 |
purpose in mind of gaining certain advantages in the case of war for
Germany because of the dual citizenship.
JUDGE MORRIS: All right, go ahead. I found
it somewhat difficult to follow the connection.
DR. HOFFMANN: Dr. Haefliger, is it true
that in this question that you were concerned with, you turned to Dr. Krueger?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you informed about that fact
whether Dr. Krueger commissioned von der Heyde to deal with this matter?
A. I didn't know to what
agency he would turn and by whom he would have this matter settled. I didn't
know von der Heyde at all at that time, and I didn't know his position.
Q. I have only one more
question, Dr. Haefliger. If you would be kind enough to look at Exhibit
2016, that is the letter which von der Heyde
writes to you.
A. Very
well.
Q. When you
received that letter, did you have any objection or misgiving, or were you
quite sure that all this was to serve the purpose of complying with the request
that you had expressed to Dr. Krueger?
A. Yes, of course. Mr. Krueger told me,
“Let me handle this matter in my own way. I am going to push this
through.” And then I heard that von der Heyde got the mission from
Krueger, and then he was describing his method to me, and I said, “Very
well, he can handle it. I don't want to interfere in his affairs at all.”
|
| |
| * * * * * * * * * * |
| |
| RECROSS-EXAMINA TION |
| |
| * * * * * * * * * * |
| |
MR. SPRECHER: Now, concerning the last three documents you were
questioned about on redirect examination, those that pertain to your
citizenship, I have one question. You have testified that you had a personal
objective that involved the Reich authorities for Dr. Krueger and others
involved. My question is this: Do you know of any other case where one had a
personal objective involving the Reich authorities before 1939 in Germany,
where the authorities were addressed in terms of the eventuality of war in
order to obtain the desire from the authorities?
DR. VON METZLER: Objection, Mr. President.
PRESIDING JUDGE SHAKE:
The Tribunal is of the opinion that that matter is too remote to have
sufficient probative value to justify the question. The objection is sustained.
MR. SPRECHER: No further
questions. |
1595 |
. 
