer in change of a small unit, of an infantry Battalion or perhaps an Artillety Detachment. Nevertheless, I believe by February 1940 or perhaps the 1 of March 1940 I was ordered to go and join the General Staff and in order to learn my new job I went to Dresden and then as I-A I joined the Military area command in Breslau 8, and in August 1940 I was transferred to the General Staff, and in October I became Chief of General Staff of a corps in the West. By the summer of 1941 I was used in the East for about 6 months with the Army Group Center (Mitte) as a general staff officer, and after that I was transferred to the officers' reserve, the Fuehrer Reserve, and in the Spring of 1942 I was at home looking after my enterprises, and by the beginning of July I was appointed Chief of General Staff of the Commanding General and Commander in Chief in Serbia. According to the documents I arrived in Belgrade on July 10.
Q Now, about your appointment to the General Staff, I am interested whether or not you endeavored to obtain that appointment, or was it against your wishes?
A No, when I was ordered to go to the General Staff, but had not yet been transferred, I sent the Chief of General Staff and by the ordinary channels another application asking him not to transfer me to the General Staff.
DR. SAUTER: If the Tribunal, please, in this connection I beg to offer to the Tribunal from Document Book Geitner I, Document VI, which I offer as Geitner Exhibit 4. This is an affidavit by General (ret.) Friedrich von Kriebel, sworn to and duly and properly certified, and it says:
1.) In 1940 the then Lieutenant Colonel of the Deserve and Commander of a reserve unit R. v. Geitner was transferred to the military Area Headquarters VII as Ia, the chief of which I was. This meant to Geitner a prospect of a further assignment as a General Staff Officer in the Replacement Training Army. But Geitner preferred an assignment to a front unit. Therefore he submitted me an application to the Chief of the Army General Staff for an assignment as a troop commander in the field, which I forwarded with my support. Still, the application bad no success. Geitner had to remain in the position as Ia and against his wish was transferred to the General Staff.
2.) In this capacity Geitner submitted me in summer 1940 the proposition to continue the employment of an efficient, but not fully Aryan temporary civil servant of his department, Fraeulein Knuth, the dismissal of whom had been insisted upon by the representative of the German Labor Front in the Area Headquarters. This application I forwarded with my backing to the General Army Office which approved it. Thus, Frl. Knuth retained her position thanks to Geitner's intervention.
signed: Friedrich K. v. Kriebel, Major General (ret.)
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, upon inspection of the original of this document I merely wish to state for the record that the statement by Dr. Sauter that this affidavit was sworn to does not correspond to the facts as I see them; although the affidavit is called an affidavit it merely bears a jurat certifying to the correctness of the signature, that is all. It doesn't say it has been done under oath, that the witness knows the oath or its meaning, and for that reason I would like to have that stricken from the record, and in order not to hold up the proceedings I am not insisting that any change be made at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: You are asking for what portion to be stricken -
DR. SAUTER: Herr President:-
MR. RAPP: Only that portion Dr. Sauter referred to that this particularly affidavit had been properly sworn to and signed. It has not been properly sworn to, and has only been properly signed.
DR. SAUTER: If the Tribunal, please, the Prosecution is making a mistake there. This affidavit, which I have just read, and the original of which I shall immediately submit, is called "affidavit", and the first sentence reads as follows, and I read verbatim: "By request from the Major General Curt Ritter von Geitner (ret.) I declare in lieu of oath:" That establishes that this statement has been sworn to properly.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I still insist on the statement I have made that this is not the proper way, and I am sure Your Honors have seen previously the correct way of having an affidavit properly put under oath, so I am still asking that that part be stricken from the record, and as far as bringing it up at a latter time is concerned, without prejudice, as far as other affidavits are concerned, I am not insisting or pressing on that at this time.