A I would assume that we discussed these problems, and that we were of the same opinion, because what is expressed here is also my own opinion. I wanted to prevent the event, but if it was unavoidable and I ask you to remember the circumstances which prevailed at that time, then the action was to be carried out in one "ge" and as quickly as possible, if it was unavoidable. That was both our opinions.
Q Would you look now, please, at page 3 of the document which you have (page 2 of Your Honors' Document), which is a file note to the Jewish question, signed by Colonel Jaeger. You will note on page 4 of this document, General Lanz, that under 29 May 1944, there is a notation that field gendarmes from Joannina arrived on Corfu, 1 officer and 8 men strong, and that in the afternoon the Island Commmder, after personally inquiring with SS Obersturmfuehrer Burger and Sergeant Guenter from the Secret Field Police, decided on the rooms in the East Citadel in which to assemble the Jews. It is true, is it not, General Lanz, that troops which were subordinate to the island commander did the rounding up of the Jews on the island?
A I cannot give you any statements from my own recollection, because I don't know.
Q This "1 officer and 8 men strong" were not the actual sufficient forces to do the rounding up of about 2,000 Jews, were they?
AAt the moment I cannot find anything which bears out what you say that the troops were committed for this purpose.
Q Well, who did the rounding up if it wasn't the troops subordinate to the Island Commander?
A It might well have been members of the SS who were brought along by the Obersturmfuehrer.
Q Weren't these Field gendarmes, "1 officer and 8 men strong" part of the SS Detachment?
A That is possible. I can't say anything about it offhand. I have no other information than this document in front of me. It is also doubtful whether the Jews were rounded up.
Perhaps they were asked to report in a certain room in a certain building. That is also possible. I don't know, so I could not make any statements about it. I mention that merely as an idea.
Q Will you look at one final document, General Lanz, NOKW-1919, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 627. Would you turn, General Lanz, to page 3 of the document (and you have a page 3 in Your Honors' document) , it is an evening report 18 January 1944, from your 22nd Mountain Corps to Army Group E. The report reads:
About 0300 hours, the security force (2 German men, 6 men of the Albanian Militia) was surprised in an attack along the newly-constructed bridge east of Delvine. The Albanian Militia was scattered, 1 German soldier was missing. The bands destroyed the bridge by igniting it with incendiary bottles. Parts of the 6th Company, 724th Jaeger Regiment were set in march from Delvine to the place of the surprise attack. At the last bridge explosion, reprisal measures were made known to the mayors of the surrounding localities, in event of a repeated case. As reprisal measure, destruction of the locality of Pace and shooting of the male inhabitants were ordered.
Do you recall that incident?
A I don't remember this incident, because around that time I had been on leave for seven days, on the 11th of January I left, as I have stated on direct examination.
Q When did you return from leave?
A I returned on the 25 February, and then at the beginning of March I was ordered to go to Hungary with my staff for two months.
Q If you had heard of such an incident as this would you have investigated it?
A I assume that I would have done that, if the facts had been reported to me in a manner that would lead to doubts concerning the correct conduct of the troops I would certainly want an investigation. That is what I stated on direct examination.
Q If you had seen nothing but this report would it have aroused your curiosity as to what had actually happened and cause you to investigate the matter?
A It may well be that I had given an order to clarify the circumstances. Generally speaking, I would investigate such events which were not quite clear to me and events where I suspected the troops of incorrect conduct. That would always depend on the manner in which these things would reach my knowledge. On many occasions these problems were orally reported to me, and it depends on how such a report is worded - I mean how I am informed of it.
Q General Lanz, you stated that the 10 to 1 and 50 to 1 orders which General von Stettner issued, were not known to you at the time?
A I believe that is what I said. In any case I don't remember such orders.
Q Do you happen to know where General von Stettner is today?
A To the best of my knowledge General von Stettner is supposed. to be dead. He is supposed to have been shot or hanged by Tito. That is my information. I suppose you have better information than I have.
Q During the year which you were in command of the 22nd Army Corps in Greece, you were subordinate to Army Group E, who was in turn subordinate to Army Group F, is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Who was commander of Army Group F during that period?
A To the best of my knowledge that was Field Marshal von Weichs. Whether he was all the time I can't tell you offhand, but on the whole he was.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Q And who was General von Weichs Chief of Staff during that period?
