Q. Were there ever any serious conflicts or differences of opinion that you were a witness to between Geitner and Bader?
A. Perhaps differences of opinions is rather too strong a term. The Chief of Staff often stated that he was not in agreement with the reprisal measures. The Commanding General, however, was independent and was such a strong personality that he took the whole responsibility on his own shoulders and acted accordingly.
Q. Now, didn't you say in your affidavit that General Geitner wanted to preserve the valuable lived of the national Serbs because he needed them for the reconstruction of Serbia? Did you say that, or similar words?
A. Yes, that was his definite opinion, because General Geitner thought that the Serbs were an especially valuable people; as they demonstrated already in the First World War.
Q. On that point he must have had some different opinions from the one demonstrated by General Bader, didn't he?
A. I assume that General Bader also had a similar opinion, but he, because of the orders given, could not act differently. As far as I know, later on he was also relieved on the Balkans and sent home.
Q. Well, do you want to make that statement in inference to the fact that he was opposed to these kind of measures, or do you just mention it parenthetically?
A. Yes, -- no, by this I meant to say that -- I wanted to try and say that General Bader, as far as any impression of him went, that he was also not one hundred per cent for the reprisal measures, because he mentioned this during the submission of the daily reports. He personally suffered from the necessity of issuing orders on request of the OKW.
Q. How did these orders from the OKW usually reach him?
Directly, or through the Twelfth Army, or both ways?
A. I assume always through the Twelfth Army.
Q. Witness, did you have sufficient troops at your disposal to combat the partisans effectively?
A. The question is difficult to answer in that form. The country was effectively occupied with approximately a strength of troops which the Americans and the Allies now have in the American and British Zone. According to my knowledge and according to my observation, I think the strength is about the same.
Q. How, how was the quality of the troops? Was it adequate for the task?
A. At the beginning, yes. After the insurrection movement began to spread and as from the outside - especially from the Italian occupied territory - insurgents, Tito Bands, etc., streamed into the country, they were in that extraordinarily difficult terrain-we must remember that Yugoslavia is a very mountainous country they were actually not up to the task.
Q. Witness, you said "At the beginning, yes". Of what period do you speak?
A. That was from the the of my arrival in Serbia, August, September, 1941. We then had an increased band activity from about October onwards and to suppress this band activity one division came from France, the 243rd; and one came from Russia, and who were in complete mastery of the situation and were able to crush the insurrection.
Q. Do you recall having made the following statement, Witness: "Herr von Geitner in repeated reports and messages to his superiors stated that a real pacification of the country and the securing of the German supply lines on the Danube and the railway to Greece is not possible without sufficient good German troops."
A. Yes.
Q. You didn't talk about any particular period and you didn't talk about the fact that that fluctuated; that you sometimes had more and some times had less divisions. Generally speaking, would you still say that during the entire period that you were there this statement would hold true?
A. I would like to maintain my statement, as I said it previously, because when I made my affidavit I was not replying to your questions. I only stated what I knew about General Geiter, adding that the forces which he had were not sufficient at the time to crush the insurrection.
Q. You said the troops were "bad". You mean the quality of the troops?
A. Yes, first of all, - at least - they had bad equipment. They were so-called Divisions of the 15th Wave, which were set up at home and were originally provided for other tasks, and they were not adequate to deal with the combating of bands in this mountainous terrain.
Q. Was the SS Division, Prince Eugene, qualified to carry out its task against the partisans?
A. In another country, perhaps yes, but for Serbia they seemed to us to be unsuitable, since in the Balkans blood fueds, etc., play a very great part, and when a division is committed which has been recruited from the country itself, it has an unfavorable effect in the country, because these mentioned feelings of hate come to the fore.
Q. You said the racial Germans of the SS Division Prince Eugene and of the police battalions were not fit for the pacification of Serbia, because personal revenge of the racial Germans against the Serbians often was carried out in that way?
A. Yes, I believe I stated that, too.
Q Witness, what was the highest ratio that you have personal knowledge of that was carried out in connection with reprisal executions?
A I think I remember that at my time it was 1 to 100, as was actually ordered; and then, on the protest of the competent commander, it was decreased to 1 to 50.
