DR. LATERNSER: That I cannot do, Your Honor, as I can't possible recollect. This came up today for the first time. I did not know the text of this appeal, and, of course, I do not know the date. It cannot possibly be correct, for this excerpt from the so-called Chi News these Chi News bear the date of the 21st of October, and the date of the 23rd of October has been filled in by hand, so it cannot be correct.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: In that connection I would simply like to call Your Honor's attention to portions of the document, which I didn't read and which relate to reprisals committed during the months of March, April and June, 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30.
(A recess was taken until 13:30 hours)
AFTERNOON SESSION The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, January 15, 1948.
MR. RAPP: If Your Honor pleas, we would like to continue with some rebuttal documents. The document we would like to offer, Your Honor, is document NOKW - 2632; it is to be offered as Prosecution Exhibit 656 --.
THE PRESIDENT: May I suggest that you check on that again. Should it not be 655?
MR. RAPP: The last document that I was told was put in was NOKW 1511, which was 655.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, which was 654.
MR. RAPP: Very well, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: There were two other documents which were numbered 654. Two of they - of the previously numbered 654 were not admitted.
MR. RAPP: I see, Your Honor, so it should be Prosecution Exhibit 655. Thank you very much. This document is solely offered against the defendant Rendulic, so that those defense counsels who do not have the document, we will furnish them some copies later on, but I believe that the most important thing is for the time that Dr. Fritsch has the document.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a rather voluminous document. If you will give Dr. Fritsch just a moment to check through it briefly.
MR. RAPP: Of course, Your Honor. May I, at the pleasure of the Tribunal, tell the court the purpose of putting in this document? The purpose is to rebut some of the alleged facts the defendant Rendulic has made during the direct and cross examination about the Italian surrender terms. It refers to Count 3, Paragraph 12-i of the indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: Inasmuch as this document is a rather lengthy document, it has been suggested that possibly objections might be made to the particular items read and we would save time?
Is that agreeable to you, Dr. Fritsch? You might stand up there and if you want to make any objections, well you will be right there.
DR. FRITSCH: I should be very grateful, Your Honor, if we could proceed that way. The document is so very voluminous.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I have before me some excerpts from the official court record to first recall to the Court's attention some of the statements made by the defendant Rendulic, which have to be rebutted with particular reference, and I will then read from the document, and I believe if we proceed that way we will get it step by stop. First, lack of knowledge regarding surrender terms. The afternoon session of October 31, 1947, on Page 5405 of the Official English Court Transcript, 5405, -- I am sorry I do not have the German cross-pagination -- I do not have a German court transcript, - on October 31, 1947, the defendant Rendulic having taken the stand on his own behalf stated in cross examination and I quote: -This, of course, is taken out of the contents of the entire cross examination, but this particular quotation has reference to the document: "On 8 September Italy leaves the Alliance. We had to expect that the Italian would become our enemy. We did not know what orders the Italian troops had".
On page 5406 of the same day, 31 October 1947, questioned about whether or not the Italian Commander who entered into this agreement was a traitor or not, the defendant stated, and I quote: "I found out later on that the Italians had no orders at all." Thirdly, on page 5409 -- on page 5409 of the same day, October 31, the defendant being asked about international law, made the following statement and I quote: "The agreements between Badoglio and the Allies did not concern me; secondly I did not know them, and thirdly it is definite that Dalmazzo concluded the capitulation. It does not matter under what conditions they were concluded. Of course, no duress must have been applied, which was not the case/"Fourthly, questioned on page 5406 on October 31, 1947, with whom he concluded this agreement, Rendulic stated, and I quote from the official court transcript:
"I made the agreement with the Commander-in-Chief of the IXth Italian. Army. The Italian Army and General Dalmazzo commanded all Italian troops in my area." Unquote.
MR. RAPP: Fifth, during the morning session of October 29th on page 5184 of the court transcript during the direct examination of the defendant Rendulic in connection with Prosecution Exhibit 323 in document book 13, Rendulic was questioned about OKW orders pertaining to the treatment of the Italian forces. Rendulic made the following statement on page 5190 during this session.
"This means that this order did not commit the people whom it was given. It was not binding. The entire meaning of the sentences reveals that the German words "for instructions" which might in certain circumstances be translated into English "in a order" is so weak in its meaning here, that it has the other English meaning, that is, it has the meaning of "instructions," it must have had that meaning. In points 1 through 6 of this order there are provisions, rulings which are to be passed on to the Italian Corps. Therefore, this is not an order to the German Corps, but these are instructions or directives passed on to the Italian Corps" This particular statement was then tied with Prosecution Exhibit 327.
