If I understand Mr. Fulkerson correctly, he wishes to say that the testimony by General von Leyser had been incorrect and untrue inasmuch as he stated that within his command in the XVth Corps a reprisal measure had only been taken once which claimed human lives; that was with the 22nd Cossack Division. To refute this Mr. Fulkerson now refers to a daily report of 4 November 1943, from which he just wanted to quote. Mr. Fulkerson unfortunately made an error in this quotation. He overlooked the fact that as far as this excerpt is concerned it was not a daily report by the 15th Corps, which he obviously assumes, but a daily report of the Inspector General of Railway Security Croatia. May it please the Tribunal, to turn to page 4-a, containing the heading, then you will see, that all subsequent daily reports originated from the Inspectorate of Railway Security and not from the 15th Corps. As I have already stated, General von Leyser was not the Commander of the Inspectorate Railway Security - Croatia. The Prosecution has neither contended that, asserted that, nor have they proved it, so that General von Leyser is not in any way incriminated by this document, and I object to its introduction. If the Court wishes for further proof it is also forthcoming in a photostat which I have submitted to the Court. The daily report did not emanate from the 15th Corps, but from the Railway Security Inspectorate.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will give consideration to the source of these materials and will decide as to its applicability to the particular defendants. The objection will be overruled.
DR. TIPP: If the Tribunal please, may I add a comment? The Tribunal has asked us to restrict our final arguments to two hours; they also asked us, if possible, to file our closing arguments at least a fortnight before their delivery. That means that the defense will have to file their closing briefs by the middle of next week at the very latest. Concerning the present state and stage of the proceedings, we can not expect that the rebuttal and the subsequent cross examination will be concluded before the middle of next week.
Then if given the reason which the Tribunal has just stated, such evidence is accepted, the defense counsel are obliged to give additional reasons for those arguments in his closing brief. The Tribunal knows what an abundance of material has already been submitted in rebuttal. It is physically impossible for us to present, in our closing brief, everything we have to say. Time is pressing, and also technically we are not in a position to do our work by the time limit set by the Court. I believe therefore that the proceedings will require that these objections be decided just now so that the Prosecution, if they are in a position to make such a statement,may say whether they wish to assert and prove that the Railway Security Division-Croatia was subordinate to the 15th Corps. This element has never been presented before by the Prosecution. Therefore, in the direct examination of my client, I have not dealt with this point. It is an entirely new assertion of the Prosecution. I am in a position to refute this contention of the Prosecution. That is, I should have been in a position to have done that on direct examination because I know that in a war diary there is an entry to the effect that the Railway Security Division - Croatia was subordinate to another agency.
MR. FULKERSON: I don't see how it would speed things up here by having objections that take seven or eight minutes to utter. What you are now going into has to do with your closing statement, not with objection to a piece of testimony.
DR. TIPP: I have already stated, if the Tribunal please, that it is impossible for us to reply to this in our closing arguments. It is not a question of merely refuting a suggestion and of merely saying that General von Leyser was not the Commander of the Railway Security Division; it is a matter of proving this assertion and to prove this is impossible in the closing brief.
DR. TIPP: The Tribunal knows what an abundance of material has already been submitted in rebuttal. It is impossible for us to present in our closing brief everything we have to say. Time is pressing and also technically we are not in a position to do our work in the time limit set by the court. I believe the proceedings will require these objections be decided right now so that the prosecution if they are in a position to make a statement whether they wish to assert the railway security. This element has never been presented before by the prosecution and therefore in the direction examination of my client I have not dealt with this point. It is a completely navel assertion of the prosecution. I am in a position to refute this contention of the prosecution that is I should have been in the position to have done that in the direct examination because I know in the War Diary there is an entry to the effect.
MR. FULKERSON: I want to speed things up somewhat. It is not necessary to take twenty minutes to present this point.
DR. TIPP: I have already stated if the tribunal please it is impossible to us to reply to this. It is not a question of merely refuting a question and merely saying General von Leyser was in command of the railway security division and to prove this assertion is impossible in the closing briefs.
THE PRESIDENT: This document does not say it was subordinated to the defendant and the court is going to check carefully the responsibility of these particular individuals. I see no necessity for extending argument on this particular question. We will give it careful and thorough consideration but it will be received at this time for such probative value as the court deems it merits. The matter is closed and we will proceed with the next item.
