A. Since I do not recollect any specific case, where I have been reprimanded, I have to state here that one was in agreement with my measures.
MR. RAPP: We have no more questions, your Honors.
PRESIDENT WENNERSTRUM: Court adjourned until one-thirty.
.....Adjournment until 1330 hours.....
AFTERNOON SESSION
THE MARSHAL: All persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session. May it please Your Honors, this afternoon the Defendant Weichs is absent from the Court because of illness.
THE PRESIDENT (JUDGE WENNERSTRUM): The Tribunal will proceed in his absence, without prejudice to his case.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honors please, first I would like to distribute to defense counsel some additional photographs. If Your Honors please, I would like now to distribute some additional photos which come from the National Commission for the Investigation of War Crimes of Yugoslavia. These photos were not submitted at the time the first portions of this report were offered because of the fact that they deal with events occurring in the latter period which has just been concluded. We will give the copies to the defense counsel, and the Secretary General, and the Court, and we will not offer them at this time, in order that you may have at least twenty-four hours' notice. In view of the fact that Exhibit 100-d and its annexes is now approaching the size of the New York telephone directory, I suggest that we mark this 441-a for identification. And in view of the twentyfour-hour notice, I will say no more about it at this time. The Prosecution would appreciate it if the Tribunal would find it convenient to have a session on Saturday of this week. We have the witnesses from Greece here now, and we hope to start with their testimony sometime tomorrow. And there is some question of time with reference to their getting back to Greece and, in that they must be flown, there arc difficulties involving plane clearances and weather conditions. And it would help us considerably if the Tribunal could find it convenient to sit.
THE PRESIDENT (JUDGE WENNERSTRUM): May I make inquiry of the counsel for the defendants as to whether or not they would have any objections to the Tribunal's being in session on Saturday?
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, much as I understand the reasons of the Prosecution, I still have to object to the session on Saturday for the following reasons: The defense has to prepare its case. The defense counsel spends a whole day in the courtroom, and in the evening he is very tired, so that he can only work in a very strained state and only thus prepare his defense case. Now, we have a one day break which we need necessarily to check the proceedings of the previous week and to be well rested when we talk with our clients. As the time is very short and very limited for the preparation of the defense case, the defense can, therefore, not do without a sessionless day.
THE PRESIDENT (JUDGE WENNERSTRUM): May I suggest to Dr. Laternser that, as you go on with your defense, there may be occasions when you will need some time or need to have it speeded up, perhaps. The Prosecution is asking this as a favor. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we're willing to sit. But with the transportation problem and the limited facilities for airplane travel, it seems to me that, under these circumstances, for this one day, it would be advisable.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Sauter for Defendants Geitner and Lanz. Your Honor, may I make another suggestion. We quite see that there is an ulterior interest, and so that these witnesses who are away from their homes can return as soon as possible, I think it would be - may be suitable if instead, after the Greek witnesses are through, maybe you can then give us a day off - may be a Monday or a Friday. And in that way it would be worked out, and all defense counsel I think would agree to this, since the Prosecution is interested in sending the Greek witnesses back as soon as possible.
THE PRESIDENT (JUDGE WENNERSTRUM): If it should develop, Dr. Sauter, that after they are excused you are cramped for time, I am quite certain that the Tribunal will give you an extra day. But let us meet that situation when it arises. Now, what we would like to do is to have your consent to this sitting of the Tribunal on Saturday, but we don't want to be arbitrary about the matter. Under the circumstances.
DR. SAUTER: We quite certainly agree now, but maybe we can, later on, return to this request which I made just now.
THE PRESIDENT (JUDGE WENNERSTRUM): Very well. Under the circumstances then the Tribunal will mention Saturday, and we will then take up your request if it appears necessary or at a later time.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
MR. DENNEY: Now, if your Honors please, that is all we have now. We have no further questions to the witness and I imaging there is some cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed with such cross examination as counsel for defense wishes to present.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. Witness, you have come from a camp near Marburg?
A. Yes.
Q. You said yesterday when you first started that since about three days you were under more severe supervision in jail. What did you mean by that? What does it consist of?
A. I mean that I was brought to a cell, in solitary confinement; I was alone there; it was specially locked and it was ordered that I would not fetch my food as usual. I cannot collect it as usual, together with the other inmates but it has to be brought to me; that I may only live alone under special supervision and that I am not allowed to write and receive letters.
