It may be that I am wrong or so it seems difficult, in view of the collection of documents, to suppose that there is another issue, but it may be, and I put it in this way, that Dr. Stahmer ought to indicate quite clearly what is the issue to which these documents are directed and where the document is located and to indicate what extracts he refers to. But in the issue of the Prosecution -- I speak for all my colleagues -- we submit that it is a completely irrelevant matter. If the Tribunal would be good enough to take the other points -- I am sorry; I should have included in that same category Nos. 21 and 22, which are two letters of General Smuts in 1919. They ought to be added. Then I have already dealt with No. 20, Mr. Churchills book. Apart from the question of extracts,again the Prosecution submits that it ought to be made clear what is the issue for which that book has been quoted. No. 23 is a Missive of Monsieur Tohitcherin, stated to be the Foreign Commisar of the USSR, to Professor Ludwig Stein. Again the Prosecution has not the slightest idea as to what is the issue to which that is directed. The defendant Goering's book, which I have already dealt with, and I ask that we should get extracts. No. 28. General Fuller's book on "Total War" or an essay on "Total War." Again the Prosecution does not know the issue at which it is directed. Then my fifth category, No. 27, which is the White Books of the German Foreign Office."
I *---* attention to No. 4 document, to the Angle-France policy of extending prewar; No. 5 serving the document as to the Western policy of extending the war; No. 6 is a secret file of the French General Staff; No. 29, documentation and reports of the German Foreign Office regarding broaches of the Hague regulations for any warfare and crimes against humanity committed by the power at war with the German Reich. These last documents seem to raise quite dearly the issue of the two questions in the Reich Committee of breaches of regulations and abuses of warpower through the people, or of the same thing. Contention of the prosecution is that that is entirely irrelevant. The standard is laid down by the convention, and it is no answer even if it were true that some one else had committed breaches. But, of course, there is the additional reason. It is quite impracticable and intolerable if this Tribunal were to embark on a further chart of investigating there the allegation, however conjecturally founded, that some one else had not maintained these conventions. colleagues of a matter which is completely irrelevant, and therefore we object to any evidence, whether it is all documentarily intended on their part. Of course, we all along have taken the view we have not any objection to defense counsel having access to these documents in order to use them for refreshing their memory as to the background of these, but we object to their introduction in evidence for the reasons I have given.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer, I will say in the first instance. Do you care to say, or are you agreed, that so far as the books are concerned that you would be wiling to produce these extracts upon which you rely? You cannot expect the documentary room to get the whole bock translated.
DR. STAHMER: It was never intended to, and I believe that in my lists of documents I have made preface where I have pointed out, and I was prepared to mention the exact quotations, so therefore this objection is not right.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STAHMER: Another point the prosecution is concerned is with the books which we have mentioned, and which has referred to the Treaty of Versaille. Here also I will give specific information as to what extent I wish to quote from these books. As a matter of principle, the defense must have the right, however, to take a position in that direction.
THE PRESIDENT; All these books which Mr. Fyfe refers to, of which the Tribunal will take judicial notice of, of course, you can make comment upon them if you wish; of any document of which the Tribunal takes judicial notice.
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought you were referring to the Treaty of Versailles. It is not a question of a document.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, the report referred to the Treaty of Versailles.
THE PRESIDENT: You are now dealing with only of which today were itemized as follows: 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, and 22?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STAHMER: Since considerable objection has been made, or rather, since a considerable part of the accusation has been made by the prosecution consisting of the fact that the defendant has breached the Versailles Treaty, naturally the defense has to consent to the question if and how the breach of the Treaty took place and if and to what extent that Treaty is still violated. So far as these books and dissertations are concerned, these questions are all important. I believe that about this question, a decision can be reached only after I have presented the quotations, and that will be the case at the beginning of my case.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you precluding the question of validity, as with that question of justice?
