THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Sauter, the Deputy Secretary-General informs us that you have your exhibits numbers 100 too high; that they should be Exhibit 80 and Exhibit 81.
DR. SAUTER: I don't think so. I think the Secretary-General is mistaken. It is already Document 194. There were a few documents which I omitted. I believe that the Exhibit number which I mentioned is correct. Otherwise, it would mean that I had offered less than half of the documents which I have. I am sure that is wrong. There must be an error somewhere. It was Document 194 that we dealt with, and if my exhibit numbers are 100 too high, then it would mean that I had omitted more than half of the documents which I have available, and that is not the case. There are only a very few documents which are omitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you may proceed. We will have this checked up and if there is any trouble with the numbering, we can arrange it tomorrow morning.
DR. SAUTER: Very well. Thank you. Your Honor. That brings me to the next document, which is quite a brief one. It is Document 195, and this will be offered as Lanz Exhibit 182. It is on page 8 of Lanz Document Book 8.
MR. FULKERSON: I would like to object to this affidavit for the simple reason that it is a probative nullity as far as I can tell. This man never identifies himself as ever having been in the South East anywhere, at any time, or if he was there what he was doing there, or why he should know anything about anything that went on down there.
DR. SAUTER: In the document which I have in front of me, and that is Document No, 195, the affiant says in the introductory notes that he had an official position as first General Staff officer during the period from October, 1943, until the end of 1944.
MR. FULKERSON: And then he promptly goes on to tell about something that is supposed to have happened, or rather not to have happened, with the 104th Light Infantry Division, without showing why he should have any knowledge of that at all.
DR. SAUTER: If it please the Tribunal, I believe from the same affiant, Bruno Willers, there were some other affidavits submitted by me. I haven't got the document books here at the moment, but from the other documents from this affiant, it becomes evident that, of course, during the period of time from 1943 to 1944 he was a General Staff Officer on the Balkans. If, for instance, this man had been in Africa or Norway or France as General Staff Officer, then, of course, I wouldn't submit any affidavits given by him. I notice here right now that it is not expressly stated here that he was stationed in the Balkans, but from the other affidavits given by this affiant, and also from the contents of his statements, it becomes clear that this affiant Willers was stationed in the Balkans. He was first General Staff Officer down there and a member of General Lanz' Corps. Otherwise, from where should we derive this strange idea to offer an affidavit given by a man who was not even down there in the Balkans. Tomorrow I shall be able to give the Tribunal the exhibit numbers of other affidavits executed by this affiant, so that the court can be sure that, of course, the man was stationed down there. Of course, a defense counsel is not prepared for such an objection, and that the Prosecution thinks that a serious defense counsel is capable of submitting an affidavit executed by a man who was not even down there in the Balkans, and that a German officer would swear to anything that would be so obviously wrong, if what the prosecution said is correct, the Prosecution will not be able to say that they have any indication whatsoever that this General Staff Officer was not in the Balkans and that he did get this statement to which he was sworn out of the blue. To be prepared for such objections is too much.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand you want the exhibit to lay over until other evidence is produced?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, I can do that. I agree to that. I shall then withdraw this exhibit number for the moment, and tomorrow when I submit documents from Lanz document book 10, I shall bring the proper proof so that this objection can be countered.
I withdraw Exhibit No. 182 from Lanz Document 195, for the time being and I shall reserve the right to read this document in my next presentation.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it possible, Dr. Sauter, that General Lanz might identify this affiant?
DR. SAUTER: Can he do that right away, Your Honor? Then I would ask to have General Lanz called to the witness stand for a moment, so that he can state under oath who this Lieutenant-Colonel Willers was. If the Tribunal agrees to this, I am very prepared to have General Lanz do that right away.
JUDGE CARTER: I think that would be proper.
DR. SAUTER: Would you please take the stand?
HUBERT LANZ, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
DR. SAUTER: I don't believe it's necessary to have the witness repeat his oath. He could refer to the oath he has formerly given.
JUDGE CARTER: I think the rule is that if he was sworn once that it's obligatory for him throughout the trial.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Yes, that is the same in the German law, also.
Q. General Lanz, you heard just now that I wanted to submit a document which contained statements given by a Lieutenant Colonel Bruno Willers who states that he was 1st General Staff officer during the period October, 1943, until the end of 1944. Can you tell us, under oath, where this affiant Bruno Willers was stationed during the period mentioned? That is, October, 1943, until the end of 1944, as 1st General Staff officer.
