Towards the end of this discussion I persuaded him at least 29 June M LJG 6-1 to the point where he promised me that he would try to use his influence with Hitler himself so that this plan would not be carried through.
In connection with that I spoke to Ambassador Ruehle, the liaison man of the Foreign Office. I asked Ruehle to approach his minister along those same lines and to got him to do something as well. I then spoke to State Secretary Naumann and put a request to him along the same lines, to use his influence with Bormann, whose predominant influence was well known. this was not permitted to me but, nevertheless, I had a discussion with the Protective P ower representative. I told him about this in confidence and hinted, in a certain way, about the plans that I had heard about. I asked him whether he could suggest anything or furnish me with an argument or with an instrument so that I could fight against this plan more effectively and more intensively. He stated that he would attend to this matter with dispatch. He called no the next morning and we had a second discussion. On that occasion he told me that in the meantime he had had prospects of having prisoners exchanged prise, I believe, 50,000 men. customary diplomatic channels, but to permit me to discuss the possibility of a prisoner of war exchange with Dr. Goebbels, Naumann, and Bormann. I did so, and just at that period of time the leadership was especially interested in having prisoners of war returned to their home countries so that they could once more take their place as soldiers. prisoners was going to affect the question of whether 40,000 English and American and Russian fliers would be killed as a reprisal?
A The following seemed to appear to me. At the time when we had a chance to bring about an exchange of prisoners of 29 Juno M LJG 6-2 war between two belligerents, an action which was beyond thoughts of humanity and beyond law had to be replaced by this.
At that moment when we talked about an exchange of prisoners of war, the thought of a gigantic program of shooting of prisoners would have to be crowded out of the picture and would have to be pushed into the background.
I can conclude briefly. I told Dr. Goebbels about it. This plan was discussed in the evening with Hitler, and I had two reports from the different sources. Both of those reports coincided. An unusual circumstance was that this offer was sent through in the usual bureaucratic way some days after this strange incident had occurred. BY THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle) :
Q When did you hear about Hitler's order, not with respect to these prisoners, but with respect to the fliers who had landed? When did you first hear of that? abroad with respect to that order. Did you know about it then?
Q You know about that order in the autumn of 1944?
Q When did you know about it?
A I cannot tell you exactly, but in the autumn of 1944? I did not know this order. S ince I am under oath I have to be extremely careful. I believe I only heard about this order here in this courtroom. However, there is a little confusion in my memory; I seem to be confused about the campaign of Dr. Goebbels which I have just described. February when they were discussing the killing of 40,000 prisoners, was it not? prisoners killed, did you?
A Of course, at that moment at which Dr. Goebbels was 29 June M LJG 6-3 relating this I believed that Hitler planned to carry it through.
Q Then the answer is "yes". you?
A The 40,000 men?
A Generally speaking?
Q And what other of the leaders wished them killed? It was apparently discussed a good goal; who else in the government was in favor of this policy?
A I cannot say that with assurance. The only other person who would be concerned here would be Bormann. However, I do know to the contrary, which was an attempt to persuade Hitler differently, made by Ruehle and by the then Foreign Minister Ribbentrop. He worked along these lines. killing the prisoners? I am not clear on that. Did Ribbentrop know about it? At that time I instructed Ambassador Ruehle about it, and I asked him to try to mobilize Ribbentrop. Thereafter, a day or two later, Ruehle started--we were telephoning back and forth and we were quite excited-
Q I don't need the details. The answer is that the Foreign Office know, even if Ribbentrop personally may not have known. Is that right?
Q Do you know hwat attitude Bormann took in this matter?
this plan of Hitler's to shoot those 40,900, but afterwards, 29 June M LJG 6-4 under the influence of Goebbels and Naumann he took the opposite view and worked with the thought of dissuading Hi tier from this plan.
of the Wehrmacht?
Q It is suggested that I should also ask you this. Do you knew what attitude Ribbentrop took on the shooting of those prisoners?
A Yes. After the report by Ambassador Ruehle he was in favor of preventing this shooting plan, and he tried to use his influence. However, I don't know how he tried to use his influence.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz, do you wish to ask the defendant any questions?
