Hellas had become for me a living reality and the experiences which I had in Greece were like revelation to me. I tried to live up to the words of Goethe: Everyone can be a Greek in his own way, but he should be one.
Q. General, that was your personal attitude. How then, could these ideals of yours -- I think I might call them that -- be brought into line with the harsh necessities of war?
A. The harsh necessities of one war could only be mitigated by such an attitude. Because the aim should not be to alienate further to aggravate the contrasts, but to adjust them.
Q. Well what help was it if you were alone, if only you had this attitude, and the others who were also in Greece were of a different attitude?
A. I regarded it as my quite decisive task to educate the German soldiers intellectually and to bring them nearer to the Greek spirit; and in this way, or should I say by this detour, to bring them to understand the population there.
Q. Can you quote a few examples as to which spheres your efforts were directed?
A. One of my most important tasks as territorial commander was the so-called intellectual welfare of the troops. I thought about this task myself and interpreted it rather differently from the way in which it was interpreted in Berlin; and if I tell you that I tried to educate the German soldier to my attitude, then I can give you a few brief examples of this. For instance, I got scientists to draw up short pamphlets about the Greek culture and to set it down in a very understandable way, and I distributed this to all the soldiers who came to Greece in order to awake understanding. Further, I made available to every German soldier pamphlets in which I told them why they should admire these art treasures and why and how they should protect them and that they were sacred. Further, I got a group of scientists to write a popular paper on Greece for the German troops.
I myself participated in this work. Unfortunately, this was not finished and could not be distributed to the soldiers. I also organized scientific visits of all kinds in order to bring the history of the country nearer to the soldiers. Finally, I organized scientific lectures every week about historical art and historical problems, etc., and I even led the discussions myself on these lecture evenings in order to stimulate interest. And finally, I regarded it as a very important task to help protect the art treasures and to prevent them from being taken away or to prevent them from being damaged, first of all, by explanation and also by practical protection. For instance, once I was able to prevent a Dionysus statue being taken away to Germany, on an alleged Fuhrer order, etc. Those are just a few examples.
Q. Here, your Honor, I would like to offer Speidel Document No. 57 contained in Speidel Document Book No. III, page 80, and this Document No. 57 receives Exhibit No. 47. It is an affidavit by Professor Doctor de Wolff Metternich who is now Land Curator of the North Rhine Province. During the war he was Commissioner for the Protection of Art Treasures with the Army High Command, and in this capacity he had repeated opportunity to observe the correct attitude of General Speidel in all questions relating to art treasures.
The affiant then states how General Speidel aided in every possible way the tasks connected with art preservation, and mention might also be made, amongst other things, of his strict orders forbidding the use of museums and monasteries for military purposes. The affidavit is duly signed and certified.
Q Now, General, apart from the matters which we have just discussed, did you create other installations in order to inspire understanding of Greek culture and also in order to continue the intellectual education of the German soldier in this direction? Can you tell us what installations you created on these lines?
A I did not limit myself only to the direct method with regard an understanding of art which I have just indicated, but I tried always to influence the German soldier as far as I could towards becoming a more intellectually minded man than was possible in the German Reich.
For instance, in Athens, I organized the so-called German Culture Weeks, and here there were offerings of the highest quality in the sphere of music, literature, and art; and at the opening of this art week in Athens, which was also open to the Greeks, I held the opening speech in one of the largest halls in Athens about, on the subject of, "Intellect and the Soldier."
Further, I organized the so-called University Week. I brought a large number of university professors from Germany to Greece, and assembled all the graduates amongst the German soldiers and these scientific conferences were also introduced by me in a speech which I held in the main hall of the Athens University, on the subject of "The importance of the Hellenic Spirit for the German Scientist."
Finally, for the German soldiers as well as for the Greek population, I organized symphony concerts and I worked on the programs exclusively myself. I am also, by the way, something of a musician.
In addition, I also had a very strong influence on the methods of the culture propaganda, the welfare of the soldiers the theater, and always with the same purpose, to raise the intellectual level and in this way to create the readiness to understand Greece.