DR. TIPP: Very well, I agree with the decision.
MR. FULKERSON: Now as I say in the extracts of this document of which we originally submitted only paragraph or sub-paragraph "C" out of all of the daily report of the 2nd of November, now if the Court will look back at the next page it will see that all of these various items on page 5 are supplements or details to daily reports which have already been submitted previously.
But in translating this, unfortunately, only that one item was picked out. That is, there is only one item under the daily report of November 4, 1943, was picked out in the translation. Since this purports to be a supplement to other detail reports and since we have in this document itself one daily report, that is the one for November 6th which is found on the first page of this document. I attempted to correlate the daily report with the supplement. That is possible. We did not, however, have the daily report of November, 4th, so that was sent for and that is this document Number 2828. I naturally expected when it arrived to find that it would have a subparagraph "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", etc as this supplement has. The court will notice it has not -- it really has three paragraphs in it with no sub-paragraphing at all. Fortunately, I was able to find someone cleverer than I and who was able to unlock the key to this, to the connection between the daily reports and supplements. If the court will look at those supplements, you will see that always under subparagraph "A" the incident itself is described, under sub-paragraph "B" is described the security measures which were enforced at the time, under sub-paragraph "C" it described the reprisal measures taken, under "D" security -- correction, security or patrolling activity and under "E" it is always reported whose responsibility or fault the incident was. Now it is introduced in rebuttal here merely to show or at least to show that General von Leyser when he looked over these documents did not have to work this out as a crossword puzzle as we did. He had the full text in German before him as I did not, due unfortunately to this partial translation, and he was not being frank and candit with the court when he made that statement.
DR. TIPP: If it please the tribunal, I object. It was said that in this stage of the proceedings there should be no arguments. The Prosecution has been arguing the last five minutes saying that General von Leyser of course possessed the key for this code. How the Prosecution arrived at this statement I don't know. The Prosecution asserts that of course, General von Leyser received the reports of other agencies, without proving this assertion.
I suggest the Prosecution be limited to submitting the document but there should be no arguing at this stage and no assertions of things that are not proven.
THE PRESIDENT: The tribunal is of the opinion that both the Prosecution and Defense Counsel have been violating its suggestions and admonitions from time to time. We have reserved an entire week for arguments and the Court will draw its own conclusions unaided at this time by comments from counsel of either side, argumentative comments. With these comments as a guide to all parties concerned, you may proceed.
MR. FULKERSON: We would next like to introduce as Prosecution Exhibit 659 -- sorry I have lost track of the exhibit numbers, 664, NOKW 2825. This document is being introduced simply in rebuttal in the following way. So many of these defendants have testified how they were badly mistreated by the American Armed Forces at the time they were first taken into custody, at least most of the complaints of that nature do relate to the time the defendants were first taken into custody, and we would like to introduce this document to show if that is so it at least was done in violation of the explicit orders of the highest American military authorities.
DR. LATERNSER: If it please the tribunal, I cannot see the relevance of this document. It was never asserted this was not done on order and the fact it happened is not refuted by this order.
MR. FULKERSON: If the defense is willing to stipulate that any instances of mistreatment of German prisoners of war were simply isolated examples which had they become known to the higher American military authorities would have been disapproved of and stopped, I will consent to not introduce this document, but the insinuations made here are all the other way.
DR. LATERNSER: I believe the Prosecution is asking for too much. We cannot make such statements -- then we ought to have knowledge of every case.
I really don't know what the Prosecution means.
THE PRESIDENT: This purported document does not refute the facts to which testimony has been given. It is immaterial and the objection will be sustained.
MR. FULKERSON: We would next like to introduce as Exhibit 665, NOKW 069.
THE PRESIDENT: 664.
MR. FULKERSON: I am sorry.
THE INTERPRETER: What was the exhibit number, if you please?
MR. FULKERSON: It was exhibit 664.
THE INTERPRETER: What document number, if you please?
MR. FULKERSON: It was 669.
The purpose of this document ....
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to present it to the Court at this time?