Q. Did this sudden change in the manner of confinement, did that have any effect on your state of health?
A. I cannot say that it made my tasks any easier.
Q. Witness, did you yesterday, that is, after your examination in this court room started, and during the course of last evening or this morning before the session started, did you talk to any representatives of the prosecution?
A. No. May I correct myself in as much as outside in the corridor I talked very briefly to Mr. Rapp but that is immaterial.
Q. But nothing concerning your testimony?
A. No.
Q. Yesterday, you were read to, from a memorandum, I think the date is the 15 of July 1946, the Prosecutor submitted several items out of this document to you.
How did this memorandum, come into existence?
A. In my prison camp Tschuffenhausen, where I had nothing else to do, I wrote this down for myself and for my personal memoirs. I wrote down those matters as I could judge them subsequently, retroactively, and I compiled them there. That is, as a basis, I had merely a short note book where the events of the particular day were put down in brief style. Any orders or other documentary material of a more detailed nature I did not have.
Q. Witness, where were you when you completed the memorandum?
A. At that time I was in the internment camp 78, Tschuffenhausen near Stuttgart.
Q. How did the memorandum get into the hands of the Prosecution?
A. A Captain in Tschuffenhausen, Captain of C.I.C., his name was Captain Silver, one day talked to us, addressed us, that is, the Generals who were together in Tschuffenhausen, and he suggested there to put down any former experiences if we wished to do so and we could add these to our files. For this reason alone I decided at that time to put down these matters as long as I could remember them well, put them down in writing, and to incorporate them into my personal files.
Q. Is this memorandum which we discussed just now the document which I am now going to show you which bears No. NOKW 1735?
A. Yes, indeed, that is the document.
Q. Then you, on the 8th of January 1947, made an affidavit for the Prosecution which bears No. NOKW 611. Is that correct?
A. That is the affidavit which was under discussion this morning.
Q. I do not want to concern myself with the contents. All I want to establish now is: In what manner this partly used affidavit came into existence? How did that come about?
A. This affidavit is a compilation of interrogations which took place around about the end of last year and beginning of this year.
Q. Interrogations by whom?
A. Interrogations by Mr. Rapp.
Q. That is by the Prosecution?
A. Yes, by the Prosecution.
Q. Did you write this affidavit yourself?
A. No.
Q. Who drafted this affidavit in the way in which it is submitted now?
A. I assume the Prosecution.
Q. Not you then?
A. No.
Q. Does the affidavit from the 8 of January contain all that you said at that time?
A. It does not contain everything since the interrogation which preceded the affidavit contained more questions, More matter which however might have been immaterial.
Q. At that time you were in Nurmberg?
A. Yes.
Q. And in jail?
A. Yes.
Q. Before or after you had signed the affidavit, were you told that after you had signed it you could return to the camp near Marburg?
A. No, that was told to me later, one day before I actually departed.
Q. That is after you had already signed?
A. Yes.
Q. This affidavit, is thus an addition to an affidavit likewise of the 8th of January? Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. On whose initiative is this additional affidavit made -may I finish my question - did you make this additional affidavit on your own account or were you requested to make it?
A. After I had made my statement on the very same day this additional affidavit was submitted to me.
Q. And who drafted this additional affidavit?
A. I must assume that that likewise was the Prosecution.
Q. Not you yourself then?
A. No.
Q. Was this additional affidavit -- did it seem especially important to the Prosecution?
A. Yes, I should think so; apparently the statements which I had made on the morning of that day did not seem sufficient to the Prosecution.
Q. What were you told in order that you would sign this additional affidavit as well?
A. Whether I was given a more detailed explanation for this I cannot say today any more.
Q. Do you today remember quite well if the Prosecution was particularly interested in this additional explanation?
A. I cannot say that with certainty but I assume that since they came to me that very same day and asked me to sign.
Q I now submit to you this affidavit and I ask you to tell us whether that is the affidavit NOKW 611, with the annex. The Prosecution gave it the identification number 440-a?
A Yes.
Q Now, a further affidavit for the Prosecution, the contents of which I do not want to discuss here, that is the affidavit NOKW 1731, which is in document book 18, and it bears the date of 19 February 1947; how did this affidavit come about?
A The affidavit, may I just look at it for a moment?