Q Have you ever put your own signature, in the name of the Commanding General of Serbia, under any paper which mentioned these reprisal figures?
A No, I cannot remember.
Q Was that your job?
A No.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The Tribunal will take its morning recess at this time.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You may proceed.
MR. RAPP: Thank you.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, prior to the recess, we discussed the point of whether or not you personally, in the name of the Commanding General for Serbia, Bader, ever signed your name to reports which dealt with reprisal measures.
A It is quite possible with reports which were channeled to superior headquarters, if they had something to do with daily reports etc. I do not recall that with respect to any other instances.
Q In other words, I understand you correctly that you did not sign orders, in the name of the Commanding General, for the execution of reprisal measures. Is that right?
A I cannot conceive that I would ever sign something like that.
Q Why not?
A Because the Commanding General himself reserved the right to do that.
Q Witness, I don't think you understand me. I said that you signed for, or in the name of; I did not say that you ordered it. I merely said:
For the Commanding General and Military Commander. Serbia, signed with the typewriter his name, and, underneath, your signature. Now, is that impossible?
A I cannot remember.
Q Well, let us for a minute forget whether you can recall it or not. I would like to first of all ascertain whether that that I have asked you would be possible or probable?
A No.
Q I will summarize your statements. It is neither probable nor possible nor did you do it, as far as you can recall?
A Yes.
Q Now did I hear you correctly to say that the signing of reprisal measures was the prerogative of the Military Commander, Bader?
A Yes.
Q And did I furthermore understand you correctly when you say that nobody, including yourself, was authorized to sign such orders in the name of the Military Commander?
A Yes, that did happen.
Q Will you tell us about that - when did that happened?
A There are the following examples: In the first place, the deputy to the Military Commander could do that; on principle, in the second place, the Chief, General von Geitner, as far as I recall in one or two cases signed such an order if the Commander was not present and the reprisals had been ordered orally or in writing by the Deputy, or the reprisal measures had been authorized by him. The clerical matters relating to the reprisal measures were then dealt with by the Chief.
Q Witness, in your affidavit you stated that the Chief of Staff, General von Geitner, directed you to put all the correspondence and orders which he, Geitner, had signed, before General Bader for his approval in the event he had returned from a trip, or he was absent?
A I should like to state in this connection that this did not concern all the orders but merely such matters as came within my sphere of work.
Q Now I want to narrow it down, now, and want to talk about reprisal orders, and I want to put the question to you this way. General Bader is absent. His Deputy Commander, or Acting Commander at that time, instructs General Geitner to issue an order for the execution of hostages, as a reprisal measure. Geitner puts that order out in the name of that Acting Commander. Did you have to put this letter or order before the Military Commander, for his approval, when he returned?
AAs far as I recall, all essential matters which had been ordered in his absence were submitted to him in a file, which ho either took home and studied in the evenings, or which he returned to us at the end of the day.
Q I understand that, witness. There is only one word I would like you to clarify for me. In the affidavit you used the German word "Genehmigung" which I believe is "approval." Do you want to say that you put that to the Commanding General for his information or for his approval?
A That is very difficult for me to say because the General wanted to see all matters, so that if ho did not agree with any matters he would ascertain and call to account the responsible party who ordered the matters and tell them to do things differently the next time he was absent.
Q But you realize, witness, that dealing with the complex of reprisal measures it is rather beside the point, is it not, if General Bader, upon his return, approves of the measures or not, because the people, I am sure, have already been executed?
A But in the case something wrong had been done, I am only assuming that - then he would have been able to correct matters, so that things would have been done differently the next time.
Q But as far as the act itself is concerned, what was wrong at that time could not be rectified any more.
A No, it could not.
Q Witness, in your affidavit you also stated that somebody in the Twelfth Army considered General Geitner's attitude towards the Serbian population as being too kind. The word you used was "wohlwollend."
A Yes.
Q Who, specifically, in the Twelfth Army, raised that objection?
A I cannot say that. I only know it from utterances made by General von Geitner to me, because he had the feeling that he was not trusted in this matter.
Q Who was General Geitner's counterpart in the Twelfth Army at that time?
A You mean as Chief of Staff?
Q Yes?
A That was General Foertsch.
