Partisan warfare is given as the subject matter, and he was not in the Balkans, he cannot make any statement about it.
THE PRESIDENT: The statement that the Court previously made seems to be again applicable to what you have just stated, that the court cannot and is not disposed to make a preliminary ruling on these matters. I think we could well proceed now to the other matters which concerns the Court and particularly the completion of the cross examination of the defendant List.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q Field Marshal -
A I beg your pardon, Mr. Fenstermacher, may I add something concerning this entry we discussed?
The crossing out shows quite obviously that the entry of the 24th and 25th, Friday and Saturday, was made a week too early. The same entry appears a week later on the same page -- that is, a page further on -but in the same column, on the succeeding Friday and Saturday. The same happened to the entry of the 26th and 27th -- that is Sunday and Monday on the 27th. It says: General of the Air Force Felmy pays a visit, and we have the sand entry a week later on Monday, the 3rd of November.
What happened, apparently, is that for some time I didn't make any entries whatsoever and when I started again I made an error of one week. There is no other explanations that I com see.
Q You mean, you didn't intend this to be 100% accurate in all of its details?
A I don't understand what you mean. What I actually entered was correct, generally speaking, but I couldn't have made a mistake as to date. That is, if I didn't make an entry immediately. What happened is I just got hold of the wrong column.
Furthermore, we have to take into consideration the fact that I was in a military hospital at the time, that I was sick, and it is quite possible that I made a mistake. As I said before, I never intended this diary to be a document.
Q But you did, however, offer it into evidence on your own behalf.
A Well, of course, because the entries as such, the entries which I made, one dates are correct. That can be seen by the correction, that I crossed out the entry on the 24th because it was a wrong one and Kuntze's taking leave and visit was therefore entered on the 31st.
Q I believe on the entry of the 21st of November which has not been translated is a notation that you got a visit from Kuntze on his way back from Crete. Am I correct in that?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q And then early in December you left the hospital for your home in Germany, going by way of Salonika where, according to the entry for the 7th of December, you had a discussion with Foertsch.
A On the 7th of December?
Q Yes, I believe you will have to look to the diary itself for that.
A Yes. Now -- it says: "10:00 a.m. Kuntze Foertsch Serini, 12 o'clock breakfast." That was on the way through in my special train.
Q Did you discuss events taking place within the area of the 12th Army at that time?
A No, we didn't discuss any events. I was just going back. I was going home. Kuntze was appointed my full deputy and I believe that quite briefly he touched upon the general situation but, apart from that, it was a duel personal matter, a kind of courtesy visit by those two gentlemen to take leave from their former commander-inchief.
Q Then there is an entry of the 24th of December 1941 which appears in translation on page 99 to the effect that Olbricht had called, that he knew nothing that something new would be intended for you, and then the words, "Believes that to be very good." What does that refer to?
Does that refer to the fa.ct that you were -
A "Olbricht knows nothing that something new would be intended for me. Believe that to be very good." There are some other trends of thought here which play a certain part. Olbricht was of the opinion that it was desirable that I no longer be assigned to the front. Olbricht, who was a spiritual co-conspirator of the 20th of July plot, was frequently in touch with me. Without my voicing all these things in detail to him, he was of the opinion that under the situation which was prevailing at the time it would be desirable and expedient if I had no further assignment the front.
Q Does this mean that you yourself also preferred to have no further active duty in the German army?
A I have already stated that I made no application, that I didn't press for any assignment and Halder's affidavit said the same thing quite clearly. It says that I stated that I would be very glad if I received no other assignment. That was in 1942.
Q Well, now, do you mean that you preferred to spend the rest of the time at home in Partenkirchen rather than in charge of an army, anywhere?
A Well, in any case the situation then was that the total situation and all the conditions and internal conditions didn't seem to make it very desirable for me to be in active service under Hitler once again.
JUDGE BURKE: I may be in error but my recollection is that he covered this matter quite throughly and completely on your original cross examination.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honor please, I was just laying the foundation for my next question which comes now.
Q Field Marshal, isn't it true that as late as the 3rd of January 1942 you still considered yourself commander in chief of the 12th army?