DR. FRITZ: No, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the prosecution wish to ask any questions arising out of the questions that the Tribunal has asked?
GENERAL RUDENKO: No, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the defendant can return to the deck.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, this brings me to the conclusion of the presentation of evidence in the case of the defendant Fritsche.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you offering in evidence all of the documents in your two document bocks, each one of them?
DR. FRITZ: Yes indeed, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they marked with exhibit numbers?
DR. FRITZ: Yes they are. I have the originals at my disposal, and I have submitted them.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Haven't you get two exhibits 1, exhibit 1 in one book and exhibit 1 in the other book?
DR. FRITZ: No, Mr. President. Do you mean document book 1, 29 June M LJG 6-5 Mr. President?
There are no Fritsche exhibits contained in document book 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Very we'll. That concludes the case of Fritsche?
DR. FRITZ: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken.)
DR. BERGOLD: Dr. Bergold, for the defendant Martin Bormann. To the High Tribunal, first of all I wish to state that I do not wish the witness Dr. Kloepfer either since he has often closely cooperated with Bormann since 1942 and since therefore most of the documents on which the Indictment is based, cannot be referred to by him. Apart from that, he only ran the legislative department in the Party Chancellery. To the High Tribunal, to begin with I shall have to make one very brief principal remark. The defendant Bormann is absent. His associates, generally speaking,are not at my disposal either. For that reason, all I can do is try and submit some evidence on the strength of the documents submitted by the prosecution, bringing us to the conclusion that the defendant didn't play that legendary part which is now attributed to him, after the collapse. I, as a lawyer, dislike making something out of nothing and therefore I can only say very very little and I beg the High Tribunal to take notice of this. It isn't negligence on my part but it is the inability to do any better on the strength of the documents and without the assistance of the defendant. can be carried through and I had offered evidence to show that with the greatest probability, the defendant Bormann died on the 1st of May 1945, on the occasion of an attempted escape from the Reich Chancellery. As my first woman witness for this, I had named witness Else Krueger, which had been passed by the Tribunal. In my application of the 26th of June, I have stated that I should forego examining this witness if the High Tribunal would permit me to submit an affidavit instead of the examination and I have not yet received an answer to that application; but, I presume that, as I had heard from Dr. Kempner that prosecution were agreeable to this, that the High Tribunal wouldn't raise any objection to this either.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought the application was withdrawn with reference to the witness Krueger.
DR. BERGOLD: No. I have stated that I should forfeit having the witness provided I could submit an affidavit. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. The prosecution have just informed me that they would agree to this.
MR. DODD: We have said we had no objection, Mr. President, to the use of the affidavit since he was waiving the calling of the witness.
DR. BERGOLD: In that case, I shall submit the affidavit under Bormann No. 12 to the High Tribunal. Then, I have three further witnesses who should testify that Bormann had died; first of all, witness Kempka who for many years had been Hitler's chauffeur, who was present when this escape attempt from the Reich Chancellery failed and that witness is not available. According to information which I have, he was interned at the camp at Freising in December 1945, in the hands of the American authorities, but unfortunately he has not yet been produced. I had also named witness Rattenhuber who was also present when Bormann died and according to the information which I have, he is supposed to be in the hands of the USSR. The woman witness, Christian, who had been granted me, could not be located. To begin with, she had been in the camp at Oberursel where she was interned and from there she was given leave and she used this leave to vanish. Apart from the affidavit of the witness Krueger, therefore, I have no proof for my allegation. I regret this very much indeed that I cannot clearly prove my point and I also regret that the high members of the prosecution haven't been able to support me any more because this will support the forming of legends very much indeed. There is a sort of falsified Demitrios or a "forged" Martin Bormann who are reporting to me, who are sending reports to me; and I thought it would be a service to the entire public, the German nation and the Allies if I be in a position to furnish the proof for which I had asked; and now I shall turn to my documents.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to hear this affidavit of Krueger read.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes. Very well, Mr. President. "Miss Else Krueger, born 9 February 1915, at Hamburg, Altona; secretary; at present living at Hamburg -- in Mansenweg 1. Approximately since the end of 1924, I have been one of several secretaries (approximately thirty to forty of them); figures and names cannot be accurately s tated any longer. Secretary of the defendant Martin Bormann until the end and even after Hitler's death, I occupied that position. On the 1st of May 1945, I saw Bormann in the bunker of the Reich Chancellery for the last time and talked to him for the last time but at that point I was no longer working for him since at that point hewas writing his own orders and wireless messages by hand.