A. I state herewith, under oath, that Lieutenant Colonel Willers was 1st General Staff officer of the 104th Infantry Division, which was one of the two divisions which, during my committment in Greece, was subordinated to me - that is, to my agency.
Q. I believe that suffices.
JUDGE CARTER: Any cross examination as to foundation?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. FULKERSON:
Q. General, how familiar are you with this man's handwriting?
A. Just a moment until I take up the earphones.
Yes, I know Lieutenant Colonel Willers' handwriting. I am familiar with it.
Q. Have you looked at this affidavit yet?
A. I cannot say for certain whether this is the one I saw. Amongst my documents there are three or four affidavits given by Willers.
Q. Well, if Dr. Sauter will show the witness the affidavit and if he identifies the handwriting, I withdraw my objection.
DR. SAUTER: If the Tribunal please, that is the first time during this trial that in such a manner and for such a reason a signature is being doubted by the prosecution. I have the original here in front of me which the prosecution was shown a few moments ago. Here we have the signature of the affiant Bruno Millers and this is certified by the Mayor, How one can doubt the authenticity of a signature under such circumstances is quite frankly incomprehensible to me since, after all, during this trial, thousands of signatures have been accepted, which have been certified by mayors, or notaries without such a doubt being voiced. In spite of this, however, I shall ask the witness if he can identify the signature.
Please have a look at the signature and tell us whether this is the signature you know of the affiant Willers?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, that is correct. That is the signature of Bruno Willers, former Lieutenant Colonel, with which I am familiar.
DR. SAUTER: Perhaps now I might ask the prosecution whether the statement, under oath, made by the witness and the certification by the mayor suffices, or whether further evidence is to be submitted for the authenticity of that signature?
JUDGE CARTER: My understanding was that if the witness identified the signature, the objection was withdrawn, so you may proceed.
DR. SAUTER: I believe the witness can then leave the witness stand and return to the dock.
('The witness was excused.)
I would now like you to accept Document 195 on page 8 which is now no longer objected to and to have Exhibit No. 182 assigned to this document. I was given by Lieutenant Colonel Bruno Willers who stated initially, as previously mentioned, that he was 1st General Staff officer during the period October, 1943, until the end of 1944. His statements concern reprisal measures taken against 71 communists during July, 1944.
The affiant says the following concerning the 104th Light Infantry Division which is the division of which the affiant was General Staff officer:
"Such a reprisal measure was not taken by the 104th Light Infantry Division. If it took place, it was probably executed by the Messolongion Military Administration Headquarters or by the Commissioner of the Higher SS and Police Leader (Evzone) and the Division only forwarded the report. The cause for this reprisal measure was obviously a renewed attack by Communist bands on the railroad line Messolongion-Agrinion, as well as an attack by a band on a wire patrol, by which our troops lost 8 dead and 14 wounded."
The statement by this affiant Willers has been duly sworn to, signed by him and the signature is certified by the Mayor of the Town of Hude.
The last document contained in this Document Book 8 is Lanz Document 196. This is on page 9 of Lanz Document Book 8 and the document will be given Exhibit #183. This is an affidavit given by Wilhelm Spindler, who resides in Stuttgart. He states that he makes his statements on the basis of his official position as commander of the Mountain Infantry Battalion 54 from August, 1943 until August, 1944.
Ad rem, the affiant says:
"With reference to the Document NOKW 1857 (Daily Report by High Command of Army Group E to Commander-in-Chief Southeast, dated 23 September, and Report of 24 September, 1943) submitted to me, I can state the following:
"During the fighting on Cephalonia in which I participated myself in the central attack sector, from the northern part across the mountains as far as the Argostoli area, only Italians who were bearing arms were killed in action.
"Very soon after the termination of the fighting on Cephalonia I was transferred from the island to the mainland, but as far as I saw the preparations for the evacuation and the beginning of the evacuation of the Italian prisoners, I definitely know that among all groups of prisoners there were also Italian officers."
This statement is also duly sworn to and the signature has been properly certified.
There is one document which is still missing from this document book. That is, it has not yet been submitted and I shall submit it at a later date.
One more document has been sent in by me as Document Book 9. This is not yet in the hands of the Tribunal. The document is #197. I might state, at this time, that I withdraw that document 197 which is the only document in Document Book 9.