A On the 30th of January 1943? You mean the 30th of January 1942.
Q I said as late as the 3rd of January 1942 you considered yourself still in command of the 12th army.
A What date applies I don't quite know. I suppose you are hinting at my farewell order of the day. I don't know what you are aiming at with this question. As Commander in Chief of the 12th Army I was still reported in the official lists. Kuntze wasn't appointed Commander in Chief of the 12th army. He was merely my deputy. In actual fact he looked after matters. I did not feel myself to be the active Commander in Chief by any means. I had no influence. I was out of touch with everything. I had no telephone communication with Salonika.
Q Now, would you look at the entry for the 3rd of January 1942? It has not been translated. You will have to refer to the diary yourself; and would you read what you have written on that date?
A The 12th of January 1942 is the date you are referring to?
Q No, the 3rd of January 1942.
A I see -- the 3rd of January. Well?
Q Would you read it please?
A Just a moment. I will have to read through it myself. I took it down in shorthand. I will have to decipher it. The part that is pertinent here I believe is: "Visit by Machold; telephone call Handloser concerning my health. Seems to leave open a conclusion to my further intended appointment. Everything else is less pleasant. It is difficult for me to break away from my supreme command post. Internal and external insurrection."
Q Isn't that an indication on your part that on that date you considered yourself still Commander in Chief of the 12th Army and fully intended to return to your post in that capacity?
A Well, that is only a natural conclusion, that when I was completely well and in good health again I would have to return to my post if there was no instruction to the contrary. That is what happens everywhere in military life.
Q Now, just one or two more questions, Field Marshal. Before we look at the particular entries, would you confirm my recollection that either you or several of your affiants have stated that you forbade any of the soldiers under your command in Greece to make purchases in the Greek stores because of the inflationary situation that was apparent in Greece at that time?
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honors, I object to the question. I object to this question. It seems to have no connection with the subject matter of cross examination.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Dr. Laternser had listened carefully, I think he would have been aware that I was laying a foundation to begin asking Field Marshal List regarding certain entries in the diary.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's refer to the diary which is the matter of cross examination.
Q Field Marshal, would you look at the entry for the 26th of August 1941. There is a reference there that you talked to Uch about purchases. Then would you turn to the entry for the 25th of September 1941? I believe there is a reference there that you visited a civilian factory and that you bought something and "decent shoes for 'R', with the aid of an interpreter."
A Well?
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honors, I object to this question; it has nothing at all to do with the subject of this trial.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: It relates to material which the defense -
THE PRESIDENT: Overruled. Proceed.
Q Now, would you look at the entry for the 13th of October, Field Marshal? I believe there is a reference there that you made some very good buys, "wonderful woolen blankets, one for 60."---
A Yes, two blankets.
Q "one for 60 instead of 120 as charged before; now they are 170." And, finally, would you look at the entry for the 15th of October? I believe there is an entry there that you bought shoes with Uch in civilian clothes.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me. To what are you directing this examination? For what purpose?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honor please, at least two or three affiants -- I can give you the references - mention that, because of the inflationary conditions in Greece, they were prohibited by Field Marshal List from making purchases from the Greeks.
THE PRESIDENT: Does that have anything to do with the indictment?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Well, if your Honors please, I believe I objected to the affidavits on the ground that they were irrelevant and immaterial at that time and was overruled. This seems to go to the validity, at least to the credibility, of the affiants who made these statements.
A In this connection, I would like to state that these entries are recorded in my diary. What the affiants said is quite correct. In some affidavits it is stated that the people received some amounts of currency to be able to make purchases; yet another affiant states that certain commodities such as blankets, et cetera, were rationed and that they were allowed to buy them under certain circumstances; and I myself availed myself of that opportunity to a very limited degree.
Q Don't you remember the affidavit of Hans Georg Faulmueller in your Document Book II on page 19 in which he states that no German soldier could shop freely in Athens, that under an order of the 12th Army Headquarters he had to have a permit in each individual case from the garrison command which issued a restricted number of vouchers, that Greek business people were forbidden to sell goods to German buyers without vouchers, and thus the scarcity of the consumers needs by the civilian population was prevented?
