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.
Q How long did you remain with the Staff of this Army Group?
A The Staff of this Army Group was dissolved at the beginning of 1945, and, I came to the succeeding Staff of the Army Group-E, and remained there until the collapse.
Q And where was this Staff of Army Group-E, I believe you said, stationed?
A Finally it was stationed in Belgrade.
Q I see, in Belgrade. During the period of time when you were in Belgrade with the Staff of the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia, who was the military commander in Serbia?
A First of all it was General Bader, and approximately since August or September, I don't know the exact date, it was General Felber.
Q What year of August or September?
A 1943.
Q Did you become acquainted with General von Geitner?
A Yes, I did.
Q What was General von Geitner's position at the time?
A General von Geitner was Chief of Staff.
Q What Staff, there were several staffs?
A He was Chief of Staff of the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia, until Fall, when that agency was transferred and made a military command of Serbia, and he was Chief of Staff of that Command.
Q I said just before, Dr. Scheller, that there were a number of staffs there with the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia, so what Staff was General von Geitner the Chief of Staff of?
There was the Operational Staff and the Administrative Staff.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I am just inquiring whether Dr. Sauter is telling or asking the witness these things. I object to this line of questioning.
THE PRESIDENT: You are objecting because of it being leading?
MR. RAPP: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Doctor, if you are merely asking the question without an interpretation and a possible answer, then you should comply with the rules a little better, so you will avoid that please, and give particular attention to that matter.
DR. SAUTER: If Your Honor please, every soldier and every officer know there were several staffs, and if the witness does not remember this just for the moment. I see no objection in asking him the same question five times if the right answer does not come into his mind. That really can not be called a leading question. I mean, there must be reasonable limits here on questions to the witness.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q I shall put my question differently, witness. With the military commander in Serbia, and Belgrade, was there only one staff?
A There was, and the closest staff was the Operational Staff of the Commanding General. This agency comprised several departments, as so many agencies. There were the Chief of Administrative, Economic Department, and, then there was the actual Military Administration, and General von Geitner was Chief of Staff of this last department.
Q And what was the name of such a staff of which General von Geitner was Chief at the time?
A Operational Staff of the Military Staff.
Q Operational Staff of the Military Staff is that?
A Operational Staff. Well, there are several designations, but that is the real actual staff, the staff of the General's, of the Commanding General's.
Q What was your own rank at the time?
A I was a Captain.
Q Witness, so we will get a good interpretation, will you always make a pause, as the interpreter cannot possibly follow and the Tribunal cannot understand your answers. What was your own rank at the time, that was my question?
A I was a Captain at the time.
Q You were an active Captain, or a Captain of the Reserve?
AAs Captain in the Reserve, at the disposal -
Q And what position did you hold in the staff of the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia?
A Since I was an auxiliary officer, in the Department I-C.
Q And Department I-C, what did that department deal with, with what matters did it deal, and just answer it briefly?
A With enemy matters, enemy reports.
Q I see, enemy reports. Witness, in September 1947 you executed an affidavit. You swore to your statements, and you signed them, and this affidavit was offered to the Tribunal as Document No. 53, as contained in Document Book Geitner 11. Do you remember that affidavit today?
A Yes.
Q Did you read that affidavit again before your examination of today in order to refresh your memory?
A Yes, I did.
Q Do you maintain today the contents of this affidavit?
A Yes, I do.
Q Then we will briefly discuss this affidavit. Do you still remember that at some time from the OKH there came a draft of some sort concerning the evaluation of the Draja Mihailovitsch Organization in the light of international law?
A Yes, I remember that.
Q Can you tell us, perhaps in detail, what kind of a memorandum or brief that was, and what do you know about this document that came from the OKH?
A To the best of my recollection the point of the question was that a Court Martial addressed an inquiry to the OKH, that is, a summary court martial with my staff, to the effect whether or not the Draja Mihailovitsch Organization was a belligerent force under the Hague Rules of Warfare, and whether the members and that was a decisive point, were really soldiers.
There was a trial before this court martial and the point decided was whether the men concerned were to be regarded as soldiers, or as Franc-tireurs. The OKH on the basis of data available to it denied the military nature of the D.M. band but submitted this decision to the Military Commander in Serbia for his comment so that on the basis of more copious data available to the Military Commander, the decision could be either confirmed or amended.
Q Dr. Scheller, who was the Military Commander in Serbia at the time? I mean, at the time when this inquiry of the OKH arrived in Belgrade?
A To the best of my recollection that must have been General Felber. It was just around the time when the commands changed. It was in the Fall of 1943, but as to the exact information as to whether or not it was General Bader or General Felber, I cannot make certain.