A To the best of my knowledge as of August 1943 or as of the beginning of September 1943, it was General Foertsch who was the General Foertsch who was the General Chief of Staff.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions by any other defense counsel?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
DR. SAUTER (For Defendant Lanz):
Q General Lanz, I would like to follow up the last question concerning the last document which was submitted to you. This is Document NOKW 1919, which became exhibit of the prosecution, exhibit 627. It is the last document submitted by the prosecution. This document concerns the evening report of 18 January 1944, and the prosecution apparently saved this document to the last document, because this is to show a further reprisal measure with which you are incriminated. You told us that you were on leave at that time, up to and including 25 February 1944.
DR. SAUTER: In this connection I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention to an affidavit which we have submitted long before we saw this last document. This was contained in Document Book III for Lanz. It was Document 92. It was submitted as Exhibit No. 21. This is an affidavit submitted by a former corps adjutant and personnel expert, Max Prollius, who confirms under oath here that General Lanz's statements of today are correct. He was actually absent from 11 January to 24 February, 1944, on furlough to Germany. From 7 March until 4 May 1944 he was in Hungary as a result of an assignment there. General Lanz's statements in this connection have therefore been proved by this document, and that is what I wanted to point out to the Tribunal.
Q Witness, during the course of these proceedings a similar order has been discussed, the hostage order of 3 October 1943 which is Court No. V, Case No. VII.
contained in Document Book IV of the Prosecution as Document 112. (I may in this connection say that this is the only hostage order with which the defendant Lanz has so far been charged by the Prosecution.) This hostage order, which is the hostage order where General Lanz is incriminated, concerns the arrest of 40 hostages, because of sabotage acts on telephone communications near Arta. In order to clarify the reasons and causes for this hostage order I would like you, General Lanz, to answer briefly the following question; for what reasons and for what purposes did you, at the time of the order cause 40 hostages to be arrested; and if you don't understand the question in this formulation I can put it differently. What, in your opinion, of that time, made it necessary to arrest these hostages or made the arrest expedient?
A I am not today in a position to answer this question, exactly, because it is very difficult to go back over four years, and to show every individual motive that might have moved me at the time. I would also like to say that as a general rule I did not approve of such measures. I suppose, and I would like to stress the word "I suppose," that that measure was suggested to me. Probably it was even the 1st Mountain Division which suggested it. Again I suppose that was so, and I suppose I was caused to take that measure because one thought that if I took such a measure it would be particularly effective. Since my own attitude towards such things was well-known, but I can only give you this as an assumption.
Q General Lanz -
A The factual reason was, it is quite obvious, to prevent further sabotage acts in an area, which was of particular tactical importance to us. It was my point of view that if I voiced such a threat, which would become common knowledge, I could save victims and sacrifices which are unavoidable if sabotage acts continue, and counter measures have to be taken. I hoped through this threat which was contained in the measure, to save lives. That was the general idea of this measure.
Q Did I understand you correctly to say in this statement that Court No. V, Case No. VII.
you only ordered the arrest of hostages for military reasons alone, because you deemed the arrest of hostages necessary in the fulfillment of your military tasks, is that correct?
A Yes, it is quite correct.
Q General Lanz, you heard that because of this only hostage order with which you are charged there has been an affidavit of a soldier who served in your corps at the time. This affidavit was read here. The affiant is not an officer, but a NCO who worked in the sub-area administrative headquarters in Arta, a certain Konrad Pederanderl. This document is contained in Document Book Lanz IV. It is Document 112, Exhibit 16, and you will remember that this man Pederanderl said on call that the arrested hostages were detained in the administrative sub-area headquarters in Arta, and were not shot, but were later on dismissed by orders of Major Seidel. I would be interested to know whether you, General Lanz, can state with certainty under oath that it is correct that you did not have these people shot, but that on the contrary you ordered that they be discharged, released because the mere order of shooting had already achieved its purpose?
AAt least I can state under oath that I do not know that any one of these people were shot.
Q Witness, on cross-examination it was discussed that these Evzones were serving in the Epirus areas, - Evzona regiments, and the impression was created as though these Evzone regiments worked hand in glove with the partisans. I would like to know the following; to what formation did the Evzones belong? Were they part of the Greek Army, or were they members of the Partisan groups; what were they, where did they belong?