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
A. That is what I testified, that we had to have vouchers but perhaps I might be able to make out a voucher for myself or my Chief-of-Staff might be able to make one out, or the Commandant of Athens. Whatever the individual soldier is allowed to purchase on a voucher the Commander-inChief might also do.
Q. Did you avail yourself of that privilege on several occasions?
A. To the best of my recollections, and as this diary shows, I bought two blankets, a pair of shoes and a tie.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: No further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, may I suggest that you limit your re-direct to these matters solely which have been presented in connection with cross-examination relative to the diary, so that the matter may be somewhat limited.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, certainly, your Honor. I am very willing to do that. I believe that at all times of the trial I have been very much briefer than the Prosecution in the examination of my witnesses.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. Fieldmarshal, I would like to clarify what happened at the beginning of your position as Armed Forces Commander Southeast. You were questioned about your trip to Berlin. When did the instructions for execution of the installation of the agency of the Armed Forces Commander Southeast arrive?
A. I am afraid I can't quite recollect that by heart. To the best of my recollection, they are dated the 15th of July. I beg your pardon, the 15th of June.
JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Laternser, I may be in error but it seems to me from my recollection of it that this matter was most thoroughly covered upon the original direct examination.
I may be in error but it is my recollection of it.
DR. LATERNSER: I believe your Honor is right. There is only one question I would like to put in this connection.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
A. I would like to explain this circumstance here. I believe I am correct in recalling that these instructions for execution are dated 15 June and, according to my diary here, the conference in Berlin to which I was called, - I didn't go on my own account, - took place on the 15th of June. That was the conference held with Fieldmarshal Brauchitsch where he informed me that I was to become Armed Forces Commander Southeast and subsequent to that I was told the same thing by Keitel and Jodi, and on that very dame day apparently this instruction for execution was signed.
Q. Now, my last question. When did you actually start your activities as Armed Forces Commander Southeast?
A. After my return from this trip.
Q. When did you return?
A. If I am correct in recalling this by heart, it was on 23rd June. That was the day when I issued this order in Athens. 23rd June -- no, I beg your pardon, it was 24th June. It says here "Order for new organization".
DR. LATERNSER: I thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any question by any of the associate defense counsel? Any questions by members of the Tribunal? You may be excused, sir.
Are there other document books that are ready for presentation at this time?
DR. BEIER: Dr. Beier on behalf of General Kuntze. With the permission of the Tribunal, I would like to offer the last exhibit for General Kuntze. This will be an affidavit which is Kuntze Document 80 and as such is contained in Kuntze Document Book V on page 1 of that document book.
I assume that the English translation of this document book is now in the hands of the Tribunal. The document concerned is an affidavit dated 5th January, 1948, given by Dr. Alfred Gruen, who from the beginning of the war was a member of the staff of the Armed Forces Commander Southeast, as a military judge. His affidavit is being submitted to show General Kuntze's attitude towards the population of the Southeast; the exhibit number to be given to this document will be 68. The affidavit reads as follows:
"The Deputy Armed Forces Commander Southeast has repeatedly promulgated amnesties during the time I was a member of his staff. I still remember amnesties which especially concerned illicit possession of weapons and military equipment. In the decrees in question all persons handing in within the time limits stated in the decrees weapons and other military equipment held by them illegally, were promised a complete pardon. Pending proceedings were quashed.
"I am of the opinion that General Kuntze has deliberately done everything in order to give the part of the population which was willing now to obey the orders of the occupation power, the possibility to avoid any harmful results. The text of the amnesties has been published not only in the cities, but also in all communities."
This, if the Tribunal please, concludes the evidence to be given on behalf of General Kuntze. The defense rests this case. I thank the Tribunal.
DR. WEISGERBER: Dr. Weisgerber on behalf of General Speidel. If the Tribunal please, I would like briefly to make a correction of an exhibit number. Yesterday I offered Spedel Document No. 83 which is the affidavit executed by President Sandstroem, as Speidel Exhibit No. 62. I made an error here.