DR. STAHMER: No, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
DR. STAHMER: I believe that in this case also the defense should have the right to demand a presentation of the Reichs books, because the contents of the Reichs books will to a great extent provide information about the question of the interests at war, and that will state also a reference to these books that are important. Here also, in my opinion, it will only be possible to make a decision after the quotation from these Reichs books have been read. Furthermore, the presentation of the report concerning the breaches of the Hague has been demanded. does not belong in the same work in this trial. Whether on the other sides such breaches have been committed, this statement in my opinion is of importance in two ways: First of all to reach a just decision one has to make sure whether the attitude or behavior on the other side was really correct and beyond reproach, or, it is furthermore of importance that the question depends upon whether or not on the side of the defendants it was not a question of revenge or of retaliation.
THE PRESIDENT: We I say, I believe you just covered the topic with the exception of Numbers 20, 23, and 28, Number 20 is the Winston Churchill book; Number 23 is the Tchitcherin book; and Number 28 is the General Fuller book. We will take these.
DR. STAHMER: Number 20 -- taking this step by step -- that is concerned with a statement in which Churchill as one was concerned with the question there of the Netherland agreement, 1935, of England. That was a sort of agreement by England as concerned Germany's separation from the Versailled Treaty. that it can be used for the question as to what extent Germany has re-armed, to what extent England has re-armed, and finally in that book and in various places there are instances in reference to this now.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I say with the greatest respect to Dr Stahmer that he has but reinforced my point, that if Dr Stahmer is putting forward the thesis that in order to reach a proper decision on the matters before the Tribunal it is necessary to investigate whether other belligerants have commited breaches of conventions, then, as I say, I join issue with him in toto, I cannot add to the matter. But with regard to Mr Churchill, Dr Stahmer makes three points, one that some passage in the book gives color to the idea that by the Naval Agreement the validty of the Versailles Treaty was affected. That is a point to which there, are obviously many answers, including the facts that France was a party to the Treaty and the United States was a party to a treaty in the same terms. But clearly Mr Churchill's view as to the legal effect of one treaty or another expressed in a book, is in my opinion clearly irrelvant. of Mr Churchill himself. And I requestfully sudmit, without going into detial, that Dr Stahmer has by his examples confirmed the argument that these matters are irrelevant to the issues before the Court. I don't wish to say more.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr Stahmer, the Tribunal would like you to go back from the question or if you like, deal with anything you have to say about Sir David Fyfe's observations about Mr Churchill if you prefer to do that now, but afterwards, and before you finish your argument upon these documents, the Tribunal would like to hear you somewhat further about Documents 8 and following up to 22, in order that you should develop your argument as to how they can be relevant.
For instance, Documents 10 and 11, the speeches and notes of President Wilson. How can such documents as that have any bearing upon this trial or indeed upon the validity of the treaty of Versailles?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir, These passages form the foundation of the Versailles Treaty and they are significant therefore for the interpretation of the Treaty. And furthermore, it is important to refer to the speeches, in order to judge the contents of the Treaty and the question whether Germany rightfully or wrongly has separated herself from the Treaty, that is, whether it was a breach of the Treaty, or whether the Treaty in itself gave Germany the right to withdraw.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all you wish to say about that?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything further about No.20, 23, or 28?
DR. STAHMER: I have spoken about 20. Twenty-three refers to the very same questions regarding an interpretation and the contents of the Treaty of Versailles.
THE PRESIDENT: Your statement about the Foreign Commissar of the USSR in 1924 -
DR. STAHMER: 1924?
THE PRESIDENT: 1924. Very well, you insist on the interpretation of the Versailles Treaty, and as General Fuller's book -
DR. STAHMER: That only - - General Fuller also refers in this speech first of all to the person of Hitler and to the question of rearmament, that is to say, German rearmament.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well then.
(Consultation of the members of the Tribunal on the bench.) consider their decision upon your witnesses and upon your documents.
Have you anything further to say upon it?
DR. STAHMER: No, sir.
(Professor Franz Exner, Counsel for the Defendant Jodl approached the lectern.)
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, dr. Exner?