Then there are going to be three very brief documents in Lanz Document Book 10, but this document book has not yet been translated. Therefore, I shall offer these three last documents concerning General Lanz at a time when this Document Book 10 has been fully translated.
Concerning the case of the defendant Geitner, I also have a few documents to offer, but they are not yet translated. Therefore, I'll have to leave that until a later time.
Therefore, the situation is that I have yet a few documents for Geitner and a few documents on behalf of Lanz left to be submitted.
There is one subject to which I would like to refer. That is, the question of the witness Dr. Scheller from Nurnberg. I have offered two documents from this witness Scheller - that is, Document Geitner 28 with Exhibit #64, and Geitner Document 53 with Exhibit #65. The first document has not been objected to by the prosecution. The second document that is, Document #53 - on the occasion of that document the prosecution asked for that witness to be produced for cross examination. I made inquiries. The affiant is in Nurnberg at this time. If, therefore, the prosecution wishes to carry out the cross examination of this affiant Scheller, I can call him here tomorrow or Monday or Tuesday, and produce this affiant here for cross examination. It will be a matter for the prosecution to make a statement whether they want to go through with that cross examination and then they might establish the time when this affiant is to be called here as a witness.
MR. FULKERSON: I wouldn't be presumptuous enough to tell Dr. Sauter what witnesses to bring here. If he wants to bring them here, it's all right with me.
DR. SAUTER: I don't need a witness. The affidavits of that affiant have been read. The prosecution demanded for this witness to be produced here for cross examination and just so we don't forget this item, I mentioned it here. If the prosecution states they don't need a witness, I certainly don't need him. I can dispense with him.
Am I right now in the assumption that I don't have to call the affiant Scheller?
MR. FULKERSON: Maybe we are not talking about the same thing. As I recall it, one affidavit was offered and rejected and, if we are talking about the same person, then if he wants to get the testimony in, it's up to him, it seems to us, to determine whether the witness should come here.
Now, if one of the other members of the prosecution staff was here at the time he refers to, I'm sorry that I am not able to depose.
JUDGE CARTER: Dr. Sauter, are both affidavits in evidence?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, Your Honor. The same representative of the prosecution who is here today was here, if I remember rightly, at that time. When the first document was introduced - that is Document #28 - he made no objection. When the second document given by the same affiant was introduced - that is, Document 53, he did object.
JUDGE CARTER: Was the objection sustained?
DR. SAUTER: The exhibit number has been accepted, but at the time I stated I would produce the witness for cross examination if the prosecution so desires and that is why I discuss this at the moment so that I do not injure the rights of my client. I don't need the witness. I have submitted the affidavit. It is my opinion that if the prosecution does not attach any importance to the fact of producing the witness here for cross examination, it would be superfluous to bring him here.
JUDGE CARTER: It's the memory of the Tribunal, and possibly not too good, that the second exhibit was not admitted in evidence for the reason that the witness was here in Nurnberg. If that is true, if that evidence is to be of any use to you, you will have to call the witness.
DR. SAUTER: All right then. If the Tribunal agrees to this, I shall, tomorrow afternoon, ask the affiant Scheller to appear here.
JUDGE CARTER: Very well. Is it possible that you could have him here tomorrow morning?
We may have the time to hear him tomorrow morning.
DR. SAUTER: I shall try that. I am hoping that it is possible. I shall try to meet the man tonight and I can possibly call him, in that case, for tomorrow morning. I shall certainly endeavor to do that and, if at all possible, I shall have him here tomorrow morning.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, at this point I shall have to name a third witness. I do this in order to adhere to the time limit. The name of this affiant is Lehmeier. I shall examine this witness also concerning reprisal measures carried out by the Allies.
If the Tribunal please, there is one more point to which I would like to draw attention. This has something to do purely with procedure. Tomorrow morning possibly the situation might arise that the defense has no material to present during the morning hours. I just want to bring this fact to the attention of the Tribunal because perhaps in this case the Tribunal might rule not to have any sessions tomorrow morning. I just intend to avoid giving the Tribunal any unnecessary trouble. If my colleague Sauter is able to produce his affiant Scheller, then the defense would have no other matters to present after that unless Dr. Mueller-Torgow's document book has been completed in the meantime which is not very likely, according to the information which my colleague, Mueller-Torgow, has received in the meantime.
JUDGE CARTER: The Tribunal will meet at 9:30 tomorrow morning and dispose of what matters it can and deal with the matter of any continuance at that time.