The correct exhibit number should be Speidel Exhibit No. 68. I would be obliged if this error be corrected Speidel Exhibit Number should read 68.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I should like to announce, as I did several days ago, that this afternoon at one-thirty I shall examine the witness Hassold concerning a subject matter which I have likewise announced previously, -- reprisal measures carried out by Allied troops.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honors please, I would like a little clarification of Dr. Laternser's last statement in order to determine whether or not this testimony would be relevant. As I understand the ruling of the Tribunal, documents concerning proclamations issued by the Allies concerning the taking of hostages, or testimony relating to executions of hostages by the Allies was allowed into evidence on the theory that the question of hostages, the law of hostages was somewhat unclear and in order to prove that there was no settled practice among the armies of the world in that respect; but so far as I can determine, there is no dispute between the prosecution and the defense regarding the law of reprisals. When those reprisals relate entirely to the burning of homes or the burning of villages. I believe both the prosecution and the defense agree on the criteria to be used. Now if this witness is going to testify to the burning of a village or any reprisal action other than the taking or execution of hostages by the Allies, I submit it would take us very far afield and would not come under the theory under which the hostage material was admitted into evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, the Tribunal is not disposed to pass on these matters and to make preliminary rulings, so we will cross that bridge when we get to it.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Now just a moment please. Have you completed your case for the defendant List, or are you in a position to rest or is this witness a matter that you are presenting for and on his behalf?
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, after examination of this witness, I shall rest the case for Fieldmarshal List.
THE PRESIDENT: My record then shows that there are only two other defendants who have not rested, they being the defendant Felmy and the defendant Speidel. Am I correct in that?
DR. WEISGERBER: That is correct in the case of Speidel, your Honor; I am still waiting for the translation of the proclamations in the Greek newspapers. The Tribunal will recall that last Friday morning it was a ruling of the Tribunal that these proclamations would be translated. I immediately gave these five or six proclamations to the translation division but up to this point I have not yet been notified that the translation has been completed.
THE PRESIDENT: My statement was that there are only two defendants who have not rested, three including List.
DR. LATERNSER: Also, if your Honor please, General Dehner's case has not been rested. I don't believe that case has been concluded yet.
THE PRESIDENT: I believe you are correct as to that too. Very well.
We will adjourn at this time until one-thirty this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
AFTERNOON SESSION The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Laternser.
DR. LATERNSER: I shall now call Paul Hassold as witness.
PAUL HASSOLD, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. The witness will raise his 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.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. Would you please state your full name?
A. Paul Hassold.
Q. Would you always make a brief pause before answering my question?
A. Yes, certainly.
Q. Will you please spell your surname?
A. H-a-s-s-o-l-d.
Q. Where were you born and when were you born?
A. On the 21st of August, 1917.
Q. And where?
A. Here in Nurnberg.
Q. What is your religion?
A. Roman Catholic.
Q. And what is your profession?
A. Commercial employee.
Q. And where are you employed?
A. In Passau.
Q. What is the work you are employed with?
A. It is a newspaper publishing plant.
Q. What were you at the end of the war?
A. A non-commissioned officer in the German air-force.
Q. Where were you in the time between 18 and 28 of April, 1945?
A. Between Ingolstadt and Eichstaett.
Q. Were you alone?
A. There were three of us.
Q. And what did you want to do in this district?
A. We had flown back to Ingolstadt from the Russian front and wanted to go to Nurnberg from there.
Q. Why did you not go to Nurnberg?
A. Behind Ingolstadt, we learned that Nurnberg was already occupied.
Q. What did you do then?
A. We went away from the main road to Eckweil and wanted to make our way as civilians through the American lines.
Q. What did you observe in the district around Eckweil and what did you see?
A. We hid ourselves around Eckweil in the woods because our travel orders were not properly authenticated. I knew the local district and was asked by my comrades to see how far the front line had already advanced. Meanwhile, we already noticed artillery shooting.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I went from Eckweil to Nassenfeldt and towards the woods to the West of Nassenfeldt and went along the fringes of the wood, past Zell, till I saw American armored cars.
Q. Was there any fighting there?
A. No shot was fired. I can only remember that a marauding unit, that an air fight was taking place.
Q. Was there any fighting on the ground?
A. No, it was all quiet.
Q. What else did you see on this occasion?
A. I returned, wanting to join my companions at Eckweil. Meanwhile, the wood fringes near Nassenfeldt were occupied by infantry units.