Now going back to my first and second statement I would like now to submit; firstly that this document will prove that duress was used; that General Dalmazzo was in fact not the commander of the Italian forces until he was appointed by General Rendulic; that General Rossi refused to sign the agreement that he knew exactly on the night og the 8th to 9th as will be found in this document what the surrender terms were, but that he subsequently used duress to have General d'Almazzo sign these orders. If Your Honors will now please turn to Page 4 of the document. There is an entry in the middle of the page dated 11 September 1943. This I may by the way say, your Honors, is a War Diary Number 4 of the 2nd Panzer Army started 23rd August 1943 and finished on 31 December 1943. Now on page 4 it states under 11 September 1943:
On 11 September, forenoon, the Commander-in-chief of the 2nd Panzer Army landed with a parachute rifle company of the Luftwaffe in Tirana and in quick action captured the Commander-in-Chief of the Italian Army Group Este his Chief of Staff. Thereby the chief source of the Italian resistance which still exists was removed. "At the bottom of the page:
The Commander-in-Chief of the Italian Army Group Este was imrisoned with his entire Staff by the Commander-in-Chief of the 2nd Panzer Army because of his anti-German attitude and apparently undesired influence on the troop units subordinated to him. General Dalmazzo was named Commander-in-Chief of the Italian Army Group Este, and is to receive his instructions concerning concentration and orderly withdrawal of his units from the Commander-in-Chief of the 2nd Panzer Army.
If Your Honors will be so kind as to turn now to page 9, there we will find under the entry of 9 September 1943 at 0020 hours that the defendant Rendulic already knew the Italian forces had surrendered:
2nd Panzer Army informs by teletype that following the declaration of marshal Badeglios the Italians are fighting together with the Allies. Italian units in the Balkans are subordinated to the American General Wilson:
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I object to this submission. The Prosecution should simply have taken the same document from my book and argued thereon. I think I submitted it under Number 57.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, certain parts of this document have not been the defense, and therefore we are putting them in at this time, and the are to rebut ....
PRESIDENT: Finish your sentence Mr. Rapp.
MR. RAPP: Certain parts of this document at that time were not submitted by the defense and we could not anticipate what the defenses of the defendant Rendulic to these facts would be, therefore they are being rebutted at this time.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I have just looked at this passage which the Prosecution has just read, and I find it was exactly the one I submitted under Exhibit Number 57. I think by this fact alone these matters are known to the Tribunal and, therefore, another submission is not necessary.
PRESIDENT: It may not apply to all the portions the Prosecution may wish to read, and in order to keep it in a more regular form, the objection will be overruled. You may proceed.
MR. RAPP: If Your Honors would, please look on page 9. Under the entry of 22100 would your Honors please look at the top of the page 9, entry under 2210 hours, this is the date of 8 September 1943, "2nd Panzer Army (Army Signal Officer) orders by telephone that the cable from Durrazzo to Rome is to be cut at once."
Your Honors, I am merely trying to preserve the continuity of this presentation. We could have picked out some excerpts which Dr. Fritsch did not include, I believe it will be more helpful which we wanted to include, we then would have had to have cross-references put in for this exhibit, if we put in the whole phase in continuity and I am sure that the Tribunal will recognize very easily whether that had been put in before. It had been taken out of it's context at that time by Defense Counsel, and we feel that certain portions have to come back in view of the Rendulic assertions. And then will put in others in one course of this present on which have not been put in Dr. Fritsch document desk.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honors, Mr. Rapp is mistaken if he thinks I was going to make an objection, of that kind. I am merely going to point out a technical error with regard to the entry on page 9 in my book. I think Mr. Rapp made a slip. He said the date was the 8th of September with regard to this entry, 2200 hours on page 90. In my book the date is set down as 9th September.
MR. RAPP: If Your Honor please, I would like to check this with the original.
MR. RAPP: If Your Honors permit, I would like to show this to Defense Counsel.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honors, then I can only state that the original or the photostat copy does not agree with the copy in German which I have here.
MR. RAPP: I believe Your Honor possibly error is human for the person who typed this stencil. We have had that on occasion and I would like Dr. Fritsch to look at the original and either concede or contest the point, I think that would be the easiest way.
PRESIDENT: You question the original document in any matter? Dr. Fritsch?