Q Did Geitner and Foertsch have any business dealings with each other?
A General Foertsch, in his capacity as Chief of the General Staff of the Army and the Army Group, was the superior of General von Geitner. They telephoned frequently and, on the occasion of visits in Belgrade or Saloniki, they met and talked with each other.
MR. RAPP: I have no further questions, your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. MENZEL (Counsel for defendant Kuntze):
Q Witness, at the end of yesterday's examination you stated as to who was competent and responsible for ordering reprisal measures and you said that the commanders were responsible.
A Yes.
Q In this connection you also mentioned the names of the two supreme commanders, General Field Marshal List and General Kuntze. Did I understand you right, that individual reprisal measures were only ordered by the commander himself?
A Yes, in the area of Serbia, certainly. How the procedure was in other areas, I do not know.
Q Yes, certainly, for the area of Serbia. Did the supreme commanders ever issue an order for reprisals in individual cases?
A That is not known to me.
Q Now, I would like to leave reprisal orders in individual cases aside, I would like to drop this end and return to the basic order providing for reprisal measures. Were these basic orders, referring to reprisal measures, inventions of whoever happened to be the Commander in Chief Southeast or did they originate from a superior agency?
AAs far as I know, they did originate from a higher agency, the OKW and or Hitler himself personally.
Q And how then did it happen that they were forwarded to the Commander in Chief Southeast?
A I suppose through channels or mail.
Q In other words, they were orders that were transmitted through channels?
A They came from the superior agency via mail and so forth.
Q Do you know whether reprisal measures on principle were only to be effected if the perpetrators had not been apprehended?
A I do remember that.
Q Do you know whether in the case of reprisal measures, as a matter of principle, prisoner bandits -- that is guerillas -- were used or any other people?
AAs a rule, those persons were used who, as I said yesterday, had collaborated with the partisans, people who had plotted and perpetrated raids, who had supported the saboteurs, who had sheltered them or fed them and so on.
Q Also partisans themselves?
A Partisans, too, unless they had been shot in combat. There was a case, as you are asking me, that was somewhat different. That was under General Boehme in the year 1941. That was the Kraljevo incident.
Q Do you recall the month when this Kraljevo incident happened?
A I think in October 1941.
Q Could it also have been September 1941?
A That might have been possible. I believe that General Boehme, as Plenipotentiary Commanding General in Serbia, had been assigned in the middle of September.
Q Do you know whether reprisal measures in Serbia in the course of the year 1942 decreased in number?
A That is very difficult to answer.
Q You don't know?
A It is very difficult to say. In 1942 there was a time when they did decrease very considerably. That was when the mopping-up operations in Southern Serbia had been effected, about at the end of March 1942. The partisan insurgent activity increased especially in the summer of 1942 when the Combat group "West Bosnia" was being committed at Sarajervo.
Q Was it then so that the decrease occurred in the first half of 1942?
A I should prefer to say in the summer 1942. I then also recall the reason for this phenomenum; the reason were the successful measures against the insurgents in Serbia. By virtue of those successful measures, a number of partisans had left for Bosnia and Croatia.
Q Now, quite briefly, as for the reduction of the reprisal ratios. You said previously that the reprisal ratios had been reduced -- you mentioned in this connection the commanders. Do you know that this reduction of reprisal ratios occurred in agreement with and upon the instigation of General Kuntze?
A I do know that and I also committed myself in writing to this effect General Kuntze on his trip to Northern Italy for a conference with the Italian General Staff, to which I was detailed as ADC, told me in the train in the course of a conversation that he did not agree with the reprisal ratio as ordered by the OKW and that at that time he had taken measures that they were to be reduced from 1 to 100 to 1 to 50. That happened in the first days of February 1942.
Q In the beginning of 1942?
A Yes, certainly.
Q You say that this reduction was effected by petitions. Do you recall the details or would you say, as you did in your affidavit -- may I quote to you the sentence as contained in the affidavit and I would like to ask you whether that sentence is correct:
"General Kuntze voiced several times his opinion that the number appeared to him to high and that upon his instigation it had been substantially reduced."
Do you still hold this sentence and maintain it?
A Yes, I do.
Q One more brief question as to the Ic, Kalsow: did he remain or didn't he?