Q. That was German infantry units?
A. Yes, and I was unable to return immediately. I have already mentioned that we could not afford to be seen by German troops because our travel orders were not in order. I then saw that American troops were advancing into the village -- that was Zell -- it is only a few houses. The locality only consists of a few houses. No shot was fired on this occasion. After approximately ten minutes, I saw several members of the air force. They were probably anti-aircraft units, because there was an anti-aircraft, a German antiaircraft battern located near Zell and near Nassenfeldt there was a heavy anti-aircraft battery.
Q. What did you see?
A. The German soldiers also had three SS men with them as far as I could see.
Q. How many soldiers were there altogether?
A. I didn't count them but there may have been between 20 and 30.
Q. What happened?
A. The soldiers had surrendered and were standing there, hands up, at the Southern fringes of the village. The muzzles of the armored cars as well as the rifles were pointed towards the soldiers. I withdrew even further and suddenly saw shots being fired and the soldiers collapsing.
Q. How was it -
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I submit that this testimony is completely irrelevant and immaterial for this reason. I don't believe there is any dispute between the defense regarding the rules of war so far as the execution of captured prisoners of war are concerned. If I am correct that the theory upon which defense documents and defense testimony regarding the taking and execution of hostages was admitted, that material was admitted because it was felt that there may not be a settled practice in the armies of the world regarding the treatment of hostages. That is not true. I don't believe the defense will contest this, that there is not a settled practice regarding the treatment of prisoners of war. We cannot try all the violations which I would be prepared to admit for the sake of argument that occurred on all sides during this war; but that is a completely corollary issue. It cannot be gone into here. I know of no occasion on which a murderer tries to defend himself on the ground that other murderers have committed murder with impunity. If what the witness is trying to say is that American troops executed captured German soldiers, than I submit it is no defense for what these defendants have done.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution ought to finish listening to our examination. I contend and I shall prove that in this case it was a reprisal measure which the American troops executed. Whether it was legal or not is not at issue now. I shall prove by this examination that it was a reprisal measure, which will be quite clear from the examination. I wish first to clarify the events and then I shall prove on what grounds the shootings were based.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I press my objection. We are not here to try all the reprisal actions which were committed by the Armies of the World during the last war. This is completely irrelevant and immaterial, and has nothing to do with the charges brought forth in this indictment. It is not advanced, as I understand Dr. Laternser's statement, to show that there is not a civil law regarding the taking of reprisal measures, which is the theory under which the material relating to hostages was admitted.
DR. LATERNSER: I wish to prove that in the view of the American troops it was possible, by way of reprisals, to claim the lives of human beings. That is all I wish to prove by this examination, as laid down by Article 58-d, and I also wish to prove that this was carried out.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors please, the laws of war are so clear both in the Geneva Convention, The Hague Rules, and the practice of the armies of the World, that you can not execute reprisal measures against captured soldiers. If any army in the world did this, it was unlawful. I submit again we are not here to try the reprisal measures carried out by other armies.
DR. LATERNSER: I shall not reply to this because I have already told the Court what I wish to establish. I merely wished to establish that reprisals ordered by American troops claimed the lives of human beings.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
DR. LATERNSER: In that case I regret that I have called the witness, whom I considered the most essential defense witness, and that I can no longer proceed with his examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
DR. LATERNSER: If it please the Tribunal, I must reserve, and I should like to reserve, the right to submit the statements by the French Military Commanders which are not yet available. If I may submit them at a later stage, at later proceedings. It is not my fault that they have not yet arrived. Just before the beginning of the session, I called upon the French delegation where I has not given any information. The statements will arrive at a later stage, and if they do, I should like to be allowed to submit them.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor please, I noticed in the public press -- I believe it was during the month of November - perhaps members of the Tribunal noticed it, and perhaps Dr. Laternser did, too -- that General LeClerc, to whom the interrogatory was submitted, was killed in an airplane crash in North Africa. That may be the reason why Dr. Laternser has to date received no reply to his interrogation.