PROFESSOR EXNER: May it please the court, I take the liberty to mention something merely for the reason that there is a certain danger that matters of proof may be refused which for my clients also are of crucial importance. It concerns evidence which will show that on the opposite side as well,- war crimes, or breaches and violations of international law have occured.
far as we are concerned here in this trial. The Defense would certainly not think of making Defendants of the Prosecutors, but this point is certainly not irrelevant.
law. Retaliations justify an action which under normal circumstances would be illegal. That is to say, retaliations of that importance or significance in cases where individual actions are the answer to a violation of international law committed by the other side. If, therefore our own actions can be justified -- if you want to justify them as retaliations -- we can only do it by proving that violations of law have preceded it on the other side.
Secondly, I want to add an important point. It is well known that this war in the beginning was conducted relatively -
THE PRESIDENT: The argument which you are presenting to us was fully developed by Dr. Stahmer and will, of course, be fully considered by the Tribunal.
(Consultation of the members of the Tribunal on the Bench).
Will you continue, then, Dr. Exner?
PROFESSOR EXNER: The second point is the following: It is well known that in the beginning of this war international law was respected on both sides and these the war was conducted humanely. It was only in the second phase of the war that there was a terrible bitterness among the fighting powers and on both sides things have occurred which were not according to international law. In my opinion, it is entirely important in the judgment of the criminal action, whatever that may be, to consider, the motive If the motive of the action is not known, you cannot judge the action itself. And the bitterness which was started psychologically by the manner in which the war has been conducted on one side or the other was the motive for actions which normally cannot be justified. of proof are declared irrelevant.
(Consultation of the members of the Tribunal on the Bench).
DR. WALTER SIEMERS (Counsel for the Defendant Raeder): I would like to refer to the manner in which we are speaking now about evidence, and I want to say inprinciple, if I understand the Tribunal correctly, then we should talk today about the relevancy of these witnesses and documents which are : still to be brought here, and which were mentioned in the tribunal's decision of the 18th of February.
in our hands. I therefore ask the Tribunal to understand why I object against it. In no case was it possible to discuss relevancy of documents of the Prosecution weeks before they were presented. We could never discuss that. If I have documents before me, the same as most of the documents about which we have spoken, then as Defendant's Counsel I must be able to submit these documents without consent of the Prosecution. building has to be examined after we have presented the quotations and then the Prosecution will decide whether they are relevant. Sir David has also said that various books which are here are not relevant. If this instant motion by the Prosecution is granted, then that is an extraordinary limitation of the Defense which I cannot accept without objection.
The Prosecution was permitted to submit documents. The Court has decided that each letter and each document could be presented and therefore I don't understand why we are now arguing about the relevancy of documents which are here, since in my opinion the Court has already said that we will argue only about the relevancy of documents which are still to be procured.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought that on behalf of the Tribunal I had explained this morning -- in answer to the argument of Dr. Horn on behalf of the Defendant Ribbentrop -- what the Tribunal was seeking to do today, to follow the provision of Article 24-D, which provides that the Tribunal shall ask the Prosecution and Defense what evidence if any they wish to submit to the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall rule on the admissibility of any such evidence, and I point out that the reason why the Defense had been to some extent treated in a different manner from the Prosecution was because in the case of the Defense the Tribunal has get to find all the witnesses and bring them here and the Tribunal his get in many instances to find the documents or submit the documents, and therefore it isn't reason able that the Tribunal should be asked to bring witnesses or documents here and it also is not in accordance with the Charter, until theTribunal has heard argument upon the admissibility of the witness or the document.
And that is what it is doing. I thought I fully explained that in answer to Dr. Horn's argument. of a document or the admissibility of a witness until you have actually heard the passage in the document which is relied upon or the questions put to the witness which are said to be relevant or irrelevant. Therefore, the final determination upon the question of admissibility will be when the witness is put in the witness-box and asked questions or the documents or passage from the document is actually produced.