At that time in the bunker of the Reich Chancellery, all I had to do was prepare myself, within me, for my death. The last words he spoke to me, he spoke during an accidental meeting in the bunker and they were: 'Well, then, farewell. There isn't much sense in it now but I will try but very probably I shall not get through,' These, in their sense, were his last words. The exact words I can no longer recollect.
"Later, in the course of the evening when the Russians had gotten very near to the center ofthe Reich Chancellery -- at least that is what I was convinced of at the time -- I, together with a group of about 200 people, mostly soldiers, left the shelter through a subterranean exit near the Chancellery, and we reached the underground entrance to the Kaiserhof.
From there, we used subterranean passages and escaped into Friedrichstrasse. The further escape went through a number of streets, debris of houses, and I can no longer remember the exact details today because of the excitement of the situation.
"Eventually, in the course of the following morning, we reached some shelter or other, the location of which I cannot tell you any more. It might have been the shelter at Humboldthain."
THE PRESIDENT: DR. Bergold, doesn't the affidavit deal with the defendant Bormann at all.
DR. BERGOLD: Oh yes, yes, we are coming to that.
"There, after some time, SS Gruppenfuehrer Rattenhuber appeared quite suddenly. He had been wounded in the leg and was brought in on a camp bed. When other people made inquiries as to where he was coming from, he stated in my presence that he, together with Bormann and others, had left by car and gone through the Friedrichstrasse. Presumably everybody was dead; there had been masses of bodies.
"I gathered from his statement that he believed Bormann dead. This appeared probable to me because, according to stories which I heard from soldiers whom I didn't know, all those people who had left the shelter after us had been under strong Russian fire and there were supposedly hundreds of dead."
"Later, as far as I can recollect, I read in a British paper that Hitler's driver oflong standing, by the name of Kempka, is supposed to have made a statement somewhere according to which Bormann, withwhom, apparently, he fled, was dead."
That is all I have been able to find, Mr. President, and the real witness unfortunately hasn't been found.
I shall now come to the documents. In order to abbreviate my evidence, may I take the liberty of referring to the document book which I am presenting.
We are exclusively concerned with instructions from Bormann which have appeared in the collection of orders from theDeputy of the Fuehrer.
I beg the Tribunal to take judicial notice of these official instructions issued by Bormann andthe legal consequences arising from these documents I shall bring up during my final speech. I should merely like to refer to 2326, from which I should like to quote one sentence. It is under Figure 8. It is No. 8 in my document book, Mr. President. I should like to draw your attention to it without quoting from it. the Prosecution, and I shall turn to Document 098-PS, from which I shall quote on page 4, the second paragraph at the top. I shall quote a brief passage.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say 098-PS?
Dr. BERGOLD: Yes, 098-PS, Bormann's letter dated the 22nd of February 1940, and addressed to Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 4?
DR. BERGOLD: Page 4, Mr. President. It is the letter in which Bormann uses violent terms against the question of religion. He writes on page 4 as follows:
"With regard to religious instruction in schools it seems to me that nothing need be changed with regard to the prevailing conditions. No National Socialist teacher, according to the clear-cut instructions from the Deputy of the Fuehrer, must be accused in any way if he is prepared to teach religion in schools."
I skip one sentence and I continue:
"In the circular of the Deputy of the Fuehrer dated 3-39, it is expressly stated that teachers instructed to teach religion should by no means make their own choice of material for religious teaching from the Bible, but they are instructed to teach the entire biblical material. Any misinterpretations or separations in the sense of repeated attempts which have been made by individual churches, and that means the German Christians, must not be made." of the Prosecution. It is Instruction 104-38, and I quote:
"The repeatedly emphasized neutrality of the Party with regard to the churches must indiciate that any possible friction must be avoided.