DR. LATERNSER: The Prosecution is overlooking the fact that according to the Tribunals ruling, not only General LeClerc was to be examined, but also his Chief of Staff, and every Commander who was involved in this affair. I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that in this interrogatory I put the question whether the order issued by General LeClerc reflected the attitude of the French Army regarding the question of hostages. Assuming that this order did, in fact, reflect the attitude of the French Army then I have established that, according to French laws of war, hostages could be killed by way of reprisal.
It would be a most significant part of my evidence for this case, because that is the question at issue.
THE PRESIDENT: As I understand it, Dr. Laternser, the deposition is not here. We do not know whether it will ever be received. We trust that it will be. Under the circumstances, it is the thought of the Tribunal that if you have completed your case with that exception, you should rest your case at this time, and if the depositions or affidavits should arrive, then by motion, if you so desired, you could ask to have your case reopened for the purpose of the Tribunal then considering whether the affidavit should be received at that time. If we were to leave the matter open at this time, it would go on indefinitely. It would be a little more regular to follow the procedure which I have just suggested.
DR. LATERNSER: Very well, Your Honor. Before resting my case, I should like to submit two motions to the Tribunal. The first one I have put in writing. I should like to read it into the record. It is not a long document.
"Motion for Nullification of Documents introduced by the Prosecution". "I. I herewith request that the documents specified below which are being introduced by the Prosecution will be cancelled:" And now the numbers following which I wish to be included in the record:
(Following list of exhibits copied from document, though not read, pursuant to request of counsel:)
Exh. No. 28 NOKW 1128 German pg 72 English pg 92 " " 30 NOKW 1114 " " 77 " " 99 " " 36 NOKW 1209 " " 99 " " 124 " " 39 NOKW 551 " " 1 " " 1 " " 44 NOKW 1214 " " 27 " " 31 " " 45 NOKW 1049 " " 30 " " 34 " " 58 NOKW 1222 " " 61 " " 77 Exh.
No. 59 NOKW 1057 German pg 63 English pg 79 " " 60 NOKW 1215 " " 81 " " 101 " " 67 NOKW 1043 " " 96 " " 124 " " 72 NOKW 3138 " " 112 " " 146 " " 73 NOKW 1388 " " 115 " " 149 " " 77 NOKW 1386 " " 122 " " 158 " " 87 NOKW 904 " " 25 " " 31 " " 111 NOKW 1073 " " 96 " " 140 " " 120 NOKW 882 " " 40 " " 53 " " 121 NOKW 724 " " 44 " " 58 " " 122 NOKW 1022 " " 45 " " 60 " " 126 NOKW 1053 " " 21 " " 18 " " 127 NOKW 123 " " 34 " " 24 " " 129 NOKW 1380 " " 92 " " 143 " " 130 NOKW 1056 " " 98a " " 150a " " 131 NOKW 1033 " " 99 " " 151 " " 138 NOKW 1385 " " 15 " " 20 " " 139 NOKW 1152 " " 16 " " 21 " " 144 NOKW 1358 " " 28 " " 38 " " 145 NOKW 726 " " 29 " " 39 " " 149 NOKW 1384 " " 45 " " 57 " " 153 NOKW 883 " " 55 " " 70 " " 165 NOKW 1067 " " 8 " " 9 "All these documents have been entered in excerpts only into the Document Books offered by the Prosecution.
Since the complete text of the said documents is merely available through the Exhibit files in the German language, the Tribunal does not have the opportunity to get knowledge of these documents to their fullest extent. Those parts, however, which are not contained in these Document Books are of vital importance for the evaluation of the documents in total, since the latter contain most important evidence for the defense.
"II. I further request the nullification of the following documents which the Yugoslavian Delegation put at the Prosecution's disposal:" The numbers are to be admitted in the record. (Following list of exhibits copied from document and made a part of the record, though not read, pursuant to request of counsel:)
"Exhibit 100a Exhibit 100b 1-24 Exhibit 100b 25 Exhibit 100b 26 Exhibit 551a 1-7 Exhibit 552a 1-8 Exhibit 100b 27" "The nullification of these documents has been motioned, since the Yugoslavian Delegation submitted to the Tribunal incriminating evidence only.