DR. SIERMERS: Yes, sir. Excuse, but I believe that this does not answer one point. witnesses which are not as yet at our disposal. But it is a different thing in the case of these documents which are already here in this building and which are at our disposal as Defense Counsel. To give an example: The White Books which Sir David has mentioned here, why should we now argue about the relevance of these White Books?
This question has nothing to do with the delay of the trial, nothing but the procurement of documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything to that, General Rudenko?
GENERAL RUDENKO: Yes, Mr. President, with your permission, I would like to say a few words. on the question concerning the demand of the Defense Counsel. I would like to add to what has already been said by Sir David Fyfe, with regard to the declaration made here by the Defense Counsel. to turn the Prosecutor into a Defendant and that they would like to determine the motives as in his opinion the motives were not known, and that in order to determine these motives it was necessary to investigate the question whether the conventions were violation by other warring powers. of all the Prosecution -- it is really strange to hear such a declaration on the part of such a Defense Counsel after a three-months-long trial and after the presention of all proofs by the Prosecution. documents and testimony on all the counts of the charges presented against the Defendants, and as is evident from this morning's session, when we were investigating the questions of the Counsel for Defendant Foering, as the Tribunal knows, the Tribunal agreed to a major part of Defense Counsel's requests. But the question which is being put by Dr. Exner reveals quite certainly a divergence of views. the main point of the trial. This is a trial of the main German was criminals. We are investigating the Fascist cases and even when we investigate all the proofs which are presented by the prosecution and by the Defense Counsel, we can also present all evidence concerning these counts. But it is not admissible and it would indeed be a gross violation of the Charter while investigating these charges to dwell on problems which have absolutely nothing to do with the charges we are investigating, and that is why the Prosecution is so energetically objecting to the presentation and the reading of such documents which have absolutely nothing to do with, this case.
That is what I wanted to add to what Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe has said on behalf of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Before the Tribunal adjourns, as it will do not, I want to say that the next four defendants on the Indictment are required to name their witnesses and the subject matter of their evidence, and the documents and the relevance of the documents, by Wednesday next at 5:00 p.m. The Tribunal will hold a similar session to the session it has been holding this morning with reference to the defense of those defendants on Saturday next at 10:00 o'clock.
The Tribunal will now adjourn until 2:15.
(A recess was taken until 1415 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make: With reference to the pronouncement that I made this morning, the Tribunal may hear the applications for witnesses and documents of the Defendants Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, and Frick, before Saturday. That will depend upon theprogress of the case. I have already stated that those applications must be deposited with the General Secretary by 5 o'clock P.M. on Wednesday. Indictment must make application naming their witnesses and the relevance of their evidence, and the documents and the relevancy of the documents, by Friday next at 5 P.M.
Thirdly, the Tribunal will sit in closed session on Monday next at 4 P.M.
Perhaps I ought also to say that this doesn't affect -- may affect but it does not refer directly to Defendants' Counsel who represent the criminal organizations. Those Counsel will be heard after the close of the Prosecution, case, as has already been announced.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I only want to say that if the Tribunal desire to hear anything on the question of reprisals, which was raised by Dr. Exner, Mr. Dodd is prepared, if the Tribunal would care to hear further matter on it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, The Tribunal would like to hear that now.
MR. DODD: May it please the Tribunal: I wish to say at the very outset that I have made a rather hurried preparation during the noon recess of the few notes on this subject based on some work which we had done a little earlier. I am not altogether prepared to go into the matter at any great length at this time, but I did want to call to the attention of the Tribunal a few of these notes that we have prepared and to say that, in view of Dr. Exner's contention that some of the documents which are offered by the Defense, or which they intend or hope to offer, are admissible on the theory or under the doctrine of reprisal.
cerning the treatment of prisoners of war expressly prohibits altogether the use of reprisals against prisoners of war. army instructions reprisals against prisoners of war as early as 1862 or 1863. mention at all, insofar as we are able to ascertain, the use of so-called "reprisal action" against civilians. ratified Brussels Declaration, so-called in International Law -- that conference rejected or struck out several sections which were proposed by the Russians at that time, having to do with the use of reprisal action against civilians. I cite that because it is interesting and indicates that the powers were certainly thinking about the matter of reprisals against civilians as early as that time. said by the writers on this subject that before reprisal action may be taken a notice of some character is usually required, and this reprisal action is directed against some specific instance which the first power believes to be offensive and which it believes may call for or justify the use of reprisal action. So that some notice of some kind seems to be required by the power which feels it has been offended to the offending power.