A He did remain.
Q Do you know whether his replacement had been applied for because of his false appraisal of the situation or don't you recall that?
A That may have been one of the reasons, the initial reason. If I may think about it for a moment, I may say something more about it. I do remember it now. It was like this:
Major Kalsow, before the beginning of major fights in Croatia, had pointed out that the Scrimage -- that is the name of the mountaineous area near Banja-Luka -- there was an attack from the Tito band forces to be anticipated. This view at the time did not please the Army. The view of Major Kalsow, however, turned out to be right and that was probably the reason for a certain friction between the Ic of the army and Major Kalsow.
Q That was this appraisal of the situation which the Army thought to be wrong?
A The Army did think it was wrong at the time but afterwards it turned out to be right.
Q Could it possibly be that other cases also occurred which might have come to your knowledge other cases of a false evaluation of the situation?
A I don't know anything about other cases.
DR. MENZEL: That is all I have to ask the witness.
DR. LATERNSER (Counsel for defendants List and von Weichs): If it please the Tribunal, I shall only put a very few questions on behalf of Field Marshal List, questions arising from the cross examination.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q Witness, you talked in the course of cross examination about the 12th Army. Did the 12th Army ever -- that is, in their own name -insist upon the enforcement of reprisal measures?
A I cannot recall such a case.
Q Is the view correct. That is, the views held by the 12th Army regarding reprisal measures -- did they agree with the view held by your Staff on the same topic?
A I did not quite clearly get the question.
Q In your official business with the 12th Army, could you ascertain that in the Staff of the 12th Army, as far as reprisals were concerned, they held the same view as held in your own staff, as you described it today on cross-examination?
A That is very difficult to tell.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Q In other words, was the staff of the 12th Army a trouble making staff?
A I did not get that impression.
Q You talked during cross examination of a Major Macher of the 12th Army. Can you recall when you met and talked to this Major Macher?
A That was in the Spring of 1942.
Q That was at a time when Fieldmarshall List was no longer in the Balkans?
A I think that was at the time after List had been transferred to Salonika.
Q To what period did your testimony refer in substance, the testimony you have given here?
A To the same period, Spring 1942.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you; I have no further questions.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH (Counsel for defendant Foertsch):
Q Witness, you have replied to a question by the Prosecution as to whether General Foertsch was the opponent or counterpart of General Geitner. You said "yes". What did you mean by that?
A I meant that with regard to his official capacity. The question, if I understood it rightly, was to the effect as to who was the corresponding officer holding the same position with the Army or Army Group, as General Geitner had it with the Commander Serbia.
Q You further stated that General Foertsch had been considered by you as the superior of General Geitner. In connection with that, I must ask you the following. Did you once read the manual for the General Staff?
A Yes, I have.
Q But you yourself have not been a general staff officer.
A For some time, I was supposed to go there, but because of political unreliability I was not taken.
Q On the basis of your training and education and experience Court No. V, Case No. VII.
as an officer in the staff, are you familiar with the authority and functions of a chief of staff?
A Yes, I am.
Q Do you know whether a chief of staff holds any authority to issue orders and whether he is a superior.
A He was the superior of the officer on his staff.
Q Is he also the superior of the subordinated troops?
A In the case of troops subordinated to an army corps, an army or an army group, never.
Q May I then ask you how you arrived at your statement that General Foertsch -- that is, the Chief of the General Staff of the 12th Army -- had been General Geitner's superior.
A The question was put in a different context -- that is, the question by the Prosecutor. It was asked if these two corresponded to each other as far as their positions were concerned. And in this respect, the Chief of Staff of an Army has a certain right to issue instructions to the Staff Officers of subordinate units.
Q And who was the superior of General Geitner?
A General Bader.
Q To what matters did the right to issue instructions you just mentioned refer -- that is the right of the superior chief of staff -to the chief of staff of the next subordinate agency?
AAbove all, it referred to dealing with and coordinating the work of the General Staff Officers of the subordinate agency.
Q And to what matters in the military sphere of the staff did this refer?
A. Operational Technical matters.
Q Would you please repeat your answer? It has not been entirely translated.