Q General, in answering my question before last you talked about wanting to have the art monuments of Greece protect as shrines. I don't think the translation came through correctly at the time.
I think you used this term, "shrines"?
A Yes, I did.
Q General, you talked about your participation in a scientific paper about Greece.
A Yes.
Q Did you also have any other literary activities in addition to that?
A Yes, as far as I had enough time and enough strength in Athens, I wrote something. Two things I can mention first, an art "historical comparison, "The Cultures of the Eastern Mediterranean Area and Their Influence on the Origin of Greek Culture, especially the Minoistic the Mykenian and Jonic Culture." That was the first one, and the other one was instigated in Athens itself by the genius of Loci. In the year 51, the Archbishop Paul, the Apostle Paul in Athens had his first argument with the Hellenic philosophy, the Epikur, and the Stov wrote the following work about this: the "Historic Figure of the Apostle Paul, as Synthesis of old Testament Jewry, Hellenic Philosophy and Christian Faith."
Q General, one question in conclusion with regard to this subject before last: if I observe in conclusion this intellectual activity of yours, it seems to be mainly an effect of your personal attitude, did not seem to be in direct connection with your task in Greece. Isn't that correct?
A Oh, yes, it did. It had a very decisive connection with my task. The pre-condition was, first of all, my personal attitude towards the world of Greek culture. The basic principle was the world in which I lived, in which we all lived, and, finally, the aim was the education of the German soldier the spirit and the culture of ancient Greece and in this way the creation of a bridge towards understanding of modern Greece.
DR. WEISSGERBER: Your Honors, the attitude of my client is illustrated and proved by a few affidavits. The first one is an affidavit by Hermann Boedecker in Speidel Document Book No. II, Speidel Document No. 22 and Speidel Exhibit No. 12. I would ask judicial notice to be taken of the paragraphs under I on page 27, and IV on pages 32 and 33.
In addition, I would like to state that on page 32 in the German text one line has not been included. I don't know whether it is included in the English text or not. I can't say at the moment. I would like to have them compared. That is on page 32, at the beginning of the bottom half.
There is mention of the 20th of July 1944 and then it goes on "by the latest prior to the collapse in May 1945 he had lost his life in a concentration camp" and then in the German text it goes on "myself had been denounced" and before that the following words are left out and I quote the words which have been left out: "lost his life. I had all the more cause for this assumption as I myself had been denounced."
And then I offer the next document, Speidel Document Book No. XXIII, Speidel Document No. 2, page 35. This is an affidavit by Dr. Ernst Kirsten which I offer as Speidel Exhibit No. 48 -
I am very sorry, your Honors; this document has already received Exhibit No. 25. -
I will not read this affidavit in detail either. I ask that judicial notice be taken of it.
The affiant is a lecturer at Goettingen University. Dr. Kirsten was in close association with my client from October 1942 until the end of May 1944. The affiant describes in detail how General Speidel took into account the needs of the Greek population; and how he had protected the feeling of honor of the Greek population and made the proposal that the German flag which was flying over the Acropolis as a symbol of foreign domination should be hauled down, even though this proposal did not meet with any success.
Then he continues with the attitude of my client towards National Socialism; and on page 38 he states that General Speidel eliminated any influence of the National Socialist Political Directing officer on his staff. The National Socialist Political Directing officer was an institution in the German Wehrmacht from Spring 1944, in order to fill the German Wehrmacht with National Socialist ideas and, as the affiant states here, General Speidel completely eliminated any influence on the part of this officer in his staff.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Weissgerber, before we take our afternoon recess I want to call your attention to the fact that you have previously referred to some documents in Document Book Iv, Speidel Iv, which have not been read into the record or which you have later called to the attention of the Tribunal. Perhaps, you might want to check on that during this recess period. We will take our afternoon recess at this time.