MR. FULKERSON: Yes, sir, I am. The purpose of introducing this document is to refute the often repeated assertions of the defendants that insofar as tactical operations of the German Army in the Southeast, particularly in Croatia, were concerned, they were conducted strictly in accordance with International Law. I don't want to try the patience of the Tribunal by reading this entire document. Have most of you looked at it? Have most of defense counsel looked at it? It is submitted against the defendant Rendulic.
DR. FRITSCH: If it please the Tribunal, may I request the Prosecutor to tell me what he really wants to do with this document in his rebuttal what proof and evidence of the defense is he referring to and what does he really want to refute?
MR. FULKERSON: Unfortunately, I am not prepared at this moment to give you a reference to the transcript by page, if that is necessary I can do it later; is that what you mean?
DR. FRITSCH: In that case, I can tell the Counsel for the Prosecution that this question was not discussed at all. I can tell you precisely that in the Indictment this Division Brandenburg and the affair involved with it is mentioned. Of course, I have been waiting for a proof. The Prosecution has not furnished it and therefore, naturally, I have not referred to it when submitting my evidence. Now at this stage to produce such evidence is a practice which should not be sustained.
MR. FULKERSON: My recollection is that the defendant Rendulic has said here on the witness stand that there was no violations of International Law by the German troops. This document plainly refutes that, if your Honors please.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me that with the time that we have given to this case and the preparation of these documents and the apparent number of people I have observed not only in the court room, but in the hallways, that are part of the prosecution staff, we can have some information as to the particular matter to which you refer and which you endeavour to disprove by this document?
MR. FULKERSON: If your Honor please, I will withdraw the document for the moment and attempt to furnish that information later on.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honor please, we next offer NOKW 2870. This is offered as Exhibit 664 against the defendant List. It is offered to refute his testimony of just a day or two ago that following his illness. he was no longer Commander in Chief of the XII Army. This document will show that as late as 30 October, 1941 he was signing an official document, this staff order.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed apparently there is no objection.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Thank you, your Honor. This staff order is dated: "Headquarters 30 October 1941," heading "The Wehrmacht Commander in the Southeast -- The Commander in Chief of the XIIth Army.
Colonel in the General Staff, Kuebler, Ia with the 12th Army since October 1939, has been assigned to new duties.
The accomplishments of my Ia in connection with the preparation and carrying out of the operations in the West in 1940 and the operation on the Balkans in 1941 are inseparably bound up with the battles and victories of the 12th Army.
Every member of the staff of the army headquarters is cognizent of the enormous amount of work which rested on the shoulders of the Ia. I am best able to judge with what untiring and inexhaustible work, and with what absolute reliability Colonel Kuebler has fulfilled his important and responsible tasks.
As man to man I have expressed to him my thanks for all this.
At this time when Colonel Kuebler is leaving us a feeling of honest gratitude for his faithful cooperation, for his good fellowship dominates the whole army. Colonel Kuebler's vigorous personality has impressed itself for ever on the hearts of all those who have worked with him and for him at this time.
Our best wishes accompany Colonel Kuebler in his new assignment. May the good luck of the soldier remain with him always.
signed List Field Marshal."
If your Honor please. I would like to have the photostatic copy of the document shown to your Honors, which has the signature of the Field Marshal signed in his own hand.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President......
THE PRESIDENT: Very briefly, Dr. Laternser.
DR. LATERNSER: Certainly, I have just seen that the Prosecution wishes to submit this document to the Court and it contains three letters on the top of the document: K.T.B. These letters mean War Diary. We have requested the War Diary of the Armed Forces Commander Southeast but we have never received it. If the Prosecution possess this War Diary and if the have with-held it from us, then, I move that this document be excluded because it is unfair by the Prosecution and then for the first time in this case I contend that this is an unfair behavior on the part of the Prosecution and I protest against it on that grounds.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: We have withheld nothing from the Defense, if your Honor please, that document arrived on my desk yesterday from Washington. Now that is a one page piece of paper, it was captured. Now if there was an entire war diary of the XIIth Army in Washington, then it would have been sent, it can only mean it was found there recently.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, very well, I want to emphasize that, of course, it was for us the most essential thing to obtain the War Diary of the Armed Forces Commander Southeast.