A Questions regarding the purely operational command of the troops.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Thank you. I have no further questions.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
BY DR. SAUTER (Counsel for defendant von Geitner):
Q Prince, I have only two questions to put to you to clarify something. The one question is in regards the effectiveness of the occupation of Serbia by the German occupation troops in Serbia was effective at that time.
A Yes, I did.
Q Now, in order to make this quite clear, I should like to re-phrase the question put to you and make it a little more precise by asking you: was it, for instance, in the second part of the year 1942 -- was it possible at any time in that period -- for the available German troops to get to any place in the occupied area; that is, could any area occupied by the insurgents be retaken and could it be held?
A Yes, it could.
Q Did you clearly understand the question? Would you answer it please with "yes" or "no".
A Yes, it was possible for the troops to each any place in the Serbian area.
Q And then a second question on a different topic.-- I return to the, let's call them fictitious reports of false reports in which you thought that it was open to dispute as to whether they were false or true reports. If I understood you rightly, then, you have told us -- please pay attention now and tell me whether it is correct so that afterwards you can answer yes or no -- in case of small sabotage incidents, the troops -- that is, your office -- lists dead who had fallen or lost their lives in some other connection in this area; you reported them in such a way as to convey the impression that they were people who had been killed within the scope of a reprisal measure, so that the superior agency, the OKW, was to get the impression that, for instance, ten people had been killed -- that is, the reprisal had been carried out but in reality the reprisal measure was carried out at all. That was done in order to convey the impression to the superior agency that the order had been complied with?
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
MR. RAPP: I object, your Honors. First of all the witness never said anything to that effect. I think if Dr. Sauter wants him to repeat that question and put the question to him and give his answer it would be much simpler; we could get to the point, rather than have Dr. Sauter stand here and tell something the witness didn't say in the first place.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Objection sustained.
DR. SAUTER: Of course. I cannot possibly agree to that. I cannot possibly agree to what the Prosecutor prescribed to the defense, that we ought to phrase our questions in exactly the same way as the Prosecution. The Prosecution may ask as they like but we question in the way we think is correct.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The objection has been ruled on, and there is no question that you can interrogate him about the matter, but let the witness do the testifying, Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: In that case, I waive my right to put further questions.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, you said that you couldn't recall any instance where the 12th Army put your headquarters under pressure as to whether or not reprisal measures had been carried out or were ordered. Did you make that statement?
A May I ask you to repeat the question?
Q To a question by Dr. Laternser, I understood you to say -and I would like you to verify that for me, whether or not I got it right -- that the 12th Army did not put your headquarters under pressure as to whether or not reprisal measures had been ordered or carried out.
A If I may comment on this as to existence of pressure or not, I have already stated to you, Mr. Prosecutor, that inquiries were made to us which, in effect, were a control and they were, therefore, very Court No. V, Case No. VII.
important to us.
Q And who checked that? What agency was it which supervised you?
AAll superior agencies, inclusive of the 12th Army, the Army Group and the OKW.
Q Witness, did I overhear you to say that you were not permitted to actually enter as a full-fledged member of the German General Staff Corps on account of your political unreliability?
A Yes.
Q Do you have to be politically reliable to be a member of the German General Staff Corps?
A In this connection I ought to define the matter a little more precisely. The main reason was my close relationship to the kings of Greece and Great Britain. As such I was considered unreliable by the counter intelligence agency.
Q I see. Do you have other relations in Germany who are closer related to the king of England and to the king of Greece, do you?
A Yes, I do.
Q Some of them were members of the Nazi Party. Isn't that right?
A I don't think that is true of persons related to the king of England.
JUDGE BURKE: There is probably a very large family, Mr. Prosecutor, and if you attempted to explore all the limbs of the family tree, we might be here a considerable period of time.
MR. RAPP: I propose to ask no further questions, Your Honor.
DR. SAUTER: I was just going to object to this question, -but even if Mr. Rapp does not want to put any further questions, I still have to object. I think such a method of questioning is entirely inadmissible.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The situation seems to have solved itself.
DR. LATERNSER: I have one more substantive question.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q Witness, did you regret the fact that at that time you could not be admitted to the General Staff Corps for those reasons?
A Yes, I did at that time.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you. No further questions.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Any further cross-examination
MR. RAPP: No, your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Any further re-direct, or questions by the Tribunal?