I might say that in the Prosecution's case in chief we specifically avoided any reference to the well-known incident during this war of the shackling of prisoners of war, because there there was some color of notice, and the matter was resolved by the powers concerned. this noontime, and if the Tribunal would like to have us do it, we shall be glad to prepare ourselves further.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal: The position with regard to the Defendant Hess is set out in Dr. Seidl's communication to the Tribunal, and I have one or two comments to make on that on behalf of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Dr. Seidl prepared to make the application? Would it be convenient to follow the same course as we followed with Dr. Stahmer, and perhaps Sir David may see if he has any objection, first of all to the witnesses, one by one, that you are asking for?
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Hess): I should like to request the Court to permit me a short preparatory remark.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: My Lord, Judges: From what happened in this morning's session I had the conviction that now the trial has entered into a decisive phase, at any rate so far as concerns the Defense. I competently feel myself obliged to make the following application: undertake to examine the relevance of the evidence submitted by the Defense and should limit itself in this to the witnesses, and as to the relevance of documents it should wait until a later time. I base this request on the following: the submission of evidence by the Defense. In this it was only witnesses and not documents that were re discussed.
A second decision of the 18th of February mentions the following: In order to avoid a delay in the bringing of witnesses and documents, Defense Counsel shall, etc. ment has relevance can only be decided when I have this document in my own hands; in other words, when I am familiar with the precise contents of that document. It is impossible in a summary proceeding such as is now being attempted, in which the admissibility of whole books is being decided on, to pass accurate judgment whether a particular passage in a document has relevancy of not. This question can only then be decided once and for all when the Prosecution and the Court have the documents in their hands, before the Defense wishes to submit it.
THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Seidl, I have stated twice this morning that the question of the final admissibility, whether of witnesses or evidence, or documentary evidence, can only be finally decided when the document is actually nut in or when the witness is actually a sired a question. What we are now considering is whether the document has any possibility of relevance and must, therefore, be searched for if necessary, or sent for.
DR. SEIDL: Yes. If I understand you correctly, Mr. President, it is not necessary --
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl. the Tribunal thirds that you had better deal with your witnesses and documents now, and we don't desire to hear any further general argument on the subject.
We desire to hear you upon the documents and the witnesses which you wish to call and to produce.
Dr.SEIDL: It is a question of the documents I have already mentioned, and not that I am about to mention.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the documents which you are about to mention.
DR. SEIDL: It is a question of all the documents, and not simply the documents that I shall produce in the future.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have before us your application for certain witnesses and certain documents, and we wish to hear you upon that application.
DR. SEIDL: Very well, but I must draw up a list by next Wednesday also for the Defendant Frank , and I should like to know whether those documents should be brought up which I already have in my own hands.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all you had better deal with your witnesses in the same way that Dr Stahmer did.
DR. SEIDL: Very Well. previous secretary of the defendant Hess.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL - FYFE: MY Lord, I haven't seen this list until a moment ago.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness he wants to call is Ingeborg Berg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr Seidl tells me that this lady was as private secretary of hose, it seems to me, prima facie, a reasonable that there was a chance of discussing the matter, As a general rule it seems to me reasonable that a private secretary can be called who can corroborate the matters with which the defendant was dealing. I don't thing any of my colleagues will disagree with that point.
DR. SEIDL: By second witness is the previous Gauleiter of the Foreign Organization of the NSDAP, Dr. Bohle.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Seidl, you haven't really adopted the procedure which the Tribunal asked you to adopt, You have'nt specified the relevaner of the evidence which you wish to produce. You have referred to some previouse application. The Tribunal has not got all these applications before it at the moment, and therefore we wish to know in what respect the evidence of Ingeborg Berg is relevant.