DR. FRITSCH: Of course I was convinced that the original was exactly the same as the copy I was given and made by comments accordingly.
PRESIDENT: I say do you question the original document and the date there shown?
DR. FRITSCH: I would like to look at it just once more, Your Honor, if I may. -
Your Honor, of course, at the moment I can't finish my final checking, but I would ask that when Mr. Rapp has submitted the whole document I can reserve the right to make an objection then.
PRESIDENT: You can make the motion to strike if you feel that your grounds may justify it. Unless there is some objection at this time to this particular piece of evidence it will be admitted, subject to motion to strike if you care to do so. You may proceed Mr. Rapp.
MR. RAPP: If Your Honor will now please turn to Page 7, there is an entry under the statement "page 23 of original": In an order of the Commander-in-Chief of the 2nd Panzer Army concerning combating of bandits," -
I am sorry, Your Honor, I withdraw this. I am on the wrong page.
If Your Honors would please turn to page 5, under the entry marked 313/43 Secret, 52/9 page 11 of the original it states:
By order of OKW, a short-term ultimatum is to be put to Italian units who offer resistance and thereby it is to be expressed that the commanders responsible for the resistance are to be shot as francs-tirours, if they have not passed on to their troops the order to surrender their weapons to the German troops up to the time established.
This entry was also made under the dateline of 11 September 1943. On 11 September 1943 on page 11 under the entry of "page 38 of original", second paragraph, it states......
The Divisions receive the order to offer a short-period ultimatum to the resistance of the Italian units and threaten the responsible commanders with treatment as francs-tireurs.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honors, I just want to ask Mr. Rapp to tell me where I can find this entry. I can't find it in my cop 7.
MR. RAPP: It is on page 10 of the German. -
Will Your Honors now please turn to page 2 of this document. At the bottom of this document we find an entry regarding the executive power in Montenegro and Albania. I am now making reference to court transcript of October 30, morning session page 5277 and 5278. General Rendulic during his direct examination by Defense Counsel alleged that in Albania and Montenegro he had no influence whatsoever over the administration. He further stated that these countries were under one command of the Military Commander Southeast and his deputies in Albania and Montenegro respectively. If there should be any question I will now read into the record if the Court so desires a repetition of that court record. Does one court desire that I do this or can we dispense with it?
PRESIDENT: You may dispense with it. We have made a notation I think on one respective note here. Your statement is also in the official record of this date so that there's no necessity for further comment.
MR. RAPP: Thank you, Your Honor, this entry is under date of 9 September 1943 and can be found on page of the original.
The Fuehrer has refused the transfer of the executive power in Croatia to the 2nd Panzer Army; nevertheless, executive power in Albania and Montenegro is transferred to the 2nd Panzer Army until the setting up of a Military Commander in Albania and Montenegro.
DR. FRITSCH: I object to the introduction of this passage. According to Mr. Rapp's own words, this declaration here is in no way a contradiction of the restricting of one defendant on the witness stand. I think it is only cumulative evidence if such documents are allowed to be introduced here.
PRESIDENT: The objection will be overruled. The Tribunal will evaluate its contradictory qualities, if any.
MR. RAPP: This will terminate this particular document against the defendant Rendulic. Mr. Fulkerson will continue.
DR. GAWLIK: (Counsel for General Dehner.) For the record, I would like to state that under the date 10 September, 1943, - I am sorry, under the 11th September 1943, page 10 of the original, page 4 of the German, under the XV Mountain Army, the SS division Prinz Eugen is entered. It states: "XV Mountain Corps, the SS Division Prinz Eugen occupied Ragusa on the afternoon of 11 September." Further under 10 September, 1943, page 7 of the original, it states: "XV Mountain Army, SS Division Prinz Eugen." This statement I make for this reason, because in the legal brief the Prosecution asserted that the SS Division Prinz Eugen was subordinate to the 69th Reserve Corps.
DR. FRITSCH: In connection with the document which has just been submitted, Exhibit 655, I would like to make a motion. I would ask that I be allowed, with regard to the presentation by the Prosecution, to bring re-rebuttal evidence through another examination of the defendant in the witness stand.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, we object to this procedure. The defendants have rested their case. The defendant Rendulic had time to rebut or to make his own statements when he was on the stand, we could go on forever.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we have been very liberal, we have endeavored to be, in connection with the presentation of the defendant's case and evidence. There necessarily must be some time and some period where we commence to be a little more strict in our limitations, and inasmuch as this particular document was the matter of discussion and was a matter of presentation in the defendant's case in chief, the objection will be over-ruled and the request denied.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, do I understand the Tribunal correctly, i.e., that in as far as this document contains new presentation of evidence by the Prosecution and I think I have discovered this by just glancing through it, then insofar as this is the case, can I then call the defendant to the witness-stand?