DR. LATERNSER: For the information of the Court that is the affidavit 440-A-1.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, may I suggest or request in referring to these various papers you refer to them by exhibit numbers. It will be helpful to the Tribunal in making its record.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Your Honor, I can do that immediately. The first affidavit had identification number 409-A, that is the one which bears the number NOKW 1735. The second affidavit which I mentioned just now was NOKW 611. This document has the identification number 440-A. And the document which I am talking about now is NOKW 1731. It bears the number 440-A-1. Those are not exhibits.
A Yes, indeed. This affidavit came about through a representative of the Prosecution who came to my camp in Allendorf at that time, and he interrogated me there concerning the individual items of this affidavit, and then he compared the various items and then asked me to sign them. The affidavit was made in Allendorf.
Q In other words then this affidavit was not drafted by you?
A No.
Q You didn't write it yourself?
A No.
Q But you did sign it?
A Yes.
Q Looking at these affidavits now on the basis of the affidavit the Prosecution today asked you certain questions to point out discrepancies and to try to show up discrepancies between these affidavits and the testimony which you gave yesterday in this Courtroom.
Generally speaking, I wanted to ask you this, the contents of these affidavits is that correct, or is your testimony here correct in case there are discrepancies between those two?
A If there are discrepancies that which I have said here in this courtroom is valid.
Q Now, we will talk about something else. Before you took over the position as commander in chief Southeast you were as you said yesterday, received in Hitler's headquarters, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q At the occasion of this introduction were you told that up until now the dealings with the bands in the Balkans had not been strong enough, is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q And then towards the end of 1943 you were in the Balkans, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q How then was the general situation in the Balkans at that time when you took over your office; I ask you now to describe the situation to the Court?
A In doing this I have to rely on my memory alone, and as I remember the picture today, I had the impression then that out of all the territories in the Balkans the relatively most quiet was the Serbian area. To me as a man who up to then had never been in the Balkans, the situation there at least, as it was described to me, was rather shocking. The uncertainty and the excesses of bands of all kinds was so much a matter of course so that as I have mentioned here once before, I saw in the daily reports about 50 cases which had happened somewhere in this gigantic area. It was absolutely clear to me that with purely military gains, the usual method of combat and the usual administrative methods one could not succeed in the course of time.
I was certain therefore that my attitude which I mentioned yesterday, which was in opposition to all these reprisals and retaliation measures could not possibly be fully established. Especially difficult it was for us soldiers, the interference of all kinds of authorities which were not subordinated to the Wehrmacht, but who were very ambitious to play their own part; all other officers, and that from this side on the part of these, I might say, hostile observers, I, as well as all other officers who had anything to do with administrative matters, would have to overcome great difficulties. And in this attitude of mind, I found myself not mistaken, at least during the first few months.
Q Witness, what other individual political opinions or divisions were there in the Balkans?
A That is very hard to answer briefly. Each country had its own individual political trends, which in detail I think are quite known.
Q I ask you to mention these individual tendencies since I cannot assume that they are well-known to all.
A If I am to start with Serbia, there were the well-known tendencies Mihajlovic, Tito, and -- independent of the two of them -independently operating, Communist and the so-called National Cetnik Bands. In Greece there was the EAM and how the other band leaders were called. I am not able to recollect today. There too were tendencies within the population, and against the German Wehrmacht.
Who fought against whom, then, of the indigenous units?
A. In the Serbian area the Mihailovic or the Chetnik bands as Enemy No. 1 fought the units of Tito; as Enemy No. 2 they fought us, the occupation force. This was told us quite openly by the Chetnik band leaders.
Q. The reports about the activities of the Chetnik bands -- did they come to you as Military Commander-in-Chief Southeast?
A. Yes, as far as they concerned the Serbian area.
Q. Did you not also receive reports from the other military commanders?
A. From the other military commanders I received the monthly reports which I already mentioned and probably - I cannot say that with certainty but that would only be natural - reports from especially extensive retaliation measures in case they became necessary.
Q. We are not talking about reprisal measures just yet. I am interested how high you estimate or can you tell us the number of attacks or attempts which happened daily by any one band in the Balkans.
A. If I could judge on the basis of the reports which I got from the Serbian area, it would have to be at least two to three times as much -- that is more than 100 per day.
Q. And what method did those bands observe or carry out when they made their raids or attacks?
A. Of course, this was different. There were more or less harmless band attacks, for instance, when a man was shot at during the night and nothing else happened, but very frequently these attacks were combined with considerable brutalities.