A I am afraid I cannot give you an official statement in this respect because I personally had no official contact with these Evzones. All I can tell you, therefore, is what I know, and that is the following: These Evzones were, to the best of my knowledge, a kind of police troops of the then Greek Government, but there were also Evzones which were on the opposite side--on the side of the enemy. That is contained in a document. Mainly, however, these Evzones were police troops of the then Greek Government. That is my information.
Q What connection did these Evzones have with the German Army-with the German Army, of which your Corps, and you as Commanding General, are a part?
A They didn't have anything to do with me.
Q Were these Evzones formations in any manner subordinate you?
A No, in no manner whatsoever.
Q I may remind you, General Lanz, that last week we happened to hear a document read from Lanz Document Book V, which is Document No. 160 Exhibit No. 125, where the affiant, Gebhard von Lenthe, who was your Ic, stated, and I am reading this one sentence:
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I object to this manner of re-direct examination. I believe it's more argumentation than it is proper redirect examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Overruled.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q I am reading from where the Ic of your Corps stated that "it is possible that the measure of the shooting came from an office in the Corps area which was not under the orders of the Corps--for example, from the Field Headquarters in Messolongion or one of the subordinate Sub--area Administrative Headquarters under it--from the Evzones companies assigned to it--or through any SD office."
General Lanz, can you also state under oath that you had nothing to do with these shootings which were carried out by the Evzones regiment?
A I can state under oath that these Evzones troops were at no time subordinate to me.
Q Witness, on cross-examination it was discussed that certain events took place around the locality of Pogonion. This action is reported in your Daily Report of the 26th of May 1944. I beg your pardon--just a moment. This is contained in Lanz Document Book V, and it is Document No. 164--Lanz Document Book V, Document No. 164. From this report, dated May, 1944, it is shown that because of repeated surprise attacks near Pogonion an action was started against this place, and it is said in the report that the male population was brought to Joannina as hostages. What can you tell us in this connection, in order to clarify the facts for us?
The reason for this announcement which you are talking about here--that is what you mean isn't it?
Q Yes.
A It is not signed with my name; it is signed "The Commander Epirus." The reason for this announcement to the population was given in the fact that near this locality frequent surprise attacks had been carried out by partisans on our vehicles and the troops accompanying such vehicles. I know that particular spot quite well. I remember it. Four or five such surprise attacks occurred in a very brief space of time. This was a terrain particularly suitable for surprise attacks. It was at the bottom of a winding road in a thick wood, and despite counter measures we did not stop these surprise attacks. On the other hand we knew that these partisans were congregated in Pogonion or in the vicinity of Pogonion; therefore, we addressed this accouncement to the population of Pogonion which, in my opinion, is quite a justified measure. Approximately two days later, around the 26th of May, Pogonion was occupied by our troops without any fighting. The village was searched, and on this occasion 18 suspects were arrested. I assume that they were arrested by hostages, as had been announced. Supposedly, although it is not contained in the report, these suspects were brought to the prisoner collecting point near Joannina, but I would like to stress "supposedly" because I have no information for this statement.
Q In this connection, if it please the Tribunal, I would like to offer one document which apparently General Lanz is thing of in his statement. This document is contained in Lanz Document Book V, and it is Document No. 164, on page 14 of the Document Book V. It will be offered under Lanz Exhibit No. 141. I am pointing to the last sentence of Paragraph 1 of this document. This is a Daily Report of the 26th of May 1944. The last sentence of the first paragraph reads, and I quote: "Pogonion occupied without contact with the enemy in the course of a mopping-up operation NW of Elia. Eighteen suspects arrested in village." I am mentioning this quotation so that the announcement which was brought forward by the Prosecution as Prosecution. Exhibit No. 622, Document NOKW-1987, and which was not signed by General Lanz personally but boars the strange signature, "The Commander of the German Troops in Epirus," cannot be interpreted in an exaggerated manner.
General Lanz, on cross-examination you were asked about the Commissar Order. You were shown Document NOKW-2241, which became Prosecution Exhibit No. 618. In this document there is a lyrical report of a Private First Class of a Propaganda Company. Do you want me to give you that document again? Do you still have it?
A I remember it fairly well. Thank you.
Q This report describes the fate of the 18,000 Russians, which, in the preceding nights bad sought to burst open the German ring, as that report puts it. It further says, and I quote: "These 18,000 Russians had in front of them the German weapons which were accustomed to talk a severe language. Behind them they had the ns.chine pistols of the Commissars which cracked ruthlessly in the heap whenever an armistice threatened." This document had been submitted by the Prosecution with the assertion that these Commissars had not been treated in accordance with International Law, as they could demand to be treated.