Since clergymen, as political leaders, or leaders of affiliated associations, as has been shown by experience, have not the freedom of decision under these circumstances which is required, and as, on the other hand, the movement, because of the church office which they hold, is threatened with being involved one-sidedly in the church struggle, the Deputy of the Fuehrer has ordered that clergymen should be relieved of their party positions as bearers of sovereignty at once and remain there until further instructions. " of the 19th of January, 1940, is addressing the Reich Ministry of Finance. He is objecting to the low contributions from the churches. I refer to the second paragraph, and I quote:
"The assessment of so low a contribution has surprised me very much. I gather from numerous reports that the political communities have to raise so high a contribution that the carrying out of their work, which is often very important, as for instance, in public welfare, is in jeopardy."
I then skip one sentence and I continue:
"As I understand it, the assessing of so low a contribution is partly tern territories and Sudaten Gau are not being called upon."
I skip the rest of the sentence and I continue:
"Such a difference in treatment for individual sections of the churches organizations is, in my opinion, in no way justified."
dated 28 January, 1939. I quote from the second paragraph:
"The party in recent years has repeatedly contemplated the plan of a between the state and the churches.
It has always turned down any such plans emphatically and this is for two reasons.
Firstly, it would not fulfil churches did not have national socialist alms everywhere.
Secondly, purely practical and political considerations oppose such a connection."
THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell us in what part of the book this is and what is the number ?
DR. BERGOLD:L-221 -- L-22. It is approximately in the middle of the Bormann made this report in his capacity as secretary.
The Prosecution have stated that Bormann's remarks show that the plans which were discussed tory of the Reich, had been approved by him.
For this reason I shall have to
THE PRESIDENT: This is L-221, not L-22.
DR. BERGOLD: The first remark follows the fourteenth paragraph and states as follows;
"Aside: as to a cultural class in the Ukraine or other Ukrainians of a better class exist only outside of the Russia of today is --."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, could you not tell us what original page it is ? In your document book there are headings "original page" so and so. Have not your documents got those words, "original page" so and so ?
DR. BERGOLD: There are those notations but you will have to give me one moment and I shall have to look through it again. The translation which I have received has different figures. It is page 4, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
"We have to create a garden of Eden --."
DR. BERGOLD: Unfortunately, I did not understand you.
THE PRESIDENT: As I understand you, the first part of page 4 is : "We have to create a garden of Eden --."
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, this is the third paragraph -- no, it is the fourth paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, then.
DR. BERGOLD: Have you got it, my Lord ?
THE PRESIDENT: I shall not know until you tell me how it begins.
DR. BERGOLD: It begins:
"A subsidiary question : Is there still a cultural class in the Ukraine ?"
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have got that, yes.
DR. BERGOLD: It is on page 3.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is on page 4. It goes like this.
"Is there still anything like an educated class in the Ukraine ?"
DR. BERGOLD: According to the document which this gentleman has just submitted to me, it is on page 3 but it can be page 4 -- 3, 4-- 4, 3. Yes, it was page 3. Page 4 has a very similar remark and that says:
"There have been repeated occasions which have shown that Rosenberg has a great deal of liking for the Ukraine. He wants to enlarge the Ukrai n considerably."
third last paragraph :
"Please ask for the material from Dr. Meyer as soon as possible which refers to the proposed organization and proposed staffing of the organization."
Then at the end, page 6 of your original, last paragraph, it says:
"Incidentally, the Fuehrer emphasizes that the activity of the churches are out of the question. Papen through the Foreign Office had already submitted to him a long memorandum in which it is stated that now the right moment had arrived to reintroduce the churches. But that was definitely out of the question."
This, Mr. President, is a remark referring to a statement by the Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler. to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that in this record which Lammers had prepared, Bormann's presence is not mentioned at the beginning. Apparently because of his activity as secretary it was considered as a matter of course.
The paragraph starts:
"Then the discussion turned to the problem of religious freedom."
I shall begin with the fourth sentence, eighth line:
"Bormann concurred with this attitude absolutely and I only stated that the question was whether the Reich Minister for the East, who had a name in Germany, after all, would not create too much of a tie by means of a law which would have repercussions in the Reich. But it was to be understood under alleged religious freedom which was to be interpreted by the churches that this could create and we could anticipate that such a law would produce hundreds of new letters and complaints on the part of the churches within the Reich."