I myself, as late as September 1944, at the occasion of an attack in which I found myself involved, established that within 20 minutes three German trucks near Topola - that is on the main highway of Serbia were attacked in the bright daylight, robbed and the men on them were killed in a most inhuman manner. In the subsequent struggle with this band I established clearly with my own eyes--
JUDGE BURKE: There is a little conflict. If you would speak a little less rapidly, it would be easier for the interpreters to follow and there would be no overlapping.
A. I established with my own eyes that women who were not classed as soldiers took part in these surprise attacks.
Q. To what extent did they participate?
A. They had weapons in their hands and participated in the fight in which I and the man accompanying me also had to take to arms. Only by chance an armored car passed us and this band, about 350 men strong who were equipped with machine guns, could be made to flee and we could escape with our lives.
Also, in other instances the troop reported to me repeatedly that in their own fights similar occurrences happened.
Q. For any special atrocities which might have been committed by the bands, do you remember anything there?
A. I have heard a lot about them but I have no clear proof. I did not experience anything like that myself.
Q. What, for instance, were reported to you about the atrocities?
A. Well, there again the murdering of prisoners, wounded among them, and on the part of the Chetnik band leaders this concept that they would butcher every prisoner they took after a short interrogation was quite frankly admitted to me.
After all, these were older people who, when mentioning these cruelties, did not seem to have the slightest feeling about them.
Q. Was it, for instance, reported to you that German soldiers had been robbed of their eyesight?
A. These things had been reported to me among others, but personally, as I mentioned before, I did not experience anything like that and, therefore, feel a little skeptical towards such statements.
Q. Was it frequently reported to you -- that is, spectacular cruelties?
A. No, I do not think that spectacular cruelties were a matter of daily routine; at least, I did not know so.
I do not believe either, since I have to talk about the Balkan-Serbian area, that these things happened there because Serbia was right up to the end a relatively quiet, peaceful area. As proof of this, it may serve that I myself, right up to the last days, used to tour across the country completely alone without anybody accompanying me.
Q. From where did the bands get their weapons?
A. The Chetnik bands - that is, the National Chetniks - received their arms up to the winter and spring of 1944 doubtlessly through English support.
Q. And in what manner did they get these arms?
A. Through a nightly airplane transport which could be carried out quite undisturbed.
Q. How often did these English planes fly over - every night?
A. One might say almost every night. At any rate, we could hear the noise of the motors nearly every night. Since it could not concern any German planes, one had to assume that they were English planes, which was also confirmed by reports from the troops.
Q. The prosecution said again and again that these bands were a regular army. Did you know whether the bands wore uniforms?
A. This again I explained in the memorandum just mentioned, that up to July 1944, when the Americans started their extensive support, the Tito bands or units were clothed in a very unsoldierly manner and one therefore could not talk of a uniform.
Q. What, for instance, did they wear?
A. I might almost answer this by saying, "What did they not wear?" They wore costumes of all kinds. In these matters it was a rather strange sight for our rather spoiled eyes.
Q. The prosecution will mention a few other points in this connection later. The prosecution further puts special emphasis on the fact that in the course of these bandit fights German losses were always considerably smaller than the losses of the bands. How can you explain that?
How do you derive this fact and how can you explain the contents of the reports to this effect?
A. From my own area of command and from my personal impressions from the bandit fights, I cannot consider this conception correct. We supposed that we inflicted some losses to the bands in military actions but a certainty of the number was made very difficult from the fact that the bands generally took their dead along as well as their wounded.
Q Therefore the report of German units or departments which participated in this fight, could be derived generally from estimates?
A Yes.
Q Witness, is not the army inclined to estimate the enemy losses higher?
A That is a matter of course, especially as reports are coming in from various sides and it may so happen that enemy killed or wounded were even counted twice.
Q As far as losses are concerned, is it not possible that an important part is played by the fact that bands were less well-trained militarily than the German troops?
A That may well be the case. But to that, - I can't give any clear answer.
Q In what relation - according to your records - what was the relation of the German losses in the band war and the losses of the bands?
A If one can talk of any comparison by figures at all, I would like to say that it was more or less equal on both sides. I emphasize again that my knowledge is only derived from conditions in Serbia.
Q If now an attempt, or a surprise attack had been carried out, what difficulties occurred then in seizing the guilty persons?
