It is very difficult when these affidavits are sought to, be put in at the last minute without having given us a chance of seeing them.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps Colonel Pokrovsky could tell me whether he has seen this affidavit or had it translated yet.
COLONEL Y. V. POKROVSKY (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the V.S.S.R.): Members of the Tribunal, I fully share the viewpoint of Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. It appears to me absolutely unacceptable to have this document presented immediately to the Tribunal.
If I understood Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe correctly, he did not receive this affidavit. The Soviet delegation is in the same position.
Besides, I would like to remind you that the question of this witness has already been discussed, that it has been definitely solved, and it seems to me there are no grounds for a further revision of this question.
"HE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal considers that the course which must be taken is that that affidavit must be translated and submitted to the Tribunal for their consideration, for this witness was, allowed to the Defendant Ribbentrop, I think, and then he withdrew his application for the witness. You have not applied for the witness Gaus, and I would point out to you and to the other counsel for the defendants that it is very inconvenient that documents of this sort-after all the question of witnesses and documents has been thoroughly gone into by the Tribunal-should be presented at the last moment and without any translation whatever. But we will not go into it now, and it must be translated and submitted to the Tribunal in the three languages.
DR. SEIDL: Perhaps I might make one short remark in regard to the last point. Up to now I was always under the impression that a formal application to call a witness would not be necessary in the case of a witness who has already been admitted by the Tribunal for another defendant. That was undoubtedly so in the case of Gaus who was named as a witness for the Defendant Von Ribbentrop.
Consequently I had no reason to make a formal application, since I would have the opportunity to interrogate the witness in cross-examination anyhow.
I have just been informed by counsel for the Defendant Von Ribbentrop that, as his representative said last Saturday, he will forego calling the witness Gaus, and now I, in turn, apply to call Ambassador Dr. Gaus as witness regarding the statements in his sworn affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not know what you mean by saying you call him. You can apply to call him if you like, but you do not call him until you apply.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: When we have seen this document, we will determine the question.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness admitted by the Tribunal for the Defendant Hess is the witness Karl STRÖLIN. In order to save time I have also prepared an affidavit for this witness, and I ask the Tribunal to inform me whether we will follow the same procedure with this witness as with the witness Bohle, or whether the Prosecution agree that only the affidavit should be presented.
THE PRESIDENT: Have they seen the affidavit?
DR. SEIDL: I gave the affidavit to the Prosecution this morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have got an English translation of the affidavit. There are one or two questions the Prosecution want to put to the witness, so I suggest that the most convenient course would be if Dr. Seidl did as he did with the last witness, to read the affidavit, and then after the affidavit is read, the few questions that the Prosecution desire to be put can be put to him.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
COL. POKROVSKY: I must report to you, Mr. President, that as far as this document is concerned, the Defense Counsel has violated the procedure you have established; the Soviet Prosecution received this affidavit only a very short time ago-about 1 or 2 hours ago—and it was not received by us in Russian but in English. Therefore, I had the opportunity of familiarizing myself with it only very slightly, and I ask to have the presentation of this document postponed until such time when the order of the Tribunal is complied with, in other words, not until we have received our document in Russian.
THE PRESIDENT: But, Colonel Pokrovsky, in the interest of the time of the Tribunal, wouldn't it be better to get on with it now?
Sir David has apparently seen the affidavit and read it in English, and if he is satisfied upon that, wouldn't it be better to go on with it now rather than to postpone it?
You see, Dr. Seidl has actually been allowed this witness, so that it is only a question of time, doing 'it by way of an affidavit when he can call him, and he can then ask him questions.
COL. POKROVSKY: I must repeat that I have familiarized myself with this document very slightly. As far as I can understand, it is of no particular interest to the Soviet Delegation; it is of greater interest to the British Delegation...
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, you see the witness was allowed to Dr. Seidl. Therefore, Dr. Seidl could have put him on the witness box and could have asked him questions, and the only reason for doing it by way of an affidavit is to get the matter more clearly and more quickly. So if we were to order that this affidavit was not to be used, we should then have Dr. Seidl asking the witness questions, and probably, I am afraid, taking up rather longer than it would to read the affidavit, and you would not object to that.
COL. POKROVSKY: Perhaps the Tribunal would find it advisable to have Dr. Seidl ask the witness those questions which have already been answered in the affidavit? It seems to me that that would give us an opportunity to reconcile this contradiction, especially since there are only a few questions, and the first three, as far as I can understand, are mostly of a historical nature and connected with the organization of the Institute in Stuttgart in 1917.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, I have not read the affidavit yet so I am afraid I am not in a position to present the question which you wish me to present.
COL. POKROVSKY: All right, I withdraw my objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Call your witness then now.
[The witness STRÖLIN took the stand.]
What is your name?
KARL STRÖLIN (Witness): Karl STRÖLIN.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: "I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth--and will withhoId and add nothing."
[The witness repeated the oath in German.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down if you wish.
DR. SEIDL: Witness, you were last Lord Mayor of the City of Stuttgart; is that correct?
STRÖLIN: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: In this capacity were you also Honorary President of the Gerinan Auslands-Institut?
STRÖLIN: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: You signed a sworn affidavit this morning which I shall now read to you.
"1. The German Auslands-Institut was founded in Stuttgart in the year 1917. The fact that Stuttgart was chosen as the seat of this institute is connected with the fact that the Swabian district has always furnished a particularly high percentage of emigrants. That is precisely why there arose in Stuttgart the need to create an institution for the purpose of preserving the national ties between the old and the new homeland. The German Auslands-Institut was to serve this purpose. It had the following aims: "(a) Scientific research on Germanism in the world.
"(b) Maintaining cultural connections with the emigrants.
"(c) Informing the people at home about Germanism abroad and about foreign countries.
"For scientific research the German Auslands-Institut had a library of more than one hundred thousand volumes on folk- lore and an archive for newspaper files concerning Germanism abroad. For this purpose nearly all newspapers which were published abroad in the German language and a large number of