"I know of not a single case in which reprisal measures would have been ordered by German agencies."
These measures apply to my period of service with the German agencies in Croatia." In paragraph 7, the affiant deals with proposals of German units to Croatian agencies. In paragraph 8, the question reads:
"Were the German command agencies entitled to impose reprisal measures without the approval of the Croatian authorities?" and the answer says "No."
Figure 9 deals with the hostages camps in Croatia, and the question says:
"Under whose command were the camps for hostages in Croatia?" and the answers says" "I know of one only. This one was under the command of the Croatian authorities, the Croatian Security Police, to be precise."
Number 10 asks: "Did the German forces in Croatia have hostage camps?" and the answer says:
"As far as I know, they had not. This I know on account of the following events:
"In Croatia it was customary to exchange hostages against captured German soldiers. To my estimate, there were, during the period from autumn 1943 until the end of the war, about 50 hostages per month in the average exchanged against German soldiers.
"Only the Croatian government was authorized to decide upon this exchange, and not the German commands. It occurred in many instances that the Croatian government did not approve the proposals made by the German commands.
"I particularly remember the case of General von Dewitz, who had been captured by the partisans. The hostages, who were exchanged, were taken from the hostage camp near Brod. This camp is, as far as I remember, the only hostage camp that existed in Croatia. This camp was not under the command of a German military agency, but under the Croatian authorities."
Roman Numeral III deals with the importance of the railway line Zagreb-Belgrade.
Number 12 deals with the responsibility for the security of this railroad line. Number 13 deals with the subordination of the inspector of the Railway Security police and the answer reads.
"The Inspector of the Railway Security Service was, as far as I know, directly under the 2nd Panzer Army."
Number 15 deals with the security of the railway lines in Croatia and number 17 deals with the consequences of an interruption of the railway line in Zagreb-Belgrade and the statement reads:
"Interruption of the railway line Zagreb-Belgrade not only threatened the security of the German forces in Croatia, but also the food supply of the population of the country."
Paragraph IV, 18, the question reads: "Were Croatian subjects conscripted for labor in Germany by the German military authorities?" And the answer says "No."
Number 19 asks about the evaluation of reports by Croatian authorities concerning the excesses by the 1st Cossack Division.
I further submit from Document Book Dehner V, Dehner Document No. 28.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me, just a moment. Have you completed the examination in full of General Dehner. You have, have you not? I am just wondering -
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, I have.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to ask him anything about these affidavits?
DR. GAWLIK: No, I don't want to.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the prosecution wish to ask him anything -- the defendant -- about these?
MR. FULKERSON: No, I believe not, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: There being no apparent necessity for the witness to remain in the witness chair, perhaps it might be more comfortable and he will have at least congenial company if he were back in the group of his associates. You may be excused then.
(The witness was excused.)
THE PRESIDENT: Now if you will refer to the document that you had in mind when I interrupted you?
DR. GAWLIK: I submit from Dehner Document Book V document Dehner No. 28. This will become Dehner Exhibit 28. To repeat, it is Dehner Document Book V, page 78 to 81, Dehner Document V, Dehner Document 28, Dehner Exhibit 28. This is an affidavit executed by Hans Heinrich Strachwitz, and the affidavit is dated 5 December 1947. Count Hans Heinrich Strachwitz was a former officer who was a member of the Corps Staff of the LXIX Reserve Corps. Under III he makes the statements concerning the independence of the Croatian state and he says:
"Croatia was an autonomous and independent state. The executive power was in the hands of the authorities of the Croatia State.
"Within its Corps area the 69th Reserve Corps did not have the executive power.
"The rights of the Croatian State were always observed. For example, the Corps did not have the right to requisition billets without the approval of the authorities of Croatian State. No further requisitionings were permitted, even if they were for military purposes."
Under IV, the relation between the police forces and the Wehrmacht is described, namely the police units in the LXIX Reserve Corps, and it is stated that they were under the area commander and that he in turn was under the command of SS-Gruppenfuehrer Kammerhofer, who was immediately subordinated to Himmler.
"The operation Kammerhofer was an independent police operation and was not ordered by the 69th Reserve Corps." It only happened that police units were tactically subordinated to the troops of the 69th Corps for certain restricted operations.