The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 9 January 1948)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal V Case No. 7 in the matter of the United States of America against Wilhelm List, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 9 January 1948, 0930 hours, the Honorable Charles Wennerstrum, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal V. Military Tribunal V is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you will ascertain as to whether or not all defendants are present in the court room.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court room.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: Dr. Mueller-Torgow for General Felmy. If the Tribunal please, in consideration of the difficulties which arose in the translation of the Greek documents which I wanted to present, and with reference to the conference which took place in the Judge's chamber just now, together with the Prosecution, I would like to ask that before the Greek documents are given to translation a ruling be made by the Tribunal as to whether or not these Greek newspaper cuttings are admissible on principle as evidence. And on this occasion I would also like to ask for a ruling as to whether or not excerpts from the book, "The Greek Dilemma" by McNeill, an American, which I have also wanted to submit and which also belonged to Document Felmy 7, whether or not these excerpts may be submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: The making of a preliminary ruling is a little unusual, but under the circumstances perhaps it is justified. May I make an inquiry, Dr. Mueller-Torgow, as to the nature of these clippings, and what do they purport to show?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: If the Tribunal please, these cuttings are to give a picture of the total situation prevailing in Greece during the time of the German occupation. Above all, they are to show how difficult during the course of the German occupation the band situation developed and what reprisals were actually taken. All these are matters which the Prosecution has submitted through their documents.
THE PRESIDENT: As I understand it then, they are merely newspaper accounts of conditions, depicting facts as to conditions in Greece during the period of the occupation.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: Yes, Your Honor, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of these newspaper clippings set out any proclamations?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: May I ask for explanation, Your Honor, what is to be understood by "proclamations"? Announcements, publications by authorities or what else?
THE PRESIDENT: Proclamations of a formal nature issued by the German authorities.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: Yes. Such clippings are also contained amongst the ones I want to present Amongst others, there are also proclamations by the Military Commander for Greece. If I may make this statement for my colleague, Dr. Weisgerber. Furthermore, to the best of my recollection there is also an appeal by the Greek Prime Minister and also one by the Archbishop Damaskinos addressed to the Greek population.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any comments that the prosecution wish to make at this time?
MR. RAPP: A very short one, if Your Honors please. These newspaper clippings or any newspaper clippings were heretofore excluded by the Tribunal as evidence. We ask the Tribunal to continue this holdings. Furthermore, the information Dr. Mueller-Torgow conveys as to what these clippings are to show, we have heard in this court for the last three or three and a half months of testimony of defendants, affidavits, and any kind of other testimony which defense counsel brought into this court. We believe that it would be, at best, but multiple evidence if it contains that which Dr. Mueller-Torgow has said it does contain. I did not understand Dr. Mueller-Torgow's answer to the Tribunal's question as to whether or not it contained proclamations. I understood him to say that yes, it contained German publications or clippings of proclamations.
He then went on to also say that it contained proclamations or publications of Damaskinos, the Archbishop of Greece. We have gone over these things before. The defendant Speidel was on the stand. He had the documents at hand. We don't see anything gained by the fact that we have to be over this again, so we, therefore, ask the Tribunal to exclude this from evidence on the basis of hearsay.
DR. WEISGERBER: Dr. Weisgerber for General Speidel. If the Tribunal please, quite briefly I should like to comment on this question. My colleague, Dr. Mueller-Torgow, has already mentioned that he made his statement for me also. I would like to supplement his statements to the effect that this evidence comprises newspaper clippings from the years 1943 and 1944; that is not any newspaper clipping which might possibly have been written after 1945 for a certain purpose. Instead, these are almost exclusively proclamations by the Military Occupation agencies, proclamations, appeals, publications of the Greek authorities, Greek Government authorities. Also contained amongst them are proclamations of the Archbishop Damaskinos and similar material. This material arrived here at the very last moment, at a date when my client was no longer on the witness stand, and it would be a disadvantage to my client and to Dr. Mueller-Torgow's client if we did not have an opportunity to present this material also.
THE PRESIDENT: Such portions of these clippings as are proclamations of an official nature, issued by the German authorities may be translated. In making that announcement we are not making a final, definite ruling as to their admissibility. That will be the limit of the matters which are to be translated. In making that statement I wish it to be understood that it must be the proclamation itself that is translated and not a news item of a proclamation, and I again wish to state that in making this preliminary ruling it is not a final ruling as to the admissibility of the matters in evidence in question.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, may I make an inquiry as to the Tribunal's preliminary decision regarding Damaskinos, who was not an official German representative, and I presume the Tribunal does not want to have that translated.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not wish to have that translated.