It did not come here. I as defense counsel of Fieldmarshal List attach the greatest importance to seeing the War Diary, which obviously exists and was not sent, before I conclude my case.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: This is the first document which the Prosecution has ever offered from the War Diary of the XIIth Army. I will withdraw it if I find out from Washington that there is an entire War Diary in Washington. Our information has been that there...... Withdrawn, I don't know whether we have ever asked for the War Diary. I assume when Dr. Laternser said he has demanded it he demanded it on the theory, that the Prosecution introduced excerpts from it, that is not my recollection.
DR. LATERNSER: May I have another look at this document, if the Tribunal please? I here state for the information of the Tribunal that I being a defense counsel cannot possibly discharge my duties as given me if the War Diary is withheld from me, although we have requested it. In that case, I am unable to proceed without getting the War Diary as soon as possible.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I want to say to Dr. Laternser that the mere fact that there are the initials KTB on this piece of paper, has nothing at all to do with whether there is a entire War Diary in Washington. This is a captured document.
DR. LATERNSER: If it please the Tribunal. If it says here "KTB" this means that this is a copy for the War Diary. Whether the remainder of the War Diary is there, of course I do not know, but I do not believe that this is a single document, there are a few holes and perforations as can be seen from the photostat and it must have been filed in a war diary or appendix. Therefore I maintain that this War Diary exists and I am entitled to make this statement having seen part of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Our previous order concerning documents, which were to be furnished from Washington, applied to portions of war diaries offered. There is no showing here that this is a portion of a war diary, other than the statement of counsel which we do not wish to question, but that does not indicate on its face this is a part of the war diary.
The objection will be over-ruled.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I would like the record to show that the Prosecution regrets very much the insinuations cast by Dr. Laternser's reflection upon the United States Government through its officials in Washington, I an certain that they did comply with the previous Court's ruling in this respect.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 17 January 1948.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal 5 in the matter of the United States of America against Wilhelm List, et al, defendants sitting at Nurnberg, Germany on the 16th day of January 1948, 0930, Judge Burke presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 5 Military Tribunal 5 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, have you ascertained that all defendants are present in the courtroom?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Burke will preside at this day's session. You may proceed.
MR. RAPP: Yesterday a number of photstated German mimeographed copies and a number of English copies were passed out during the course of our introduction of additional documentary evidence and they were not returned to us and I would like to ask the defense counsel to please return them and I give you the numbers: NOKW 1511, NOKW 1734, NOKW 2679, NOKW 1791. I will please ask the defense counsel to return these photostatic copies to me; then there are some German copies missing, 2431 and 2707 also NOKW and one English copy of 2707.
DR. LATERNSER: If it please the Tribunal, it was ahead, said yesterday that these documents or copies thereof had not been returned, I have already informed my colleagues in writing. Of course this will be settled in the course of the day.
DR. FRITSCH: If it please the Tribunal, yesterday I received at my request the photostat of Exhibit 655 from Mr. Rapp. The Tribunal will remember that it was an excerpt from War Diaries submitted against the defendant General Rendulic. I have a request to make. First, may I state that this is not merely a question of one war diary of one unit, but a series of war diaries of the 2nd Panzer Army and one of the 21st corps. I am most interested in the fact that some of the reports read here into the record by Mr. Rapp are not contained in the excerpt made available to me; as, of course, I need these very passages, I should like to request the Prosecution to hand them to me or to make available to me this photostat which has only been lent to me so far.
MR. RAPP: Of course, Your Honors, if some part has not appeared in the German transcript which we have read from the English -- I will furnish Dr. Fritsch the appropriate copies. We are very limited in one photostatic copies, but he can keep it until I exchange it for one mimeographed German copies.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: That should be satisfactory, I take it, Dr. Fritsch?
DR. FRITSCH: Yes, thank you.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, originally we intended to finish our documentary presentation this morning but Mr. Fenstermacher has had some transportation trouble and in order not to lose time, the Marshal is instructed to call the witness Hermann Hoth.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The Marshal will call the witness. Mr. Rapp, in what exhibit is the affidavit in question to be found?
MR. RAPP: That is contained, your Honor in the defense document book Number 1 for Helmuth Felmy, defense document 22 Exhibit Number 1, English page number 35.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Thank you.