JUDGE BURKE: I have no questions.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The witness will be excused.
MR. FULKERSON: The prosecution is ready to cross-examine the affiant Willy Zorn who made two affidavits for the defendant Dehner, both of which are to be found in Dehner Book VI.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The Marshal will call the witness.
WILLY ZORN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you raise your right hand and be sworn?
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
JUDGE BURKE: Mr. Fulkerson, did you say this is Dehner Book VI?
MR. FULKERSON: Yes, sir. The affidavits are documents numbered 33 and 34, respectively, introduced as Dehner Exhibits 32 and 33.
JUDGE BURKE: We don't seem to have the book. We don't seem to have the copy.
MR. FULKERSON: Will you tell the witness that we are just waiting until the judges got their books?
(The interpreter gave the information to the witness.)
MR. RAPP: While we are waiting, may I ask defense counsel to return to us please the photostatic copies of NOKW-2679, 1231, and 1791 Prosecution Exhibit 653, 650, but the same photostat that I have given tho NOKW number right now. Sometime, Dr. Laternser, before tonight, possibly? Thank you.
MR. FULKERSON: While we are waiting, I may mention now to prevent this from happening again than there are two other affiants who also made affidavits which were introduced in behalf of the defendant Dehner and their affidavits are to be found in Dehner Books V and VII, so if the Tribunal will procure those books for this afternoon's session, we can expedite matters, and also Rendulic Document Book I.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You may proceed with this witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION of the witness Willi Zorn.
BY MR. FULKERSON:
Q Your name is Willy Zorn?
A Yes.
Q And what is your business or profession?
A Barber.
Q And you made two affidavits for the defendant General Dehner here on November 28 of last year, I believe?
A Yes.
Q What was your relationship to General Dehner during the war?
A I was the personal driver of General Dehner.
Q You were his chauffeur? You drove his personal car?
A Yes.
Q And you state here-well first, you were with General Dehner how long in Croatia?
A I was with him in Croatia from July 1943 to March. 1944.
Q That was the whole time that General Dehner was down there? You were there as long as he was?
A Yes.
Q When General Dehner travelled around, did he generally go by car or did he generally go by train?
A Well, mostly by car, but he didn't make any faily long trips by car.
Q Now, I suppose that in this relationship that existed between you and General Dehner, you got to be personally friendly toward each other? I mean that is only natural?
A Yes. For the long time I spend with him, we wre well acquainted and I did know him fairly well.
Q And I suppose that as you took these trips in a car together, you would discuss things with each other? You would converse with each other?
A Yes.
Q And when General Dehner had something on his mind, for example some tactical problem that was bothering why he would from time to time discuss these, things with you?
A Yes. - Well directly tactical matters he did not discuss with me.
Q Well, when there was then, say, some question of general policy in the corps that was on his mind, would he discuss these things with you?
A No, not really.
Q Were you generally present when General Dehner had conferences with his various divisional commanders?
A No, I was not, I did not attend them.
Q Well, would you overhear conversations sometimes between General Dehner and his subordinate officers as they drove along in the automobile together?
A Well, they did talk in the car but, being the chaufeeur, I wouldn't pay such particular attention to it.
Q Well, when was it that you received your information about General Dehner's attitude toward disciplinary measures and his general policy within the corps area?
DR. GAWLIK: If it please the Tribunal, I object to the question. In the first place, it is much too general formed. I do not know, I don't understand the question myself. I don't know what is meant by methods one could discuss this topic for hours; and in the second place the question does not refer to the affidavit. I request the prosecution to state the question more precisely and to tell us exactly what he means.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Overruled.
BY MR. FULKERSON:
Q Would you answer the question, please?
A Well, I can't quite understand what you mean.
Q Well, now, you have made some statements herein your affidavit about General Dehner's attitude toward disciplinary measures. I was just wondering where it was that you acquired your knowledge of his attitude?
DR. GAWLIK: If it please the Tribunal, I object again but I think that the translation did not come through properly. The translation referred to "disciplinary questions", which words are not contained in the affidavit. I don't know whether there was a mistake in translation or whether the Prosecutor actually said it.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The objection will be overruled, but the question may be asked again.