In the next paragraph, the affiant deals with the Operation Kammerhofer and he says:
"The operation Kammerhofer was an independent police operation and was not ordered by the 69th Reserve Corps. Neither was the Corps instructed to supervise its execution. If the operation Kammerhofer had been ordered by the Corps I would have been included in this order as officer in change of the quartermaster battalion."
In paragraph V, which deals with the carrying out of reprisal measures, the affiant states:
"I have no knowledge of any reprisal measures having been implemented against the bandits by order of General Dehner. He could not have done so either, as he was not a judiciary, and as no courts martial section was included in the Corps staff."
The affiant goes on to make statements concerning the activities of the bands and particularly so about the surprise attacks along the railroad Zagreb-Belgrade and the consequences of these surprise attacks, consequences not only affecting the interests of the German Wehrmacht, but also the interests of the Croatian population.
He further goes on to say: "I also know that members of the bands when they were captured by the Germans and bandits captured in German uniform were not shot but were treated as prisoners. It was a matter of course that wounded bandits were given medical treatment.
"In the area of the 69th Reserve Corps the army had no prisoner enclosures. The prisoners from the prisoner collecting points were handed over to the Croatian police authorities."
The next paragraph deals with hostage camps and the affiant says: "I have no knowledge of the fact that the 69th Reserve Corps maintained any hostage camps."
And in the next paragraph ho says: "I can definitely state, furthermore, that the 69th Reserve Corps or the Wehrmacht units under its command did not have
a) any concentration camps
b) any collecting points for partisans
c) any labor camps.
"I can make such a definite statement, as it would have been my task to provide furnishings and supplies for these camps."
Paragraph VI deals with excesses committed by the Cossacks, and paragraph VII deals with the attitude of the German troops towards the Croatian population, which paragraph also shows that the German troops tried to help and support the Croatian population wherever they could.
I further submit from Dehner Document Book V, Dehner Document 26, which will become Dehner Exhibit 29. This is on page 68 to 72 of both the German and the English document books. This is an excerpt from the War Diary of the Corps Headquarters of the LXIX Reserve Corps covering the period from 1 January until 30 June 1944. I should like to direct the attention of the Tribunal, first of all, to page 69 of Dehner Document Book V to the entry dated 18 January 1944, which show the relation between the Corps and the Croatian police, and between the Corps and the Croatian Armed Forces.
"To a teletype of the Commander in Chief of the 2nd Panzer Army, in which the Corps Headquarters are instructed to draw attention to the part played by the police and Croatian Units at any given time in their Daily Reports and Action Reports, the Commanding General reports, while transmitting a copy of Daily Reports, that in the area of Corps Headquarters LXIX Reserve Corps the performance of those units has been estimated up to the present just in exactly the same way and reported on exactly as the German Divisions employed under his command."
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
By submitting this report, I want to show that not everything that can be found in the daily reports was carried out by German troops and that General Dehner cannot be held responsible for everything that is being reported in these reports. I further draw the attention of the Tribunal to page 71 of Dehner Document Book V where we have an entry of 3 March 1944. It says in this entry:
"Corps Headquarters replies to the Comitatus 'VUKA' re its complaint dated 12 January 44 concerning futile interference of German Armed Forces in administrative matters.
Corps Headquarters alludes to fact that German Wehrmacht quite naturally respects the sovereign rights of the independent State Croatia. Encroachments on the part of German authorities which in isolated cases are possibly the result of 'lack of knowledge of the local situation' are from time to time stopped by superior German authorities in Command...."
I submit this report as evidence that Croatia was an independent state and that the German troops in Croatia were not an occupation power in an enemy country but were regarded as members of a friendly state which stayed in that country with the consent of the Croatian government and which consulted the Croatian government in the execution of their tasks and in turn supported the Croatian government in the execution of its tasks.
This, for the moment, brings me to the end of the presentation of my documents.
If it please the Tribunal, I have not quite closed the presentation of my evidence. I hadn't realized that the cross examination of the Prosecution would be as brief as it was. I had anticipated a somewhat longer cross-examination and in consideration of the Christmas holidays I have called my witness for the fifth of January only.