HERMANN HOTH, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You will rise and repeat after me: 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.)
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may be seated.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, are you the Hermann Hoth born on the 12th of April 1885 who gave on the 23rd of June 1947 an affidavit for the defendant Felmy?
A My name is Hoth not Holt.
Q Will you please spell the name for the record?
A H-o-t-h. The other statements are correct.
Q Do you still remember the contents of this affidavit?
A Perfectly.
Q I would like to give you now this affidavit that you have yourself written and like you to identify and tell us whether or not that is the affidavit you have reference to?
A That is correct, that is the affidavit I made.
Q Tell us how you came about to give us this affidavit, did you voluntarily send it to Nurnberg or did defense counsel approach you? Tell us that.
A I received a request by defense counsel for the defendant Felmy to make a statement as to the personality of Felmy in the form of an affidavit.
Q Were you told about what you were to write?
A No, not at all.
Q Is that all you knew to write - in other words you didn't know anything else about General Felmy?
A I believe that as far as I recollect now I could have added something.
Q I wonder if you could do that now.
A I met Felmy in the first World War, from reports which he being a young flight officer - air officer made on his activities on the Sinai peninsula where he was the leader of the only German air detachment. I remember very distinctly that at that time he explained the conditions and limitations of German warfare and in such a distant theater. He did that in a very serious way without making any bones about it and in a very responsible fashion which I still recall very distinctly today. He certainly knew that his report was in opposition to and contrary to the views of higher headquarters. I also know and remember from that time that Felmy enjoyed the special esteem and respect of the Arab tribes on the Sinai peninsula because he had been successful in feeling his way into the pecularities and lives of these people.
It was very difficult to find a successor for him afterwards. That is what I wanted to add.
Q Witness, did you ever -- you can take your earphones off now. Have you ever during the war in Greece served under General Felmy?
A No.
Q Do you know what General Felmy did in Greece?
A Only by hearsay, very little.
Q Witness, will you please refer to your affidavit you wrote. I believe in the second paragraph of your affidavit at the end of the second paragraph you say "his strict and just decision and his warm heartedness, impressed me particularly at that time" and then two or three lines below, "on occasion of his turning over his office I was especially aware of his warm human feeling and his sense of justice." Then, "At the time I was removed from my position in Braunschweig, because I had taken measures against inhuman acts of the Party." The last I want to read to you: "I know that Felmy enjoyed the greatest respect of the population of the city on account of his just and independent attitude." Witness, these characteristics you recorded in your affidavit, I assume, are those characteristics which impressed you most?
A That is partially correct. These are his human qualities. But I was also impressed by his military qualities.
Q Do you now feel yourself, Witness, on account of those human qualities which you recognize in Felmy, do you feel yourself close to him i.e. that he is, on the same basis, the same level as you are?
A I dare say that is true.
Q Witness, did you know that General Felmy was a Party member?
A No, I didn't know that.
Q. Now, the last paragraph of this affidavit of yours, "According to my long personal acquaintance" -- have you found that?
A. Certainly.
Q. (Continued) "with Felmy he is anything but a wild militarist or a brute." Do you also agree with Felmy on that point?
A. I believe I can say that for myself.
Q. And then the very last sentence, "I believe him to be incapable of a dishonest act, and especially of using force or committing a crime." In consideration of his talents, his character and his upright character, is your personal character along the same lines as that of General Felmy?
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: What is the question?
MR. RAPP: I asked the witness whether or not he identified himself as far as his character is concerned also with the defendant.
A. That is an appraisal of another person. How I myself am appraised, I do not know.
Q. But you do appreciate in others these certain attributes?
A. I certainly do.
Q. Witness, what was your attitude during the war with regard to so-called "inhuman acts"?
A. I witnessed such inhuman acts on the Russian side and have certainly condemned them.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW (on behalf of the defendant Felmy): I object to this question as being irrelevant to the topic -- that is, the affidavit made on behalf of General Felmy.
DR. RAPP: If your Honor please, I am trying to impeach the credibility of the witness . . . I will rephrase the question.
Q. Witness, you said before that you appreciated these certain character qualities which you had enumerated, that you appreciated them especially in General Felmy apart from his military qualities?