DR. WEISGERBER: If Your Honor please, it remains open then what is to happen to the proclamations and announcements by the Greek government. I would be very much obliged if the Tribunal permitted that these official proclamations by the Greek government in Athens may at least be translated.
THE PRESIDENT: The matter of any proclamations issued by the Greek Government would not be helpful in deciding the legal questions that are involved as to the matter of reprisals -- hostages, so they need not be translated. Now, may I make an inquiry of counsel as to whether or not all documents that are to be presented to this Tribunal and for the defense have been filed with the Defense Center and placed in the hands of the Language and Translation Division?
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, as my colleagues have just informed me, all documents have been filed with the exception of a document by Dr. Gawlik, which he only received yesterday and which will be filed today; and two affidavits which were received by my colleague, Dr. Mueller-Torgow. I, myself, if the Tribunal please, still have to submit the statements by the American Commanders and also those of the French. I made inquiry yesterday with the French Delegation and they have not arrived yet, although the ones which we solicited from the United States have been here for some time. I am of the opinion that the ones from France ought to have arrived by now. I again requested to be given them as soon as possible.
To summarize again, one document is still outstanding for my colleague, Dr. Gawlik, which will be submitted today; two documents for my colleague, Dr. Mueller-Torgow, which will be filed today also; and the Greek ones which have just been discussed, and concerning my own case the statements of the American Military Commanders; these don't have to be translated.
They have already been stencilled and they just have to be rolled off. I shall file them today so that by Monday morning they will be available.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand then that Dr. Gawlik's one affidavit or one document has been filed or will be filed today?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Your Honor, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mueller-Torgow has two that have been filed or will be filed today?
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, with reference to the two documents of my colleague, Dr. Mueller-Torgow, one is in the Greek language and has just been translated and could today be written up and filed. Concerning the translation work, which is what takes most of the time, there only remains one document by Dr. Gawlik and two documents by Dr. Mueller-Torgow. The mimeographing can easily be done by Monday. Dr. Gawlik wants to reserve the right to submit one affidavit each for the two witnesses who did not appear.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be the ruling of the Tribunal that all defense documents to be filed by defense counsel on behalf of the defendants must be filed and in the hands of Defense Center, and in turn with the Language Division by nine o'clock Monday morning, January the 12th, I believe.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Your Honor, we have taken note of that fact.
THE PRESIDENT: And that will be the limit to which any documents may be received. We must have a cutting-off point. We want to be liberal and we trust that we have been in our attitude here during this trial, and the matters which have concerned all the parties, but we must have a cutting-off point, and that will be the order of the Tribunal.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Now may I make a further inquiry as to the time for presentation of these documents. Much of this material at this stage is cumulative, and it would seem to me that the time could be divided by counsel on certain matters which might be eliminated which are quite apparently cumulative.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Your Honor, I believe every one of my colleagues will have to decide for himself what documents are to be presented, what he wants to read, and to offer. I can only inform the Tribunal the general attitude and not in each individual case.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire if you can conclude your evidence by Tuesday evening?
DR. LATERNSER: I believe that will be possible, Your Honor. May I state the following with a fair amount of certainty. This morning my colleague, Dr. Sauter, will examine a witness, and then a number of documents will be presented.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think you need to do that. What we are interested in that you use your time between now and Tuesday evening in presenting these matters, and seek to avoid the presentation of such matters as will be shown as apparent to you are of a cumulative nature. I take it then that you will be able to conclude your testimony on behalf of all defendants by Tuesday evening.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Your Honor, we think that is fairly certain.
THE PRESIDENT: Nevertheless, we will work on the basis then that the defense will close on Tuesday evening. I think it should be definitely stated that the defense must close on Tuesday evening with the understanding that if we do not complete the reading of such documents as defense counsel feel are important, they can offer them and the Tribunal will read them at a later date.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Your Honor, we agree to this.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hodges, of the Language Division is in the courtroom at this time, and I want to thank him on behalf of the Tribunal for the attention which he has given to our deliberations, and other duties here; for the excellent service which has been rendered to this Tribunal, and to all parties concerned.