A It could again and again be established that after s surprise attack, the entire neighborhood of the locality of the attack, including the villages around, were completely devoid of all inhabitants, a fact which was very understandable, because nobody wanted to appear as a helper, a guilty person; nobody wanted to be taken.
Q Now how was the terrain in the Balkans; were they suitable for disappearing and submerging?
A I believe that there was hardly a better terrain anywhere else for band war, as in the Balkans, so rich in clifts. Added to this is the lack of all roads and what reads there are they, are terribly bad, so that the pursuing forces find it very difficult to keep up with the enemy.
Q Are the other conditions of the geographical nature that which the bands might appreciate?
A Yes. If I may add to the geographical conditions, perhaps the population, the population, which, of course, in this territory, was a great help to the bandits. We can only make a small difference here, whether these were a Chetnik or Tito bands.
Q Now witnesse, we want to talk about the question of subordination. What kind of subordination do we know, or rather did we know, in the German Wehrmacht?
A There is really only one subordination, that is the subordination to the next Superior command.
Q Didn't you at any time hear something about a tactical and troop subordination?
A That would be a definition which is really included into the concept of subordination, as such.
Q Yes. I may put it perhaps like that: a complete subordination exists when a unit is subordinated to a higher command tactically and militarily.
A That's undoubtedly clear.
Q There were no other kinds of subordination?
A That would then been a special exception, in an individual case.
Q Yes, but that would then be either tactically or militarily?
A Yes, if I am talking theoretically -
Q Will you please let the Prosecution talk first.
MR. RAPP: If your Honors will permit, it is far from me to even pass any criticism on the interpreters, but I think there may be some serious mistakes in the translation, when the word, "truppenmassig" is translated as "military subordination", or "tactical subordination".
If Dr. Laternser would possibly talk a little bit slower, the interpreters may have better time to choose from a larger vocabulary of words, more adequate with the word presented either by the witness or the defense counsel.
DR. LATERNSER: I thank Mr. Rapp for this remark.
PRESIDENT WENNERSTRUM: May I also suggest that the counsel ask the question of the witness, and let the witness then answer, and if the counsel will then wait for the interpreter there will not be overlapping.
DR. LATERNSER: I shall observe this, your Honor. Thank you, very much.
Your Honor, may I ask how the interpreters translated the word "truppendgeien stalich"?
PRESIDENT WENNERSTRUM: Do the interpreters have any translation for this word?
INTERPRETER: We had a little difficulty with the word in German. It is rather an expert concept to say, "truppenmaessig unterstellt". A troop is a military unit. "Truppenmaessig unterstellt" would be subordinate in all military matters. I can only use my own logic in this case.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, don't the interpreters have glossary, I know of one having been compiled where all expert military terms are translated correctly. In case there would appear a difference in term then my examination of the witness would have little sense, because the differences which I want to establish could then not be established.
MR. RAPP: If I possibly could be of help, I suggest to Dr. Laternser that - so far as I know German the same result I believe Dr. Laternser is driving at, could be achieved by dropping this particular term in describing exactly what he is driving at. That way we may got around controversial terms in the translation.
PRESIDENT: WENNERSTRUM: Naturally the Tribunal must depend upon the interpreters, and in case there is some objection to the question of their interpretation, we will proceed the suggestion that Dr. Laternser could use some other term in covering the situation, why possibly that might help the situation.
You may proceed.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q We had talked about the various kinds of subordination. You said, or rather you were in agreement with me, that there was a subordination of a tactical nature, and also a subordination, generally, in every respect, or, do you not agree with me?
A. No, I do not agree with you. The concept of the military subordination only applies to a limited circle, to a limited task of a troop unit. May I explain this with an example. For instance, the staff of the military commander of Greece, could have been subordinated to me in everything, since I was the Military Commander-in-Chief Southeast. However, doubtlessly, it was subordinate to me in tactical matters, at least for special tasks of the Army Group E. However, so far as I recollect, in the spring of 1944, or rather since the spring of 1944, it was subordinate to the Army Group E, generally speaking, in military matters.
Q You mean now, Mr. Witness, the military commander of Greece? Witness, I am asking you so that we can get on, and can clarify these rather involved situations, and I am trying to make this clear to the Tribunal too. We will start all over again.
You know of a tactical subordination. What does that mean?