THE MARSHAL: The court will be in recess until fifteen-fifteen.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: I wish to make this following statement--that during the recess I have advised Mr. Fenstermacher and Dr. Laternser, as the representative of the defense counsel, that the Tribunal will adjourn for the Christmas recess at the close of the afternoon session of December 23rd. The defense counsel who maybe absent should be advised of this fact.
I have also advised Dr. Laternser, as the representative of the defense counsel, as to the time and preparation of the closing arguments and as to the time of presentation. I am making this statement into the record at this time so that defense counsel may gain this information from Dr. Laternser. This is December 15th, and, with this notice, there should be no excuse on the part of defense counsel as to their not having been given sufficient notice as to the matter of the preparation of any final arguments that they care to present.
You may proceed with your further questioning, Dr. Weissgerber.
DIRECT-EXAMINATION (Continued) By DR. WEISSGERBER:May I say something about the remark made by the Presiding Judge just before the recess?
I believe that Your Honors have referred to the two documents contained in Volume IV, which I have offered sometime previously in a different context, at a time when the English translation of Document Book IV was not ready yet.
I would like to read briefly those two affidavits. One is Speidel Document No. 73, contained in Speidel Document Book IV, on Page 40, which has been offered as Exhibit No. 28. It is an affidavit by Anton Heiligbrunner, who, between November 1942 and June 1944 served as an ADC with the Department Ia of the Military Commander. I do not wish to read the whole document. I believe I can be brief here, and I merely point to Paragraph 2 of the affidavit, contained on Page 41. The affiant says that among the officers (he means the officers on the staff of the Mili tary Commander), "It was an open secret among the officers that the powers of the Commander were becoming increasingly curtailed."
In Paragraph 3 the affiant draws attention to the fact that "in economic matters the Military Commander played a very subordinate role because the former Plenipotentiary of the Reich, Neubacher, was alone competent for the entire Greek area." In Paragraph 4 the affiant refers to reports such as reached the Military Commander Greece and which he forwarded. In Paragraph 5 we find a reference to relationships between the Military Commander Greece and the Higher SS and Police Leader for Greece. "I can say from my own observation that the latter always strove to create complete independence for himself. In police and sabotage matters and in the fight against the bands the Higher SS and Police Leader was not subordinate in any way to the Military Commander Greece." Paragraph 7 I read once before. In Paragraph 8 the affiant says that he remembers that "General Speidel concerned himself only slightly about official matters after the arrival of General Scheuerlen and that he left Athens about 8 days after the arrival of General Scheuerlen to go back to Germany. General Speidel did not return to Athens subsequently."
The passages which I have not read in this affidavit I would like to recommend to the judicial notice of the Tribunal.
The other affidavit offered in a different context previously is Speidel Document No. 71, which may be found on Page 31 in Speidel Document Book IV. This was offered as Exhibit No. 29. It is an affidavit by Dr. Carl Muehlmann, Senior Government Councillor, Retired. In December 1943 Dr. Muehlmann joined the staff of the Military Commander as a Major, and he was in charge of the Ia affairs and also acted as a deputy for the Chief of Staff during the latter's leave. The affiant describes in detail General Speidel such as he got to know him, and the work he did after an air-raid on Piraeus. He also makes a brief statement concerning reports by the Military Commander. And he produces other points of view. The last but one paragraph on Page 32 I should like to recommend to the special attention of the Tribunal, and I quote:
"I cannot remember an individual case either in which Speidel ordered reprisals." The affiant also says that General Speidel was not connected with the recruiting of labor and "the Higher SS and Police Leader was a State within the State." I would appreciate it if the Tribunal would take judicial notice of the whole of this document. Finally I should like to read from Speidel Exhibit No. 32, which is an affidavit by Robert Geiger, which may be found on Pages 1 and the following of Speidel Document Book IV. The affiant testifies as to events which became known to him in connection with the proceedings against Zaitis, and this is followed by a copy of the sentence passed by the military court of the Military Commander Greece of 18 February 1944. I withdraw that. The date should be 23rd of June 1943. This is an acquittal signed by General Speidel on 30th of June 1943, by way of confirmation after the Defendant Zaitis had been sentenced to two years in prison in the previous hearings. These are the three documents which have been offered once before from Document Book IV in a different context. If the Tribunal please, may I ask whether those were the documents to which Your Honors referred before the recess?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. WEISSGERBER: Thank you, Your Honor.