If there are no other preliminary matters --
DR. LATERNSER: May we join, Your Honor, in this thanks.
MR. RAPP: The Prosecution desires to express its gratitude to Mr. Hodges.
THE PRESIDENT: It is quite apparent; Mr. Hodges, that it is unanimous. If there is no other preliminary matters, we will proceed then with the presentation of such documents as evidence which the defense counsel may wish to present at this time.
DR. FRITSCH: If Your Honor please, I have just one statement to make. The reply to the memorandum presented by the Prosecution, dated 5 November 1945, I have in the meantime submitted to the Tribunal in two parts: Part one, as I am being informed, is being submitted to the Tribunal, which was translated already before Christmas; Part two, has been filed and as the translation division informs me, the translation was started yesterday, so that I anticipate that by tomorrow the translation will be in the hands of the Tribunal.
DR. GAWLIK: Dr. Gawlik for the defendant General Dehner:
If the Tribunal please, on 22 December I filed a written reply to a memorandum presented by the Prosecution. I have filed my reply on that date which in the main deals with the following question. The probative value of the material submitted, 2) the question of whether Croatia was an independent State with the meaning of International Law, and, three, a plea on the question as to what extent the plea of superior orders precludes the criminal nature of any acts committed by the defendants. I assume that the reply portion, 22nd December, is by now in the hands of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Your brief has not been handed to us, as yet, but I understand it is virtually completed, and will be presented to to the Tribunal within today or tomorrow.
May I inquire as to whether or not these briefs have been filed with the Secretary-General's Office, as a part of the records, as was done by the Prosecution?
DR. GAWLIK: If the Tribunal please, I filed my brief with the Defense Information Center, Captain Rice, which is the competent office so far as we are concerned.
DR. FRITSCH: I did the same, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I think possibly as an operational matter it should be filed also, and a copy should also be filed with the office of the Secretary-General as was done by the Prosecution.
MR. RAPP: May I suggest that the defense counsel file this brief in duplicate, and request the Defense Information Center to pass on one copy to the Secretary-General's Office, a copy of this record, and the other one after translation to Mr. Hodges.
THE PRESIDENT: Just so there is no question, as both the Prosecution and the Defense briefs are to be part of the record, I am making this comment. Upon your statements being made, I take it that they are in duplicate, and made a part of the record in this case as to the Tribunal. Dr. Sauter, are you ready to proceed with presenting your further documents in evidence?
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Sauter for the defendant Lanz and the defendant Geitner. If the Tribunal please, with the permission of the Tribunal I now would like to call Herr Georg Scheller from Nurnberg to the witness stand as a witness.
GEORG SCHELLER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you will raise your right hand and be sworn: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing. (The witness repeated the oath). You will may be seated.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, when you answer a question will you please observe that every question which I or anybody else puts to you is to be interpreted by the Interpreter.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Will you, therefore, please always wait until you have noticed the Interpreter has completed the question and then give your answer?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Witness, will you state your full name?
A. Dr. Georg Scheller.
Q. Please always talk into the microphone, not to close to it, with your usual voice. Give your complete name?
A. Dr. Georg Scheller.
Q. When were you born?
A. On 5 December 1895.
Q. Where?
A. In Norden.
Q. You are a resident of Nurnberg?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your address?
A. The address is Gervinusstrasse 40.
Q. Dr. Scheller, what is your profession? Please wait.
A. I am a professor at the high school.
Q. At what school or university were you active?
A. At the Commercial Institute in Nurnberg.
Q. And for what subjects?
A. In Industrial and Economic Sciences.
Q. Were you a member of the Party?
A. Yes, since 1933.
Q. I see, since 1933. Where did you participate in Second World War, and were you on the Front?
A. Yes.
Q. Please wait with your answer, so the question may be interpreted. Just wait a little. My last question was, were you at the Front during the Second World War?
A. Yes.
Q. From what date to what date?
A. I was member of the Front troops from November 1939. I participated in the Campaigns in France, Yugoslovia, and a part of the Campaign in Russia. In March 1943 I was assigned to Belgrade to the Staff of the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia.
Q. Was that in April 1943?
A. In April 1943 I arrived there.
Q. How long did you remain in Belgrade, from the start with the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia? Please wait always a little bit, Dr. Scheller.
A. I remained with the Staff until March 1944.
Q. And where did you go in March 1944?
A. To the Staff of the Army Group-S in Belgrade.