Then the second sentence from that says:
"Finally it was agreed that the entire question should not be settled by myself" that is, Lammers, "in the form of a law, but that the Reich Commissioners take the existing religious freedom so to speak for granted and to decree the necessary executive orders."
Then I come to document 072-PS. This is a letter from Bormann to Rosenberg and I should like to read the third paragraph. I quote:
"The Fuehrer states that in the Balkans, the use of your experts would not be necessary, since there are no art objects to be confiscated there. In Belgrade, only the collection of Prince Paul existed which would be returned to him intact. The remaining material of the lodges, etc., would be seized by organizations of Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich." introduction in which Defendant Hess deals with orders he had issued with regard to the treatment of Bormann, and I quote:
"The French civilian population received official instructions and orders by wireless regarding the way they were to treat landing aircraft."
Then I come to document 205-PS. There I should like to quote the introduction which was written by Bormann.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of 062-PS?
DR. BERGOLD : 5th of May, 1943, circular letter number 7043.
INTERPRETER: You have 205, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: I think I've got it now.
DR. BERGOLD: 5th of May 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: No, but I wanted to know the date of 062-PS. It appears to be 13 March 1940.
DR. BERGOLD: 062-PS? Yes, that's 13 March 1940. That's the one I read previously.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not understand why you read the document in view of paragraph 4 which is as follows:
"Likewise, enemy parachutists are immediately to be arrested or liquidated."
DR. BERGOLD: I shall refer to that in my final speech. It is later that I can describe my reasons.
But, I can give my arguments now if the Tribunal wants me to, but I don't think they do.
THE PRESIDENT: No. I thought you might have another paragraph in the document that you wish to refer to.
DR. BERGOLD: No. I should like to direct your attention to the introduction which is a statement from Defendant Hess and which precedes Bormann's document. I shall now turn to document 205-PS, dated May 5, 1943. I shall quote the following sentence:
"I request in the attached copy that the necessity for a firm but just treatment of the foreign workers be made clear to members of the party and the people." course. I now come to document 025-PS, which is dated 4 September 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: Which number are you going to now?
DR. BERGOLD: I now come to 025-PS, dated 4 September 1942, and I shall quote the last sentence from the second paragraph.
"Therefore," and this is also the opinion of the Reichsmarshal and Reichsleiter Bormann, "the housekeeping problem must be solved through a definite way by the above mentioned one."
And then I quote from paragraph 3, s tarting with the second sentence: "In connection with this, that is,the introduction of eastern women workers," this is also approved by Reichsleiter Bormann, "the illegal bringing of female housekeepers into the Reich by members of the armed forces or various other agencies is to be allowed and furthermore, irrespective of the recruiting, is not to be prevented in the future. The determining factor in the recruiting of Ukranian female workers is this. In accordance with the specific wish of the Fuehrer, only such girls are to be recruited whose stay in Germany will be determined by their conduct, physical appearance, and there will be no scruples." "In practice, recruiting in the case of domestic servants is to be based particularly on volunteers. It is to be carried out by the Service Department of the Reichsfuehrer SS."
and I should like only to refer to my future final speech for the purpose of which I shall use document USSR-172. And also, document Doenitz 91, and with this, Mr. President, my evidence is completed.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, may I suggest that if this witness Kempka can be located, counsel might submit an affidavit or an interrogatory to any persons who have knowledge of the allegeddeath of Defendant Bormann. We certainly would have no objection to it.
DR. BERGOLD: I have no objection either.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, have you any information as to what this witness Kempka can tell us about the death of Bormann?
DR. BERGOLD: According to the affidavit which I have read this morning, he is supposed to have been in prison when Bormann died -- when a tank blew up. He would therefore, then, be an eye witness of this, just as the witness Rattenhuber, from who Krueger got her knowledge. If the witnesses Krueger and Rattenhuber could be found, then I would be satisfied with affidavits and interrogations.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I have seen this statement by 29 June M LJG 11-1 Kempka some time ago, which is in affidavit form, and which has come to cur attention.