In the meantime, my colleagues will continue with the presentation of their documents with the permission of the Tribunal and I would like to ask for permission of the Tribunal to examine my witnesses after the Christmas recess. I expected my examination to last somewhat longer and also thought that the cross-examination would last somewhat longer and, therefore, I only called the witness for the time after the Christmas recess.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is in the situation where, if we were to require you to close your case, it might be punishing your client for some poor judgment on your part. We will not do that. It is to be regretted, however, that your witnesses are not here and that we cannot go ahead, but this being the Christmas season and the Court endeavoring to be influenced by the spirit that should be present at that time, we will grant you the privilege of presenting your witnesses at a later time. Don't do it again.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I may add the following, that I discussed the procedure with my colleague Laternser, and that we had worked out what time the examination would take and we consulted about, when I might have to ball my witnesses. I could not have heard all my witnesses before the Christmas recess anyway. It is a little difficult to anticipate how long examination and witnesses' examination would take and I would have to call the witnesses three weeks prior to their actual appearance.
THE PRESIDENT: We will proceed under the circumstances just so we put our time in. That is the thing that we are interested in.
Is counsel for one of the other defendants prepared to present some matters at this time?
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Sauter for the defendant von Geitner. If it please the Tribunal, in order to carry on with the proceedings and in order to avoid any delay, I would like to ask for permission to now present the remainder of my documents for the defendant von Geitner.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do so.
DR. SAUTER: We shall need, your Honors, Geitner Document Book I and II because from each one of these two document books I have one more document to present. Then following that, we shall need Geitner Document Book III. I repeat, we need Geitner Document Book I, II and following those two, Document Book IV - not Geitner Document Book III. I have read everything I had to read from Geitner Document Book III. I shall need Geitner I, II and IV today.
On Monday, if your Honors please, on Monday we shall also need Geitner Document Book V and VI. I would like to announce that now so that the document books can be prepared for the use of the Tribunal. Today we shall only need I, II, and IV. On Monday V, and VI.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, if you will kindly wait until the messenger has been able to get out books?
DR. SAUTER: Certainly, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, if I may make a further inquiry -- is it your thought and do you anticipate that you will take both Monday and Tuesday in the presentation of these document books?
DR. SAUTER: I don't believe that I shall need all of Tuesday. I believe I shall have to use all Monday. Whether I shall have to use any time on Tuesday I can't say for certain at this moment. I have consulted one of my colleagues and if I finish on Tuesday before the end of the sessions, then he in turn will submit the balance of his documents so that we can make full use of the time available to us. In other words, either I shall need all of the time on Tuesday or the balance of the time will be made use of by presenting other documents by another one of my colleagues.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the point I had in mind, as to whether or not there would be some one prepared to follow you if you did not take all the time. Now, may I inquire as to what counsel and what defendant will present the evidence?
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Rauschenbach for General Foertsch. Dr. Rauschenbach will follow me and will present the balance of his documents for General Foertsch.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
I shall start with Geitner document No. 28 on page 85 of Geitner document book 1. I repeat, Geitner document 28, page 85 in Geitner document book 1. This document will receive Geitner exhibit No. 64, that is the next available document number. The affidavit is executed by Dr. Scheller, who was assistant officer with the commanding officer in Serbia during April, 1943 to March, 1944 and he deals with the effect of reprisal measures on the insurgent movement. He says:
THE INTERPRETER: What is the English document number?
DR. SAUTER: I am afraid I do not have the English document number. It is page 28 in the German text.
THE INTERPRETER: O,K,, I have it.
MR. FULKERSON: It is on page 86, if your Honors please. It is almost illegible. If your Honors please, it is document No. 28 beginning on page 85, I am sorry.
DR. SAUTER: The affiant says concerning the effectiveness of reprisal measures on the insurgent movements:
"Within the sphere of my activity in the above described official position I had at my disposal, besides all reports of our own and allied troops, of the Military Administration Headquarters, the police etc. on the situation of the enemy and his activity, also the results of the wireless - and telephone control.
"The intercepted wireless messages of Draga Mihailovic repeatedly contained the order to subordinate commanders to stop assaults on German troops and their allies and acts of sabotage against the German and its allied army because the reprisal would exact an unnecessarily heavy sacrifice from the Serbian people. Draza Mihailovic demanded indeed intensification of the struggle against the Tito-partisans and against the "traitors of the Fatherland" - therefore against the government Hedic and its authorities, Ljotic movement etc. - also there were similar exhortations in the Draza Mihailovic paper "Ravna Gora."