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is over-ruled in its entirety - the entire document I understand was there for your examination at the time of the presentation of your case. The Court will give consideration to such matters as it deems is proper rebuttal evidence.
DR. FRITSCH: Excuse me, your Honor, I would just like to say something else, - one comment. In the presentation of the case this document was not available during the direct examination. This is a document which came from Washington.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, if that would be the fact, then I don't see how Dr. Fritsch could have already put part of this document in his document book, which he already said he had done, and he was trying to admonish me with the fact that I went ahead and put it in again.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I think Mr. Rapp is mistaken. It was like this: during the examination of the defendant in the witness stand, these documents were not available, therefore it was impossible at that moment to take this document into consideration. This document was in the chest which came from Washington, and as soon as I saw it there I presented it, but that was after I had examined the defendant.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, does the defendant Rendulic need documents to talk about facts which he recollect? Such matters as to whether duress was used? I don't believe that is necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will give consideration to the matters which it feel are of rebuttal in nature here, and will not give undue weight to those matters which may appear to have been brought in here at a later time if those are the facts; but as I stated a moment ago, we necessarily must limit the rebutts and the sur-rebuttal if any. The previous ruling will be adhered to.
You may proceed.
MR. FULKERSON: I will first take up documents which have to do with the Strassbourg incident, the incident about which Dr. Laternser has already introduced the affidavits of General Eisenhower and the other generals. He read them, if you will remember, only in part into the record.
They are found in List document book No. 8, which I believe was never translated into German as far as I know, and they were introduced into evidence as Lanz Exhibit 141 through 145 inclusive. Now, I would like to introduce as the Prosecution's Exhibit 656, document NOKW 2656, but before I actually introduce it, I would like to make a few remarks. You can see even from a distance it is a pretty bulky affair, what it is, is this: it is the entire file from the Adjutant General's Records Division from the Headquarters of the VI Army Group, concerning this incident about the proclamation at Strassbourg. Nov, it may be that the Defense will be interested in some of the material that is in here, but in order to be perfectly fair, since we had the whole file here I am introducing it all for what it is worth, but I shall simply read a few extracts from it.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, - excuse me, might I get to the rostrum? since the Tribunal has just announced the ruling that re-rebuttal evidence is not possible, we must adhere correctly to the rebuttal regulations. This means therefore that the prosecution can merely submit evidence in rebuttal which refutes a new fact brought forward by the defense. The declarations which came in from the American Generals I have submitted in full. What is then to be refuted? The Prosecution wants to submit and supplement new evidence. This is something which they should have done in the main case. This evidence does not concern at all any assertions by the defense, but it only is a repetition of something which has already been submitted. Since the Tribunal has made the ruling that rerebuttal evidence will probably not be allowed, then we must adhere exactly to the rebuttal regulations. Therefore, The Tribunal will not be able to accept the document, which the Prosecution is now submitting as rebuttal evidence.
MR. FULKERSON: The Defense has alleged here that the Allied armies have been guilty of various reprehensible actions and one of the actions that they have cited is the Strassbourg incident. I assume that they had some purpose in doing that and I do think that the document, which I am now offering and which Dr. Laternser has not looked at, so I therefore think that his comments about it should be discounted somewhat - since it is composed of the actual documents that passed back and forth between the various authorities involved at the time, would be of a great deal of assistance to the Court in clearing up what this incident was about and what happened there.
To that extent I think that it certainly falls within the proper scope of rebuttal evidence.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I don't think the Prosecution understood me. I have always asserted and proved that according to the regulations, also the American Rules of Wars, hostages can be shot as reprisals, and the Prosecution must present counter evidence or to this. For instance, since I said this regulation was issued in 1940, if they can present a regulation dated 1941 rescinding this regulation, that would be re-rebuttal evidence, but not what they are now trying to do. They are just trying to supplement their own evidence. I think the rebuttal regulations should be strictly adhered to.
THE PRESIDENT: Testimony of this character was admitted as I remember as the question as to whether or not International law was settled as to the bearing upon matter of reprisals and hostages; as bearing upon that question and as perhaps indicating, without deciding, the attitude of the American Military, it will be admitted, pending upon the question and the matter in which the other matters were presented.