Witness, I would like to ask you now---You, as a General, as a defendant in these trials--do you maintain the point of view that a special International protection should be extended to political Commissars of whom the Prosecution itself states here that "with machine pistols they cracked ruthlessly into the midst of their own peoples?" Do you think that such people deserve a particular protection under International Law, or, if not, what is your attitude towards such Commissars as are described in this report here?
A I believe that in this question one has to differentiate between a legal attitude and an humane attitude. Regarding the humane attitude, of course, the way in which the Commissars themselves acted plays a certain part. Concerning the legal attitude I believe that is not the case. Furthermore, the question is also whether they were Commissars who, at the same time, were soldiers, and, therefore, fell under the provisions concerning prisoners of war, or whether they were Commissars who were not soldiers and, therefore, would not fall under the provisions of International Law.
Q Witness, in connection with this last point I want to ask you one separate question later on. All I want you to do at the moment is to look at, in connection with my question, one sentence which you find in the document in front of you--Document NOKW-2241--towards the middle of Page 2, immediately before and after the line where it says "Page 4 of the original." There the affiant of the Prosecution, whose report has been submitted here against you, General Lanz, writes: "We question further whether she knows that a transport of wounded had been attacked yesterday." Do you have the passage?
A No, I am afraid I haven't it yet. I don't know where at is.
Q It is on the bottom of Page 2 and Page 3 of the original. General Lanz, maybe you would lead from here (TAKING A DOCUMENT TO THE FITNESS STAND)." The reply is new. We question further whether she knows a transport of wounded had been attacked yesterday by the Bolshevists and no one emerged from it alive, with the exception of one. The Russian bayonet had spliced by his heart."
Now, General Lanz, I would like to return to my question. How do you picture the International protection of such Commissars with the troops who had done what has been described in the exhibit of the Prosecution?
A With such a conduct displayed on the part of the Commissar towards the wounded people which is obviously in contrast to International Law, the Commissar naturally cannot demand for himself protection of Internatioral Law. Such a man has obviously violated International Law; therefore, he cannot now refer to International Law for his own protection.
Q General Lanz, you are indicted for crimes against humanity. It has not been proved that you acted in the way as is described in this document, but would you, on the basis of your concept of law, consider it a crime against humanity if such a Bolshevist Commissar is put up against a wall and shot, if one knows that he, prior to that, had, with machine pistols, cracked ruthlessly into the midst of his own Russian fellow citizens?
A I have already made my comments to this question. Such a man, of course, if he acts in this way against the wounded, which is even more decisive, deprives himself, through his own action, of the protection of International Law.
Q Now, General Lanz, I want to deal with another subject which you touched upon just previously. That is, the question of whether there was another type of Commissar. In this connection I would like to draw your attention to Document NOKW2105--two, one, zero, five. This document was also submitted by the Prosecution. It is Prosecution Exhibit No. 617. In this document it says under Paragraph 11, and I quote: "Political Commissars and members of the Red Army cut off from their unit are to be arrested without delay by the Mayor, who is to deliver them to the nearest Commander." General Lanz, do you see in this order anything special or anything which might violate International Law?
A I cannot see anything in this order which might be in violation of International Law. The arrest of any persons in wartime is, to the best of my knowledge, not prohibited by International Law. I would like to know how many people were arrested in Germany or anywhere else. Even in peace-time people are arrested, let alone in war-time. The arrests as such can certainly not be prohibited.
Q General Lanz, I have to discuss this with you because the Prosecution apparently considers this a crime. And I would further like to draw your attention to Paragraph 12 of this Document NOKW-2105, where it is stated, and I quote: "Sabotage of all kinds, also to the crops, unauthorized possession of weapons, munitions and explosives, plundering of depots and supplies, as well as the hiding of Commissars and members of the Red Army cut off from their unit, or any sort of failure to carry out orders of the German Commanders, will be punished with the most severe means, up to the death penalty." The order was not signed by you. It was issued by quite a different commander, but you are charged with it, and it was submitted on your cross-examination.
Therefore, I have to ask you--is it your opinion that such orders, as the Commander-in-Chief of a German Army has given here, would have been given in the same way by Commanders of other Armies, if in their Armies such sabotage acts had been carried out? Have you personal experience in this connection, and, if so, can you tell us about it?