I shall now continue reading those documents which are connected with General Speidel's attitude towards Greek culture and the Greek people.
The next document in this connection may be found in Speidel Document Book II, on Page 39. This is Speidel Document No. 24, offered as Exhibit No. 48. It is an affidavit by Dr. Hermann Josef Nachtwey, former head of an administrative school, and he gave this affidavit on the 5th of October 1945. The affiant was, between November 1943 and July 1944, with the Armed Forces Welfare Department of the 19th anti-Aircraft Division in Athens. He was not on General Speidel's staff. He came to know General Speidel in Athens, and he met him frequently. I shall not read all the details of this affidavit. I should like to point out various significant passages in this affidavit.
For instance, on Page 40, the second paragraph: "In my eyes, General Speidel was a 100% opponent of the National Socialist regime, which was proved from numerous remarks to me, and from his whole attitude." In the third paragraph on that page the affiant says that the fact that he, General Speidel, "was forced to deal with this country, which he loved so dearly, as a militarist, grieved him very much, and he suffered even more, because many other military and political authorities interfered with the conditions of the country, by giving orders without consulting him, and by starting actions on their own bat." The next sentence also, "Speidel obstructed the plans and operations of the SS Police in Greece, but he lacked the authority to succeed on all occasions."
The affiant then describes how General Speidel, "in the course of the summer 1944, General Speidel fell in disgrace," and his authority was increasingly reduced. As for the remainder of the document I should like to draw the Court's attention to it.
The next document is Speidel Document No. 25, on Page 42 in Document Book II. This is offered as Exhibit No. 49. It is an affidavit by University Professor Dr. Wilhelm Weber. He had been, for many years, a lecturer for ancient history at Berlin University. This affiant came to know General Speidel for that period of time. I shall not read the details of this document here.
The next document is Speidel Document No. 26, on Page 46, which is offered as Exhibit No. 50. This is another affidavit by the same Professor, Dr. Wilhelm Weber. From this document I would like to read Paragraph 2, on Page 47, and I quote: "As a member of the central administration of the Archeological Reich Institute in Berlin I witnessed at the annual meeting 1944 under the agenda point 'nomination of new members,' how the proposal to admit the General Wilhelm Speidel as a new member was dealt with. I am in a position to testify that this proposal was unanimously adopted, by all the members, in view of the extensively expounded and unambiguously recognized merits of the General for archeological research, as expressed in the lectures mentioned, in authoritative work for the protection of art and the activity of the Institute.
In the ensuing vote General Speidel was elected unanimously as an ordinary member of the Archeological Reich Institute. It was and is a particularly glorifying distinction for a non-expert and non-scientist, such as it was only rarely conferred during the long history of the Institute. To me personally, who as the only one of the members of the central administration present knew the general personally, this honor bestowed on the General appeared as the finest appreciation of the genuine philhellenism of that noble man."
I recommend the other passages of the affidavit to the judicial notice of the Court.
The next document which I offer is Speidel Document No. 28, which may be found on Pages 52 and 53 of Document Book III, and it is offered as Speidel Exhibit No. 51. This is an affidavit given by Hans von Huelsen, who is a writer. He, for many decades, was an intimate friend of Gerhart Hauptmann, the world-famous poet, who died in 1946 and who heard much about relations with and the well-nigh paternal affections of the poet, Gerhart Hauptmann, for General Speidel. I recommend this document to the judicial notice of the Court. For the final document in this connection I would like to offer Speidel Document No. 32, which may be found on Pages 61 and 62 of Speidel Document Book II. This document is offered as Speidel Exhibit No. 52. It is an affidavit by Christiane von Stuenzner, who, between June 1942 and December 1943, was a secretarytypist on the staff of Military Commander Southern Greece, and later on the staff of the Military Commander Greece. This, again, I recommend to the judicial notice of the Tribunal.