MR. FULKERSON: I'd first like to read an extract from the affidavit of General Robert M. Young. It never was translated into German. The part I am reading is from the List document book, not from the document. It's page 10 in List document book No. 8. I will read slowly, because I don't believe this was ever translated into German.
General Young says that:
"Late in November 1944 the Second French Armored Division (General Leclerc commanding), part of the Fifteen Corps, broke through the Vosges Mountains at the Savernne Gap and advanced rapidly into Strasbourg. The Third Infantry Division (U.S.) (Major General John W. O'Daniel commanding), part of the Sixth Corps broke through the Vosges on the Axis St. Die, Saales, Schirmeck, Mutzig, and relieved the Second French Armored Division of the occupation of Strasbourg about 26 November 1944.
Upon the arrival of the US troops in Strasbourg it was reported that the French Commander, General Leclerc, had issued several orders for the government of that city. I did not see such orders nor do I have official knowledge of them except as referred to in the following letter from Major General Barr.
On or about 5 December 1944, Major General John W. O'Daniel left the Third Division to return to the United States. The undersigned assumed command."
I read that simply to show the sequence here, that apparently this order, which can be found in List document book on page 1 and which is dated November 25, was in force one day at the most before the American troops entered the city.
Now, I would like to read from General Eisenhower's affidavit beginning at the last paragraph of page 1.
THE INTERPRETER: Is that on page 1 of the document book?
MR. FULKERSON: I am sorry on page 4 of the List document book:
"On 1 December, 1944, General Devers, Commanding General Sixth Army Group, by letters to the Commanding Generals Seventh and First French Armies, expressed disapproval of this order and stated that future orders would conform strictly to the principle of International Law."
and then the last paragraph from the affidavit:
"To the best of my knowledge and belief no other allied orders concerning reprisals which were similar in content to that of General Le Clere were issued."
And, now I would like to read from page 19 of document 2656. This is a letter from the Headquarters Sixth Army Group, that is from General Devers Headquarters, to the Commanding General, Seventh Army, who I believe at the time was General Patch. It is dated 1 December, 1944, that is either five or six days after this order was issued.
"Your attention is invited to the attached translated copy of a memorandum or notice issued by the Commanding General, 2nd Armored Division.."
The Court will remember that that was General Le Clere..
"... on 24 November 1944 on the occasion of the occupation of the city of Strasbourg.
It will be noted that the provisions of the cited memorandum are completely at variance with the provisions of international law which provide that hostages are entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war and which prohibit summary executions of persons in the power of the occupant in any event.
It is realized that the notice in question was issued without prior knowledge on your part. However, it is desired that immediate steps be taken to inform all commanders of elements of the Seventh Army that the operations of forces comprising the Sixth Army Group will be conducted in accordance with the established rules of international law, and that no proclamations or notices at variance therewith will be published by such commanders."
I would also like to call the Court's attention to the fact that a copy of this letter was sent to the First French Army as is shown at the top of the following pages of the document.
Now I would like to turn to page 14 of the same document which is an interrogation submitted, or rather answers to questions submitted by General Allen to Lt. Colonel LeVien, and I would only like to read the first paragraph, the first question and answer:
"Q. Has the proclamation been canceled by anyone in authority?
A. The proclamation was never put into effect. Whatever effect it had or might have had, was lost when the division moved out of Strasbourg, day or two after proclamation was issued."
Next, I would like to read from page 8 which is a letter dated December 6, 1944 from the Commanding General of the Seventh army to the Commanding General of the Sixth Army Group. -
The difficulty, if your Honors please, is that in translating it they did not put the page numbers in German, naturally, on this, since this is the original document. -
"The following message from the Commanding General 3rd Infantry Division.." -
And if your Honors please, you will recall that that was General Young, who made the first affidavit from which I read at this time, because he had already relieved General O'Daniel -
".. is paraphrased for your information.
"The appointment of French Civilian administrators for the Administration of the city of Strasbourg was included in the regulations issued by General Leclerc. Curfew hours, control of circulation outside of the city and assembly within the city, the bearing of arms, and a system for enlisting a police force for the city were also prescribed in those regulations. These regulations were necessary for the proper control of the civilian population of the city and for the proper military defense. They were therefore kept in force by the CG 3rd Inf.
Div. Penalties for the infraction of these regulations, such as shooting of hostages were not subscribed to and will not be in forced. There has always existed a definite understanding between the CG VI Corps and the CG 3rd Inf Div that penalties prescribed by the former French Commander were at not time considered valid after assumption of command by US troops. Regulations from Headquarters Seventh Army have at all times conformed to the provisions of the Geneva Convention."