DR. SEIDL: I shall explain that, Madam Berg was Hess secretary at his liaison offices in Berlin. She is to make statements as to since when Hess had been making preparations for his flight to England, and what sort of preparations they were.
She is further to testify as to what Hess' attitude was toward the Jewish question in a particular case, namely, in connection with the Progrom of 28 November 1938.
THE PRESIDENT: Is she in Nurnberg?
DR. SEIDL: She is here, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may deal with the Second witness now, if you like.
DR. SEIDL: The Second witness is the previous Gauleiter of the Foreign Organization of the Dr Bohle. He is here in prison. activity which might be interpreted as fifth column activity.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On the second witness, that is one of our allegations against the Auslands Organization, and therefore it does seem relevant.
DR. SEIDL: Dr Schellenberg is the third witness I mention. Whether I shall be able to uphold this application I can only judge after the Court has given me the opportunity to speak personally with these witnesses who are here in Nurnberg. I do not know whether the witness, in the period before the 5th June, could be reached. I should like to say that time was previously occupied with interrogating a witness.
I should, consequently, like to ask the Tribunal, first of all, to be able to speak to this witness personally.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have anything to say about that, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I understand that this is the witness Schellenberg who was called for the prosecution.
THEPRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I submit that it would be very undesirable to have private conversations with witnesses before cross-examinations. If Dr. Seidl wishes to cross examine thewitness Schellenberg further, then he ought to apply to the Court to cross-examine him in open court.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think I remember that some of the defendant's counsel asked to postpone the further cross examination of Dr. Schellenberg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, my objection is not to the further cross examination; that is a matter, of course, which is entirely for the Court once a witness is in its hands. But my recollection is that Dr. Merkel and Dr. Kaufmann also wanted to cross examine the witness further, and therefore I submit that both generally and on this particular occasion it would be very undesirable for any counsel what is going to cross examine to have a private conversation with the witness before he cross examines. That is the matter to which I object.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but if the defendants' counsel finally decide that they are not going to cross examine the witness, I suppose then they would be able to examine him in chief if they wanted to do so, to call him.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I have never heard, my Lord, of that procedure being adopted. If a witness is called by one side, then the other side must, in my respectful submission, do what they can by way of cross examination. The witness is before the Court and, as theprosecution have called the witness, then I submit that the defense should deal with the witness by way of cross examination. They have the additional rights which cross examination gives, which is a compensation for the other rights which they would have if he were their own witness.
DR. SEIDL: We might reach some agreement that the defense would renounce the right to cross examination, if the witness can actually say something pertinent, if we could have him give an affidavit. I do not believe that the prosecution would object to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, as there are no technical rules of evi-
dence applicable to this trial, would it be objectionable, would you say, if the defense were permitted to see Schellenberg in the presence of a representative of the prosecution, if that is satisfactory to them?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sure the prosecution all desire that only the interests of justice should be furthered, and if the Tribunal consider that that would be a suitable method of dealing with it, the prosecution would raise no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Tribunal will consider your application.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you any other witnesses that you wish to refer to?
DR. SEIDL: For the time being, no. However, according to the position of the 18th of February, every defense counsel has the right, until the conclusion of the trial, to ask permission to call further witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: I think now is the time for you to apply; in accordance with the order of the Tribunal to which you are referring, this is the time at which you are to apply for any witnesses you want. The Tribunal always has the discretion, which it would exercise, if you prefer to make any further applications. If later you want to ask for further witnesses, the Tribunal will always consider your application.
Did you get that?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President. Der Bund Deutscher im Osten, and Der Volksbund der Deutschen im Ausland, and as to whether its activities were similar to those of the fifth column, a witness might be called on this question, the brother of Rudolf Hess, why was previously an alternate Gauleiter of the Foreign Organization of the NSDAP, and is at the moment in Mergentheim in an internment camp.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we haven't got your application in front of us with reference to that. If you want to make any further application you may do so.