Q Now, General, I shall start on the concluding chapter--the conference and the checking up of details, such as you are charged with by the Prosecution, and all the other details of your attitude towards the Greek people and the Greek area were necessary. But this conference and checking up makes it only too easy to push the more basic principles into the background, which were uppermost in your own mind and in the minds of the military leadership in Greece.
The Balkan Theatre of War brought with it methods of warfare which in that form, I am sure, are quite unique. How can you explain that phenomenon?
A In the course of this trial the term "barbarizing of warfare" has been coined. The barbarizing of warfare is in my mind quite generally a compulsory consequence of total warfare, total warfare and technological warfare looded at by the broadness of the world have found their most visible expression in the mass destruction of human lives in air-raids; the question of military necessity or non-necessity may be left out for the time being. If that sense and looking at it from this comparative point of view warfare became barbarous in the Balkans without any doubt. However, only too easily are people tempted to misjudge international relations mixing up cause and effect. The measures we took in the Balkans were not done for their own sakes. They were always reactions to the actions committed by others, namely, the reactions to the actions by the population. These actions led to franc-tireur warfare on a broad basis. Both methods of warfare aerial warfare and the turning of a whole population into franc-tireurs was not provided for by the Hague Conventions for Land Warfare. In other words, the factual developments of warfare overtook formal, set down legal provisions. That is to say, the basis in International Law of both types of warfare was to say the least somewhat unstable.
Q Were the methods chosen by German war leaders in the Balkans conditioned by military necessity?
A Military necessity behind all measures but in particular, of course, behind reprisal measures existed a priori by the fundamental task which confronted us, i,e. to defend ourselves against the outside. The basic condition for that, however, was security, law and order in the interior of the country. As military methods as such cannot prevent murder, sabotage and surprise attacks, reprisal measures become inevitable, but also independent of how strong the units were because no military leader can sit with his hands in his lap when Ms soldiers are being murdered without trying to protect himself against such methods.
This was also realized by the generals on the Allied side when they threatened reprisal measures and carried them out. But there are two fundamental differences here. The first difference is when the Allied generals threatened or carried out reprisal measures, they were superior in their forces without any doubt and victory was within their grasp. This, my assertion, could be contradicted by the fact that reprisal measures are a consequence of too weak forces, and therefore there is an interrelation between those two facts; and the second difference is that in this case the German population was war-weary and lacking in discipline, with the result that these reprisal measures did not have to be taken in full. But in the Southeast the activities indulged in by the population inevitably led to the Wehrmacht being forced to carry out these measures.
Q General, you said just now that generals on the Allied side did not only threaten to carry out reprisal measures, but that they actually did carry them out. Can you supply any proof for this assertion?
A Yes, I know a few cases.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honor please, I object to that question This proceeding is not concerned with any reprisal measures which were carried out upon the Allied side.
DR. WEISGERBER: If the Tribunal please, may I make a very brief statement? In this trial the question whether the seizure of hostages and the killing of hostages are justified, is a highly important one. The prosecution alleges that the seizing and killing of hostages was not legal under international law. If I, on behalf of my client, cite a case based on affidavits and sworn documents where the Allies carried out reprisal measures and shot hostages, then the analyzing of that event is of great importance to this trial. I at least regard it as my duty as a defense counsel, to look sufficiently after the interests of my client by describing here in this trial in open court what actually happened in at least part of the Allied Armies.
THE PRESIDENT: The evidence will be received for such value as it may be determined it should receive.
DR. WEISGERBER: If the Tribunal please, I beg to offer from Document Book Speidel number 4, Speidel Document No. 64 which may be found on page 18 of that document book. I shall give the document Speidel Exhibit Number 53. This is an official statement by the office of the Mayor of Reutlingen in Wurtemberg and this is what it says:
"Office of the Mayor of Reutlingen, Reutlingen, 25 November 1947. On 24 April 1945 four hostages were shot in Reutlingen by French combat troops. Entry is made in the death register of which a single copy will be made.