And then I would simply like to call your attention to page 26 of the document. I won't impose on your patience by reading this, but it is the proclamation which was published in the French newspaper at Strasbourg, "L' Alsace Liberce" on December 12, 1944. I think that that sufficiently disposes of the Strasbourg incident.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, might I ask that proceedings be stopped for a moment, because I am just looking through this document and perhaps afterwards I might have to read something from it into the record.
MR. FULKERSON: If your Honor please, I could go ahead and submit my next document and if Dr. Laternser wants to make some comments about this one afterwards, it is perfectly all right with me, meanwhile we can be getting along.
THE PRESIDENT: I was just about to suggest that we proceed with some other matter and perhaps between now and the conclusion of our afternoon recess, Dr. Laternser will have had full opportunity to read it and at that time he can make his further comments. That reservation will be granted to you, Dr. Laternser.
MR. FULKERSON: The next document we would like to submit is NOKW 2792, which will be prosecution exhibit 657, I believe. This has to do with the Stuttgart incident. The Court will recall that a witness testified here that in June, July or August, I think, he has no more specific than that, of 1945, a poster, or perhaps several posters, had been put up in Stuttgart, which bore the signature of General Lattre de Tassigny, and which threatened the shooting of hostages for hostile demonstrations against French troops.
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the defendants Lanz and Geitner): Your Honor, through the submission of two affidavits, I have shown the Tribunal that at a certain time in the year 1945 certain posters were also posted in Stuttgart. The Prosecution has had at all times the possibility of cross examining the witnesses whose affidavits I brought here. The Prosecution did not do this ; instead in rebuttal it brings an affidavit of a lawyer, Karl Maier, who is the holder of the license of a newspaper in Stuttgart.
If one reads this affidavit by Mr. Maier, one can see that he merely talks about a conviction, according to his conviction such posters were not posted ; but he can't actually say this with certainty. He only talks about his convictions and he mentions that he did not see such posters.
I think that a throadbare document of this kind, as this affidavit by Franz Karl Maier, cannot he admitted in evidence at all. On the other hand, we produced affidavits by witnesses who themselves saw the posters. One cannot disprove the evidence of something that has been seen with evidence of something which has not been seen and, therefore, I would ask that this evidence be not admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will evaluate the character of the affidavit, the nature of the statements made, the words used, and give it such probative value as it deems that it merits.
MR. FULKERSON: I begin with the second paragraph:
"I entered the Stuttgart Prefecture of Police" -- by the way, is my voice grating on your Honors?
THE PRESIDENT: You might modulate it a little, please. By that I do not comment on your last statement, that that is to be taken as joining in your last statement.
MR. FULKERSON: "I entered the Stuttgart Prefecture of Police on 24 April 1945, three days after the occupation of Stuttgart by the 1st French Army and was active in a leading position as a legal adviser.
Among other things, the bringing about and supervising of all posters belonged to my province of work ; either if such were ordered by the French Military Government, or if it was a question of posters of the German administrative offices.
On 8 July 1945, the territory of Greater Stuttgart was transferred to the Americans by the French. The transfer took place with immediate effect. No French offices which could give any sort of instruction with regard to the city territory of Greater Stuttgart were active in Stuttgart after 8 July 1945. The carrying out and supervising of posters belonged to my field of work under the American Military Government also.
According to my convictions, it is completely impossible that there could have been a single poster put up in Stuttgart in June, July or August 1945, which had threatened hostage shootings in any form, bearing the signature of General Delattre de Tassigny. In the beginning of May, 1945, it was already the basic practice that all posters which the French desired went via the Public security Officer (Officier de la Securite Publique) to the Prefecture of Police, which had to effect the poster. No poster concerning the threatening of shooting of hostages ever went through my hands in the whole period. Since, however, every poster had to be effected by me through the police organs carrying it out, the possibility is practically excluded that such a poster was ever posted.
If, in the time under discussion, a poster of this sort had been put up in the region of Olgastrasse, that is to say in the center of the city and in the immediate vicinity of the Senior French Headquarters, the Prefecture of the Police would certainly have found this out at once. Such a poster would have attracted great attention at that moment and would have had to be reported by the Police offices at once as a poster which was not ordered. I know of no case in which offices of the occupying power could have carried out the posting of posters themselves without involving the police.