A I believe it is not necessary to say one further word about it. Such measures, above all in war-time, are military custom. In my opinion they are entirely admissible.
Q Witness, would you please, again, look at Paragraph 11? It says there something about political Commissars. That is why the document was submitted. It says there, "Political Commissars and members of the Red Army cut off from their unit are to be arrested, etc. "
A It says here, "by the Mayor."
Q Yes, of course you never were a mayor, but still I have to ask you. Do you, in view of your own knowledge of the situation, assume that here such political Commissars are meant as were at the front and were captured by the Germans? By this I mean such Commissars to which the so-called Commissar Order refers. Or do you, instead, assume that a different type of political Commissar is meant here? What can you tell us about it?
A Of course I don't know what the author of this order, with whom I had no connection, meant when he drew up this order. I am in no position to know that. I assume, and it says here clearly enough that political Commissars are meant--not military Commissars. But I can only say what I read here.
Q Political Commissars, then, who were not captured with the troops?
A That is what I assume.
Q You served in Russia, Witness. From your activity in Russia do you have any personal knowledge of whether or not these political Commissars, who were not with their troops but at liberty, were some-
where behind, the troops and frequently incited the civilian population against the German Army, and that they caused the civilian population to commit terror acts against the German Armed Forces? Is that known to you from your own experiences in Russia?
A This conception is correct. The Commissars formed the points of resistance in the rear area. Altogether they were the most fanatical Commissars which I have encountered in the Russian Army.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, before we take our morning recess I want to call your attention to the fact that during the cross-examination and prior to our adjournment last week there was handed to the Tribunal Document Book VII for Lanz. And I do not know whether you intend to make use of it, but I call that fact to your attention.
We'll take our morning recess at this time.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: All persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Witness, we will now deal with another chapter and there is one question which I would like to ask you in connection with the document which has been submitted during the last few days. It is NOKW-1988. Exhibit 625. This document concerns the evacuation Sarande. You have been questioned by the representative of the prosecution in connection with this document because in the report of the affiant Starl of whom we have had several affidavits -- the report in question is dated 2 March 1944 --the sentence which I am quoting is contained:
"The male population will for the moment remain in Sarande and will be used for the building of fortifications."
This is a report of the division Steyrer, addressed to your corps headquarters. I don't know whether you have personally read this report but I would be interested to know where this place Sarande is located.
A Sarande is situated near the Coast in the most southern part of Albania. I believe it is also marked in the map which has been submitted here. This place, therefore, is an Albanian coast village.
Q It is not a Greek place, is it?
A No, it is an Albanian village. Sarande was part of the Albanian district headquarters of Algerokastron and this district of Algerokastron was part of my corps area: It was the most Southern part of Albania. There was a district commander, there by the name of Runa who had a liason officer in his headquarters and this was Lieutenant Peterson. At the time we worked together with this authority as an authority of a state with which friendly relations were maintained.
Q Those then were Albanians on Albanian territory and I would assume that these people were used for work on fortifications with the consent of the Albanian authorities that is those of a friendly state.
Is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q At least, it was not a hostile state, was it?
A The building of fortifications which was carried out at the time near Sarande was intended to serve as protection against an allied landing and was carried out in conjunction with the Albanian authorities who had friendly relations with us and the work was carried out on Albanian territory.
Q A question now in connection with another problem, General Lanz. You have been asked by the prosecution today questions concerning the Jewish problem on Corfu and you stated your own point of view. I should be interested to know what attitude towards the Jewish question you have shown on other occasions. Let us say, for instance, when excesses or terror acts occurred on the part of the troops against Jewish inhabitants, what was the attitude which you showed at such times?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honors please, I don't believe that is proper redirect. What attitude General Lanz had on other occasions towards the Jewish population is not relevant or part of the redirect examination.
THE PRESIDENT: I am somewhat in doubt as to its relevancy. We necessarily must restrict matters in redirect examination to that which was presented on cross examination. The objection will be sustained.
DR. SAUTER: If it please the Tribunal, I shall prove through affidavits what the defendant cannot say as an answer to this question.