But my recollection is that he does not state positively that he saw him die. But I again suggest that we night make further efforts to got an affidavit from him, or an interrogatory, and ask him questions about the circumstances of his death.
THE PRESIDENT: A statement was made to the Tribunal at one time by the prosecution suggesting that Bormann had escaped from the Chancellery in a tank and then the tank had been stopped or blown up on a bridge, and that two of the persons inside the tank had lost seen Bormann wounded, or something of that sort.
MR. DODD: Yes, I think that is the best information.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, if the prosecution has any material in the shape of affidavits or anything of that sort, the Tribunal would like to have then placed before them.
MR. DODD: Yes, sir. I am sure we do not have an affidavit. As I recall, it was last fall when someone sent down here what purported to be a narrative account by Kempka of the last days in Berlin. I will try to look that up and present it to you.
THE PRESIDENT: If you can go into the matter, then possibly they night be located through the investigations which you would make.
MR. DODD: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Then interrogatories or affidavits could be obtained.
MR. DODD: Very well, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Then that conclueds your presentation of evidence on behalf of Bormann?
DR. BERGOLD: That is all I have, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you. Colonel Pokrovsky, is there anything you wish to say? I beg your pardon, Dr. Bergold. You have offered in evidence all the exhibits that you want to offer and have given them exhibit numbers, have you?
29 June M LJG 11-2
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, Mr. President, in my document book.
THE PRESIDENT: You are intending to offer your document book as evidence?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It has exhibit numbers on each document, has it?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes; each document has a number.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. you have arrived at any agreement with Dr. Stahmer on behalf of the defendant Goering with reference to affidavit evidence or witnesses, with reference to the Katyn matter.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: My Lord, we have had three conferences with the defense counsel. After the second meeting, I told the Tribunal of the fact that in the interests of curtailing the proceedings, the Soviet prosecution was in agreement to having the witnesses' evidence submitted so that part of this evidence would be weighed. But about 15 minutes ago, I had a meeting with the defense counsel, and Dr. Exner and Dr. Stahmer told me that they understand the position in such a way that the old decisions regarding the summoning of two witnesses to the Tribunal are still in force. Now we are discussing only additional documents. an agreement when the position is such as it is now. As far as I understand it, such a decision remains with the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal orders that unless an agreement is arrived at, the evidence shall be given entirely by affidavits and that the three witnesses on either side shall be called the first thing on Monday morning at 10 o'clock, unless you can arrive at an agreement before that that the evidence is to be offered in affidavits.
DR. SIEMERS (Counsel for the defendant Raeder): Mr. President, may I be permitted to way something on this subject? A number of defendants' counsel are interested in the case Katyn.
I have had a conference this morning with Dr. Exner and Dr. Stahmer. We had proposed to ask the Tribunal to handle the matter in such a way that two witnesses are to be examined by the defense here before this Tribunal in person. Those would be Oberst Arens and Full Lieutenant von Eichborn, whereas the third witness would not be examined but an affidavit would be submitted instead.
In addition to that, there would be two further affidavits. We believe Mr. President, that in this way we have found a procedure to surest to the Tribunal which would be sufficient and at the same time would save the most time; that is to say, if we hear two witnesses and produce three affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal sees no objection to there being two witnesses called and one affidavit. But their order was that the evidence should be limited to three witnesses on either side, and they, therefore, are not prepared to allow further affidavits to be given. The evidence must be confined to the evidence of three persons on either side. They may give their evidence either by oral testimony or by affidavit.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, as far as I was told, the original decision is supposed to have stated that three witnesses were allowed, without affidavits' being mentioned. And that is why Dr. Stahmer and Dr. Exner had assumed that apart from the witnesses and with regard to certain individual points which should be proved, this could be done by means of affidavits. produced, this would be quicker than if we had three witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid Dr. Stahmer and Dr. Exner drew a wrong inference from the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal intended and intends that the evidence should be limited to the evidence of three witnesses on either side, and whether they give their evidence by oral testimony or by affidavit does not matter. We left it to the Soviet prosecution and to defendant's counsel to see whether they could agree that it should be given by affidavit in order to save time. But that was not intended to extend the number of witnesses who might give evidence.