Q Dr. Scheller, how was this inquiry by the OKH - concerning the military nature of the partisan organizations dealt with by your agency? In other words, what did the Commander in Serbia then do in order to answer this inquiry by the OKH?
A. This inquiry was passed on to the various competent departments, one of which was, or almost the main one of which, was the 1-c department, the department dealing with enemy matters, also the 1-a department. In these departments, on the basis of reports which they had available, reports by the troops own observations and all that abundant material, accumating during the course of the existance of such an agency, it was established whether the characteristics which either make or do not make an organization a military one, whether these existed with reference to these bands. It resulted that in the decisive factors, that is uniforms, open carrying of arms, discipline and discipline of a military organization, on the basis of the information which the military command had, this question had to be answered in the negative. That happened in September, 1943.
Q. Did you yourself in your capacity as auxiliary officer with the 1-c of the staff of the commander in Serbia participate in this examination and did you work on that problem?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Concerning this material, which was available in Serbia and concerning the results which were reached by the individual specialists, did you discuss these factors with other officers of the staff in order to clarify which results might be the correct one?
A. Yes, I did that. I was an auxiliary officer and the then 1-c Major Kalsow was a jurist and he did not only discuss these matters with me, but also with the other auxiliary officers of the 1-c department to the extent to which they could voice opinions about this. I remember now at this point that the work concerning this question took up quite some time, several days at least.
Q. Dr. Scheller, through these examinations and investigations, what was established concerning the uniformity of the uniforms worn; if you can give us an answer to this quite briefly?
A. There was no such thing as wearing uniforms. If one takes the word uniform, it means that there is one common form of clothing.
The band members, however, wore different types of clothes, some of them wore uniforms, uniforms of various countries, that is Yugo Slav uniforms, Italian uniforms, German uniforms, that is uniforms which they had captured, booty. Some of them only wore pieces of uniforms, boots, trousers or only caps, others again wore only civilian clothes. To a very small extent, mainly the leaders wore uniforms, pieces at that time already which had been dropped from planes. The majority, however, of the band members wore civilian clothes, fixed up in a military style if possible or suited for the necessity, that is gollashes or sometimes they wore caps. Altogether the manner of clothing was not uniform and mainly the leaders only wore a unified uniform or the members of the staff and perhaps also the protective guards.
Q. Dr. Scheller, in your examinations and investigations what did you establish concerning the question whether the band members in Serbia wore insignias which could be recognized at a distance?
A. As a rule, or as a general rule, they did not do that. A uniform insignia to recognize them as troops or belligerents or as members of a unified organization, such as arm bands or a similar insignia was not worn by them. Initially they did in order to mark themselves as wood-fighters, that is as people who wanted to wait until the monarchy was established again. They left their hair grow and did not shave, but that changed later when the fight lasted for some time. Besides, that is not an insignia recognized at a long distance and is not uniform either.
THE PRESIDENT: One of Dr. Sauter's affidavits was admitted in evidence as I understand it yesterday at least from the statements made by counsel and one of them was not admitted. The thought that I have in mind and the Tribunal has been discussing it here, I wonder if you would care to read such part of the affidavit as you may think is pertinent here and then perhaps that will permit the cross-examination and will shorten the examination and questioning of this witness. If that is agreeable to all parties concerned, that would avoid a repetition of a lot of questions and shorten the time, which is quite important here at this stage of our trial.
DR. SAUTER: This suggestion meets my full approval. Your Honor, I can only repeat what I stated yesterday, I submitted two affidavits executed by this witness at the time, one is Geitner No. 28, exhibit 64 contained in Geitner document book 1 on page 85. This affidavit has not been objected to by the prosecution. The prosecution expressly stated that he had no objection against this affidavit No. 28. Then later at that time I offered the affidavit which is under discussion now. That is one which is contained in Geitner document book 2 as Geitner document No. 53 and which also became exhibit No. 65, that is page 62 of Geitner document book 2. At that time the prosecutor stated he objected against this affidavit because the affiant resides in Nurnberg.
JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Sauter, are you proposing to interrogate the witness about some material other than that included in the two affidavits?
DR. SAUTER: No, only about the affidavit which we are discussing now. I mentioned at the time during the triaL that I did not want to read the affidavit in detail in order to save time. I was just offering it and asked that it be accepted, but that could not be done as the prosecution objected against it.
JUDGE BURKE: Yes, I understand. It seems to me it is now the subject for cross-examination and then the offer of readmission of the second affidavit if that is agreeable to Dr. Sauter.