"It appeared further from the radio that Draza Mihailovic was repeatedly blamed by his own government, as well as by the English, because of his insufficient activity against the German Wehrmacht; further support was often made contingent on an increase in sabotage activity.
With regard to this Draza Mihailovic ordered attacks and acts of sabotage to be carried out as much as possible if their authorship could not be determined or could be ascribed to the Communists.
"Because of the reprisal measures as well as because of the larger and smaller enterprises against them, even the Tito movement was able to get a foothold in the Serbian area only slowly, and was not able to develop into an effective striking organization-penetrating beyond the Croatian area -- until 1944. Through the measures of the Commanding General and Commander, the extensive ravages and devastation which can be seen in the Croatian area because of the fighting of the Tito bands in 1942-44 were avoided in the Serbian area.
"The suppression of open rebellions in the Serbian area, which was successful until the middle of 1944, certainly saved the Serbian people considerable losses in life and property."
The affidavit is signed by the affiant and it has been duly sworn to and certified.
I shall further submit from Geitner document book 2, Geitner document 53, which is on page 62 of the English text and page 62 also in the German document book. This document No. 53 will be offered under Geitner exhibit No. 63. It is an affidavit executed by the same affiant as the previous one, Dr. Scheller, and he here deals with the military character of the DM organization. I recommend the details of this document to the judicial notice of the Tribunal. I don't want to......
MR. FULKERSON: I object to the admission of this affidavit on the ground that the last paragraph of it shows that this affiant is a resident of Nurnberg. I did not object to the first one because.......
THE PRESIDENT: What is the page?
MR. FULKERSON: The page in English is page 65.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if we are to follow our previous rulings, is there any question as to this man being a resident of Nurnberg?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Under our previous ruling I believe the objection will be sustained.
DR. SAUTER: Then I shall call the witness to the stand here after the Christmas recess. It will lose us about one half day, but I cannot help it if the prosecution insists on objection.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter for the prosecution to decide.
DR. SAUTER: Then I shall examine this witness after the holidays on the witness stand here.
MR. FULKERSON: If your Honors please, I was not present when General Geitner was on the stand and I know very little about the documents and the evidence concerning him, therefore, I would like to stand on my objection now. If it appears later that the objection is purely technical, I will be glad to withdraw it and against any others which I decide to make as I don't want to prolong the trial.
THE PRESIDENT: You have made the objection, DR. Sauter will have to start getting the witness here and it takes a certain length of time. The ruling will stand, but neither Dr. Sauter or the Tribunal is responsible for the fact that the work of the prosecution has been divided.
MR. FULKERSON: Very well, I stand on the objection.
DR. SAUTER: I would like to suggest that we retain exhibit No. 65 for this document for the moment, because I anticipate in view of the contents of the affidavit the prosecution will not maintain its objection. I think it would be expedient for the moment to maintain the exhibit No. 65.
THE PRESIDENT: We will maintain that number and you may proceed with the next exhibit.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you, your Honor. This brings me to Geitner document book 4. I would like to first make a few remarks. This document book Geitner No. 4, which contains documents from No. 81 up to and including 110, I would like it to be considered as one complete entity. The contents of this book is concerned with compilations concerning the activities of the insurgents within the area of the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia, covering the period from June, 1942 to April, 1943.
That is the contents of documents 81 on page 1 of the document book which I shall submit later. Further there are excerpts from the war diary of the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia and of the Military Commander Southeast covering the period from June, 1942, until May, 1944, that is document No. 82 up to and including document 105. Further, the third part of the document book consists of two orders concerning the rejecting of reprisal measures and these facts will become apparent from documents 106 and 107. The fourth part of the contents comprises relief measures of the Military Commander Southeast intended for the population of Belgrade, that is going to be document 108 and the last part of the document book will consist of two affidavits of the defendant von Geitner, concerning daily reports and reports concerning orders, war diaries, etc. Those will be documents 109 and 110, two affidavits, if I may anticipate that which we discussed in detail earlier. These affidavits serve the purpose to give the defendant von Geitner a chance to comment on unimportant details which are immaterial for him.