Q Witness, you have today been asked that even you as a nonjurist should have been conscious of the fact that the ratio of 1 to 50 in connection with reprisal measures is not admissable under International Law. In this connection should like to know whether at an earlier time you had heard or read of individual cases or had received orders or seen orders which showed the extent to which in other countries and in other armies reprisal measures had been taken and ordered?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors, I object to the question. It doesn't arise out of cross examination. Besides, what General Lanz had heard or read would be complete hearsay.
DR. SAUTER: May I make a remark in this connection? In my opinion, it is not admissable that the prosecution can ask any number of questions of the defendant and ask him whether he had heard of this or that and, if then the defense wants to give the defendant an opportunity to show his own attitude, then this very same prosecution says he can only make statements about such things as he himself has done or seen. If the prosecution has the right to ask such questions of the defendant, then, in my opinion, the same right has to be reserved for the defense in the interest of the defendant.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
THE PRESIDENT: Doctor Sauter, you may show that in your defense but in a proper manner undoubtedly, if you are able to do it. The objection will be sustained.
DR. SAUTER: I have no further questions to put at this point.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there other German defense counsel who wish to further question this witness?
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. If it please the Tribunal, there is only one question which I would like to clarify in the interest of Fieldmarshal von Weichs. This is a question which arose from crossexamination. General, you said on cross-examination that in connection with the order concerning Allied missions with the bands, you had protested against this order or shown protest against it, I don't know quite how you put it.
A. I believe that is not correct. All I said is that I did not pass on this order and it was not carried out in my area.
Q. Concerning this order and your attitude towards this order, have you made any remarks or representations with army groups E or F? Did you have any discussions concerning this order?
A. I can't remember that.
Q. Do you know the attitude of the leading man of Army Groups E and F in connection with this order?
A. Only to the extent to which I learned of it during this trial.
Q. You didn't know it at the time?
A. I cannot remember that at that time I gained knowledge of their attitude.
Q. That is all; I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there other counsel? Apparently not.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION Defendant Hubert Lanz BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q. General Lanz, would you look for just a minute now at Exhibit 618? This is the report of the Private First Class of the propaganda company dated 12 August 1941. Do you find anything in that document, General Lanz, which indicates that Commissars executed either their own wounded or German wounded?
A. I did not say anything to that effect. I cannot remember that I did. I have been asked about it but I would have to read through the whole text again in order to answer that one.
Q. Did you ever authorize your subordinates, General Lanz, to shoot German soldiers in case those soldiers tried to desert in the face of the enemy?
A. I didn't quite understand.
(The question was repeated by the interpreter.)
A. I cannot remember any such order. All I can remember is that in one combat action such a case occurred. An officer with weapon in hand stopped recreating soldiers. That is what I know but I still don't know any such order which I was supposed to have given.
Q. Isn't that all that is meant by the reference in paragraph one of this document to the use of machine pistols by the Commissars?
A. It is difficult for me to say what the author of this report meant at the time. I am here asked about the attitude and opinion of a man which I don't know. It is, however, known that the Russian Commissars took very stringent measures against their own troops. I know that from that time. That is nothing new which is written here.
Q. You intimated, General Lanz, that there was a difference between political commissars and military commissars.
Is such a difference mentioned in the original Commissar order?
A. The original Commissar order in my opinion refers to the military commissars, those men who were captured in combat. That is, to the best of my recollection. That is how 1 understood the order, at least.
Q. You don't believe the original Commissar order specifically mentioned political commissars?
A. Well then, I would like to ask you to show me that Commissar order. I cannot make any statements off hand under oath. I do not remember the text of the order exactly. I interpreted it to the extent that Commissars were men who were with the troops at the time, military commissars.
The Commissar Order was issued before the Russian campaign began, was it not, General Lanz?
A. Yes, to the best of my knowledge.
Q. Even before you knew how Commissars would act?
A. Yes, that is right.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it there will be no further examination of this witness? That being true, the witness is excused.
DR. SAUTER: It it please the Tribunal, I have a few documents here which I would like to read. I want to start with the last document book which comprises only one affidavit. That is Document Book VII. This Document Book VII contains Document No. 191. This document is on page 1 and will be offered under Lanz Exhibit 142. It is an affidavit of the affiant Wolf Christian von Loeben who, as is known, was Ic of the XXII Mountain Corps under General Lanz. I am reading this affidavit because it is of importance for the evaluation of the events on Kefalonia. I think it is particularly important in order to clarify a few details which so far have not been made quite clear.