MR. RAPP: I would like to inquire from the Tribunal the following, if Dr. Sauter has document No. 53 submitted into evidence and actually gave it an exhibit number, No. 65, then the only thing that can be done with this witness is that he should be cross-examined by the prosecution if the prosecution so desires. On the other hand, if it does not have an exhibit number then the affidavit is not in evidence and we are concerned with direct examination and the affidavit is not before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: It has been offered in evidence and has been given an exhibit number, it is subject cross-examination by the witness and action there on will be taken by the Tribunal.
MR. RAPP: That is correct, Your Honor.
DR. SAUTER: I am in agreement with the prosecution. Actually, I don't know why one affidavit was objected to because the witness lives in Nurnberg and the other one was not objected to.
MR. RAPP: Dr. Sauter has assumed the burden of the Prosecution by producing this witness if the prosecution wants the witness to be produced and the prosecution would ask for the witness if it so desired. Dr. Sauter has just offered the witness for the convenience of the prosecution and I would like to state now, I do not wish to cross-examine this witness.
DR. SAUTER: Well, that is very strange indeed. Yesterday another representative of the prosecution said the exact opposite that I was supposed to call the witness here and now they say they don't want to cross-examine him. I think that brings me to the end of the questioning of the witness. I now ask for document No. 53 as exhibit No. 65 to be finally admitted and I don't have to put any further questions then.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents will be admitted, the witness may be excused.
(The witness is excused.)
Who is to present any further testimony? Do you have any further affidavits or documents, Dr. Sauter?
DR. SAUTER: No, Your Honor, I have not.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is ready to proceed then with further presentation of further documents on behalf of any of the defendants?
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
DR. SAUTER: If the Tribunal please, may I make use of this opportunity to correct an error with reference to the exhibit numbers. I found out when I studied the record of the trial that exhibit No. 65 was used twice by me. That happened because when I first submitted the document book for General von Geitner I finished with Exhibit No. 64 and when I at a later time submitted another series of documents I started by mistake with the No. 64 instead of using No. 65. Now, we have a duplication here and I would suggest to make a correction to the effect that one of these documents be given No. 64a so that all the other numbers can remain as they are. If the Secretary General would kindly take note of this, it is in Geitner document book 3, page 92, document 80. That was the Army Service Regulation for the General Staff Service, the so-called "Red Donkey", an excerpt from which had been submitted. This document I would like to ask to be given exhibit No. 64-a. I repeat so that there may be no mistake anywhere. Document No. 80 in Geitner document book 3 on page 92 will be Geitner exhibit 64-a. Exhibit No. 64, that is without an a, will remain for Geitner document No. 28 contained in Geitner document book 1. I ask the Tribunal to take notice of this so that in quoting documents there may be no error.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I call the Tribunal's attention to the request of the Secretary General sometime ago not to label any exhibit with the additional a. As far as the prosecution is concerned, and I believe also the representatives of defense counsel, we agreed to discontinue that procedure and furthermore "a" was used for other purposes in admitting documents into evidence. I would like to make a suggestion, Your Honors, whether this second exhibit No. 64 could be given the last exhibit numbers for all the evidence for Dr. Sauter, rather than 64-a, then there would be no confusion and we would comply with the Secretary General's desires.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, of course it can be done the way Mr. Rapp suggested, just now I have no objection. The other way around could also be instead of saying No. 64-a, one could say perhaps 64-z. There are Court No. V, Case No. VII.
several ways of doing this without disputing the situation.
THE PRESIDENT: That would then become exhibit 184?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What is Geitner's last number - Geitner?
MR. RAPP: Dr. Sauter said that he did not figure on this scheme so at a later time he can do that.
DR. SAUTER: I am just being informed, if the Tribunal please. The last exhibit number for Geitner is 172, that is if I can rely on what has been whispered to me just now. In that case the document in question should be given exhibit No. 173, Geitner exhibit No. 173.
THE PRESIDENT: I have been informed by the Secretary General's office that there are, in connection with the exhibits offered yesterday, there seems to be two 179's and two 180's.
DR. SAUTER: Two 197's and two 180's?
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General tells me that we should have started with No. 181 and we started with No. 179. May I suggest that this be checked during our recess, then we can be sure that we are getting the right numbers. If you will check with the Secretary General during the recess.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, Your Honor, I will discuss it with the Secretary General. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed with the presentation of other documents by counsel.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, please, I wonder if it would be possible if we could have the recess now. I do not have the document book of Speidel with me and I did not know it would come up this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we are within five minutes of the recess period, so I guess there will be no particular harm done. We will recess until 11:10.
(A recess was taken.)