"The troops delivered a proclamation to the provisional German administration in the French and German language to be printed and posted in the city district of Reutlingen. The proclamation was posted, a fine amounting to 200,000 marks in cash, payable within a few hours, was imposed to the city administration.
"The city administration did not receive official information about the shooting of hostages. This official confirmation is made to be submitted as evidence to the Military Tribunal 7 in Nurnherg.
Stamp: City of Reutlingen."
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I object to the admission of this document. It is not a sworn statement. It does not comply with rule 21 of the Uniform Rules of Procedure.
DR. WEISGERBER: May I make a statement about that, Your Honor? This is an official declaration by the office of the Mayor of Reutlingen. Official declarations issued by authorities are not sworn to as a rule, at least not with us in Germany, because the department which in this case issued the declaration, that is to say, the office of the Mayor, is also the police authority and it would hardly make sense to expect an administrative department which holds police authority and represents the police itself, to give a sworn statement as well. But if the Tribunal should not share this opinion, which is completely usual, here in Germany at least, namely, that declarations made by departments and authorities need not be specially sworn to, I shall, of course, be only too glad to furnish an affidavit in the manner in which the Court might wish me to do.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If it please Your Honor, this is simply a piece of paper signed by some man whose authority does not appear anywhere in the document. For all that appears this man might be a citizen of the city of Reutlingen. Nothing appears that he is Mayor at all.
DR. WEISGERBER: If the Tribunal please, in the left-hand corner of this document it says "Office of the Mayor of Reutlingen". That expresses the fact that this is an official document which could not have been signed by anybody. It can only have been signed by somebody who is authorized to issue a declaration on behalf of the Office of the Mayor, and the document submitted by me also shows the stamp of the City of Reutlingen and that makes the statement an official and authoritative declaration by an official department.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honor please, anybody could print out pieces of paper and put on anything he or she wanted to put on. Anybody might get hold of the stamp of the city and put it on any document at all. I submit this document is completely inadmissible.
THE PRESIDENT: It is the thought of the Tribunal that this party signing this statement signs it as an individual and there is no indication that it is issued for and on behalf of any municipality, and if we are to follow the rulings that we have heretofore announced, it is necessary that the objection be sustained. It will not prevent you, Dr. Weisgerber, from submitting it later if and when it is presented in proper form.
DR. WEISGERBER: The next document is Speidel Document Number 65, offered as Speidel Exhibit 54. It may be found on page 19 of the document book number 4. This is a certified copy of a death register issued by the official in charge of the registrar's office in Erpfingen, and this is what it says: "Reutlingen, 18 May 1945, the carpenter Jacob Schmid -
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I repeat my objection to this document. It is the same as it was to the preceding one. We don't know the authority of the man signing the document, don't know what his office is. For all that appears here it is a piece of paper signed by an unknown individual.
DR. WEISGERBER: May it please the Tribunal, I have this to say about that. This again is an official document issued by the registrar's office of the city of Reutlingen. It shows the stamp, registrar's office in Reutlingen, and that in German eyes makes it a document with full probative value. I really can not see why this document should not have the same legal significance which would be given by all other documents if and when they show that the person concerned here, namely, carpenter Jacob Schmid, was shot on 24 April 1945 at 1600 hours as a hostage.
But should the Court hold the view in this case that this document does not comply with the complete requirements of this Tribunal, I would be grateful if this document could be admitted temporarily and I shall here, as in all the other cases, supplement the declaration with the required clause, namely, that the contents of that document have been given in lieu of oath.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honor pleas, this document was simply signed by a man named Mandel who claimed that he is the registrar. We have no reason to believe that he is or is not unless some further proof is introduced.