A. That is correct.
Q. Were they the very same things and qualities which you expected from your officers and enlisted men, the same qualities of character?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: I object again on the same ground.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: We will take the answer to this question.
A. One moment please, I will answer that in a moment. One expects from an officer sometimes something different and exacts different demands than one puts to subordinates who hold a lower rank. Here I dealt with qualities I expected from a leader, an officer which I appreciated particularly and which I consequently expected from other officers and would have liked to have seen in other officers.
Q Witness, what was the largest unit which you commanded during the war?
A I shall -
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW (Counsel for defendant Felmy): I object to this question, Your Honors, as having nothing to do with the affidavit.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection will be overruled.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, the witness was about to say something. Inasmuch as defense counsel objected, may I inquire what the witness wanted to say?
A I wanted to say that on this question I shall make statements in the trial in which I shall be a defendant but, if the defense attached importance to my answer, I am also prepared to give that answer now.
Q You are being indicted in another case, are you?
A Yes, I am.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I think the witness should be warned that he has a right to rely upon his personal rights not to incriminate himself if he chooses not to answer.
Q Witness, can you answer the question, which was the largest unit which you commanded during the war?
A On reflection I think I can answer that question without damaging my own case. The highest rank which I held was Generaloberst (General) and Commander in Chief of an armored division.
Q Were you ever commander of the 17th Army?
A I was Commander-in-Chief of the 17th Army.
Q Witness, you told us before that you attached great importance to the character qualities of your staff officers?
A Certainly.
Q What about ideology?
A Do you mean my own ideology or what do you mean?
Q That of your officers. Did you attach importance to the ideology of your officers?
A I did attach importance to the fact that my officers were schooled in the traditions of the old German officer corps and that they maintained those traditions.
Q Did you attach importance to your officers studying the Hitler ideology?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW (Counsel for defendant Felmy): I object to this question, Your Honors. This has nothing to do with the affidavit.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection will be overruled.
A May I comment on this question in my own case in which I am the defendant?
Mr. Rapp: Your Honors, I submit if I cannot cross examine this witness on questions pertaining to his own character for the purpose of impeaching his veracity, I am sort of at a loss.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: That is a choice you will have to make in your behalf.
MR. RAPP: That being the case, Your Honor, I have no further questions of the witness. I would like to have the Tribunal take judicial notice of the fact that the affiant of this affidavit is under indictment, that he cannot be properly cross examined - and I would like the Court to take judicial notice of that fact.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: When was he indicted? When was he placed under indictment?
MR. RAPP: I do not know, Your Honor.
Q Would you please - witness , what was the date on which you were indicted?
A It was the beginning of December of the year 1947. That is when the indictment was served on me, on that date.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Do you recall the date of the affidavit on behalf of the defendant Felmy?
A That was the 23rd of July 1946 - correction - the 23rd of June 1947.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Are there any further questions to this witness?
MR. RAPP: Not in view of the fact that the witness pleads selfincrimination; in other words, if he does not want to answer any questions which I may like to put to him in connection with self incrimination, then I have no further questions, Your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Any questions on the part of the Court?
Any questions, Mr. Rapp?
MR. RAPP: If the ruling of the Court -
JUDGE CARTER: Mr. Rapp, there has been no ruling of the Court.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, the Court has instructed the witness that he may, if he so chooses, not have to answer questions which may tend to incriminate him. I have now asked the witness a question. He said he would be prepared to answer that question before another Tribunal under indictment. These questions are important for me. I presume very many more questions I am trying to ask the witness will be selfincriminating. If he pleads this, there is no purpose in trying to question the witness further.
JUDGE CARTER: Judge Burke made a correct statement as to the rule; there is no question about that. The witness, of course, is entitled not to answer if he would thereby incriminate himself.
MR. RAPP: Then I withdraw the question. I will put a new question to the witness and will go on from there, if Your Honors please.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
Q Witness, did you attach importance in your capacity as Commander in Chief of the 17th Army that your officers corps was indoctrinated in the racial Nationalist Socialist sense?
A I did not quite understand that. What do you mean by indoctrination?
Q Did they have to identify themselves in the Nazi ideology?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: (Counsel for the defendant Felmy): Objection, if the Tribunal please; this question is irrelevant to the affidavit.