"Question 7: 'Is it correct that, on the contrary, the Deputy of the Führer took meticulous care that in all circumstances interference in the internal affairs of the country of adoption was to be avoided?'
"Answer: 'I can repeat only that it was a chief concern of the Deputy of the Führer to direct the work of the Auslands-Organisation abroad in such a way that no interference of any kind should take place in the internal affairs of the country of residence. The few insignificant offenses, which were unavoidable with the then very large number of German nationals abroad-already amounting to several million-were correspondingly severely punished.'
"Question 8: 'What were the tasks and the aims of .the Volksbund fur das Deutschtum im Ausland (League for Germans Abroad)?' "Answer: 'The Volksbund für das Deutschtum im Ausland had the cultural care of the so-called Volksdeutsche. Vokdeutsche are racial Germans who had lost their German citizenship either voluntarily or through the laws of other countries, that is, had acquired the citizenship of another country, for instance, America, Hungary, Transylvania, et cetera.'
"Question 9: 'Did the Volksbund für das Deutschtum im Ausland ever, in particular however before 10 May 1941, develop any activity which could have given it the appearance of a Fifth Column?' "Answer: 'I must state in this connection that the actility of the Auslands-Organisation did not have anything to do with the Volksbund für das Deutschtum im Ausland, so I can have no insight into its work. But I consider it entirely out of the question that my brother could have given the Volksbund tasks of a Fifth Column nature. It would neither have fallen within the jurisdiction of the Deputy of the Führer, nor have corresponded with his views as to the mission of the Volksbund für das Deutschtum im Ausland.'
"Question 10, and last question: 'What kind of directions and instructions did the Deputy of the Führer give as to the activity of this Bund?'
"Answer: 'Directions, et cetera, which my brother gave as to the activity'of this Bund are unknown to me, for, as already dated, my activity in the Auslands-Organisation was in no way connected with the Volksbund für das Deutschtum im Ausland.' "-Signed-"Alfred Hess. Sworn to and subscribed on 19 March 1946."
The witness Alfred Hess was then cross-examined in connection with his interrogation. I assume that the Prosecution want to submit this cross-examination themselves to the Tribunal. But if this cross-examination and the questions belonging to it have not yet been translated, it might perhaps be practicable if it were done directly, in this connection.
MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): If it please the Tribunal, we have received the cross-interrogatories but I suggest respectfully that, rather than take the time to read them, we offer them and if the Court will permit us, have them translated into the four languages. It will take another 10 minutes or SO to read them and we are not interested in 'doing it unless the Tribunal feels that we should.
THE PRESIDENT: .Yes, certainly, Mr. Dadd.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President and Gentlemen, I do not know whether the affidavit of Ambassador Gaus submitted by me yesterday has been translated and whether the Tribunal has received these translations already. Yesterday at midday I gave six copies to the information office and have heard nothing further since.
THE PRESIDENT: Can the Prosecution inform the Tribunal what the position is?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the Prosecution has not had a copy of this affidavit yet so we do not know what is in it.
We suggest that perhaps Dr. Seidl could postpone the reading of that until we have had a chance to consider it. THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I am afraid that must be postponed.
DR. SEIDL: Yes. Now I turn to Volume 3 of the document book.
If it please the Tribunal, this volume of the document book contains, in substance, statements and quotations taken from books and speeches of foreign statesmen, diplomats, and political economists, regarding the history and origin of the Versailles Treaty, the contents of the Versailles Treaty, the territorial changes made by this treaty, such as the question of the Polish Corridor, and above all the disastrous economic consequences which this treaty had for Germany and also for the rest of the world.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have read the documents in this book and I should like just to say one or two words about them.
They are opinions expressed by a great variety of gentlemen, including politicians, economists, and journalists. They are opinions that are expressed polemically and some of them journalistically, and with most of them one is familiar and knew them when they were expressed 15 to 25 years ago.
Now. while I submit, as I have submitted to the Tribunal, that the whole subject is too remote, I have a suggestion which I hope the Tribunal will consider reasonable, that the Prosecution should, as I suggested yesterday, let this book go in at the moment de bene esse and that when Dr. Seidl comes to making his ha1 speech he can adopt the arguments that are put forward by the various gentlemen whom he quotes, if he thinks they are right. He can use the points as illustrations, always provided the thesis that he is developing is one which the Tribunal thinks relevant to the issues before it. That will preserve for Dr. Seidl the advantage of the right to use these documents subject, as I say, to the relevancy of the issues, but I suggest that it would be quite wrong to read them as evidence at the moment. They are merely polemical and journalistic opinions and directed to an issue which the Prosecution has submitted, and I do submit, is too remote.
However, I am most anxious that Dr. Seidl should have every advantage for his final speech. Therefore, I suggest it would be convenient if they were put in without being read at the moment and were left subject to the Limitation of relevancy, which can be considered when all the evidence is before the Tribunal, for him to make use of in his final speech.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, may I shortly...
THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment, Dr. Seidl. We will hear sou in a moment-perhaps it would be better to hear what you have to say now. Do you think the suggestion made by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe would be one which would be acceptable to you?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, at first glance the suggestion of Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe seems to be very reasonable. But I believe I must say that if the matter is treated in that way great difficultis will arise for the Defense. For example the arguments on relevancy, which in their nature belong in the presentation of evidence and must be heard there, will be postponed until the final speech of the Defense. This would mean that the defense counsel in his final speech would be interrupted again and again; that he would have to argue for the relevancy of his quotations; that perhaps whole parts of his speech would fall by the wayside in that manner; and that in that way the danger would arise that the cohesion of the speech will be broken completely.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is a danger which, every advocate has to meet, that certain portions of his speech may not be deemed relevant, but I thought that that might be a helpful way out. But if it is no,t accepted, then the Prosecution must respectfully but very strongly submit that the issues of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles are not relevant to this Tribunal.
I have already argued that and I do not want to develop it at great length. I do want to make it clear that the questions which are raised by the quotations here were, of course, the subject of political controversy in practically every country in Europe, and different opinions were expressed as to the rightness and the practicality of the provisions, especially the economic provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. I am not disputing, that that is a matter of controversy, but I am saying that it is not a controversy that should come before this Tribunal. I myself have replied tor practically all the quotations from the English statesmen here as a politician over the past years, and I am, are many people in this Court must have taken one view or the other, but that is not a relevant issue to this Tribunal, and, of course, especially is it wrong in my view to put forward as evidential matter opinions