DR. WEISGERBER: If the Tribunal please, I am not informed as to how these things are handled in the United States, as far as statements made by official departments are concerned. It is, however, my view that declarations made by public authorities which show the official stamp need not also be supplemented by an affidavit or sworn statement that the contents are correct in order to acquire full probative value. I should also like to call to mind the custom observed by the military government of the United States in Germany.
Those departments are always quite satisfied with a registrar's document which is usual in Germany and which we have in front of us now and it always is regarded as a fully valid certificate before the military government of the United States in Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: It is the judgment of the Tribunal that the correctness of this document and similar documents should be shown in a manner which would meet the requirements of the rules as previously set down.
DR. WEISGERBER: I shall then at a later date offer these documents in the form in which the Tribunal desires, but it might be expedient in order to keep the presentation of my evidence in a continuous form to admit the documents which I am about to offer temporarily by the Tribunal with the proviso that I shall later on supplement these documents with the sworn statement.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't believe that is advisable, Dr. Weisgerber. Until such time as they are actually admitted, they should not receive the designation of even a temporary admission or that they are temporarily admissible.
DR. WEISGERBER: Then I shall not read these documents today, but I should be grateful if at a later period of time in this trial, I might submit these documents during the presentation of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: If it is presented in the proper manner while this Tribunal is in session, why we will give them such consideration as the Tribunal considers it merits at that time.
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q. I should now like to offer Speidel Document No. 69 which may be found on page 27 of Speidel Document Book No. 4 and it is offered as Speidel Exhibit 53. This is an affidavit by a photographer called Karl Nacher of Reutlingen which he gave on 25 November 1947, and this is what it says:
"On 20 April 1943 the French entered Routlingen.
At once a guard was placed in the town-hall, the former electric power plant building.
On the morning of the 24 April, towards 10 o'clock my father-in-law the carpenter Jakob Schmid, born on 24 July 1880 had some business to do in the town-hall in connection with a delivery of timber to the municipality. He never returned from that journey.
Instead, a man from Reutlingen called on us already before lunch in our home. He told us, he was coming from my father-in-law, who sent us the message that he had been detained as a hostage. His wife should visit him. Nobody thought, at first, of an execution by shooting. Nothing yet was known to us of the alleged murder of a French soldier during the night of 22/23 April 1945.
Thereupon, my mother-in-law went immediately to the town--hall. After her return she too did not tell us more than that my father-in-law had been detained as a hostage. We heard nothing more in the course of the day. My mother-in-law wanted to visit her husband another time in the afternoon but did not find him any longer.
A neighbor too tried to see him in the afternoon and failed.
In the later afternoon the parish priest Keiner called on us, told us that my father-in-law had been shot, and brought a last letter from him. This letter I accepted myself. My father-in-law wrote that he was innocent and did not know why he would he shot.
In fact, my father-in-law had no left the house during the night from the 22 to 23 April.
Next day a bill was posted in various places at Routlingen containing, in French and in German, the following announcement:
Lst French Army Military Command.
A french soldier was murdered at Reutlingen during the night from 22 to 23 April.
The people responsible for this deed have been shot. A fine of 200-000 Mark has been imposed on the municipality.
Civilians must from now on remain indoors between 18 hours and 9 hours.
Should a new attack be made on our troops, a new military operation will be undertaken against the town.
Signed The Commandant."
End of quotation.
I myself have seen and read the poster.
Reutlingen, 25 November 1947.
Duly signed: Carl NAEHER.
Duly signed and certified by the notary.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honor please, I ask that the reference in this affidavit to an alleged announcement by the French Army Military Command be stricken. It is complete hearsay; the best evidence rule is violated. If the man was able to give an exact text of the order we certainly should be able to have the announcement itself brought here and introduced into evidence. Finally, I should like to point out that there seems to be an inconsistency between a person being shot as a hostage as is alleged in the affidavit, and being shot because he was responsible for having committed the deed, which the announcement states.
Finally, the whole document itself seems to be completely irrelevant and immaterial and has no probative value regarding the charges alleged in this indictment.