This then brings me to document 108 in Geitner document book Correction, it is document 81 in Geitner document book 4 on page 1 of this document book and this will be offered under exhibit No. 66. This document 81 contains mainly very careful surveys of the amounts of sabotage acts and raids committed by the insurgents, covering the period from June, 1942 until April, 1943. One may ask, why when working out this survey we restricted ourselves to this particular period of time. The explanation is quite simple, it is because the war diaries sent to us from Washington contain exact figures only for that period, that is the period covering June, 1942 to April, 1943. During the subsequent period from May 1943 these figures were mentioned in the war diary only in the 1-c situation reports to higher agencies and these 1-c situation reports, that is the report written by the official who goes under the heading 1-c, have not been sent to us from Washington, therefore I was not in a position to include the 1-c reports in my survey.
I would have done that, of course, if I had received these reports with the others because then I would have been in a position to make a survey over the whole period of time without any gaps.
If your Honors please, I do believe we can assume that the figures for the later months, which could not be considered in this survey, will be on the same level if not higher.
Document No. 81 is intended to prove that at that time when General von Geitner came to Belgrade, the raids and sabotage activities of the insurgents in Serbia had reached such an extent that it became necessary to apply severe counter measures on the part of the Germans in order to protect the peaceful civilian population against murder, plundering and destruction which were carried out by the bands. This survey is further to prove that a dreadful battle of everyone against everyone would have raged in this area had not stringent measures on the part of the Germans prevented it.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, please. I think this would possibly be a proper time to adjourn and we will continue with your presentation of documents Monday morning.
The Tribunal will be in recess until Monday morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, Monday, 22 Dec. 1947.)
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Wilhelm List, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany on 22 December, 0930, Justice Carter presiding.
THE MARSHAL: All persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal V. Military Tribunal V is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you will ascertain as to whether or not all the defendants are present in the court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant von Weichs, who is in the hospital.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have some matter to present?
MR. FULKERSON: Yes, if your Honors please, when we closed Saturday, or Friday, Dr. Sauter was in the middle of presenting Document No. 81, which is the first document of Geitner Book IV. It is an affidavit which Dr. Sauter made himself, and, as I understand, he isn't through presenting it. In any event, I would like to object to it on several grounds. First, the affidavit was made by Dr. Sauter and, so far as I am able to tell, was sworn to before himself and purports to show a series of tabulations and certain conclusions drawn from documents, the conclusions having been drawn by somebody else, who isn't named, and the documents from which those conclusions are drawn only being indicated in the most general way. I am aware that we are not bound here by the technical rules of evidence, but when a document violates not one but almost all of the rules which are supposed to protect the probative value of documentary and oral evidence, for that matter, it seems to me that the court should feel itself bound to -- not to ignore them completely. Now, for example, the best evidence rule is violated flagrantly. Not only is the document from which these various conclusions are drawn not introduced evidence, but it hasn't even been indicated with certainty what these documents are.
Secondly, we have no way of knowing from this affidavit now these conclusions were drawn, what types of acts are included in this tabulation, and it seems to the Prosecution that, simply from a standpoint of probative value, this document is a probative nullity, and it is noted that the contents of it are properly included, if they are to be properly included anywhere, in argument rather than in a document which purports to set our facts.
THE PRESIDENT: We will hear your statement, or any statement you may make, Dr. Sauter.
I wish to announce that Judge Carter will preside at this day's session and at least the preliminary of this particular question will rest with him.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honors, I would like to make the following statement to the objection of the Prosecution. In this document 81, which is the first document in Geitner Book IV: I have given the Tribunal an exact and careful compilation of all surprise attacks and sabotage acts which the insurgents carried out in the period of time indicated in the documents. The purpose of this tabulation was to prove to the court that at the time when General Geitner came to Belgrade the activities of the partisans where sabotage acts and surprise attacks were concerned had already reached such an extent that without severe counter-measures taken on the part of the Germans it would not have been possible to cope with the situation. The documentary information for this tabulation was taken from the War Diaries -- that is, War Diaries which were sent to us from Washington by order of this court. Of course, I was only in a position to do it in this way -- that is, by collaborating with my colleagues and studying the War Diaries from the first to the last day; and, in compiling from these Diaries the figures and amounts of sabotage acts and surprise attacks which occurred within a certain period of time, all this was compiled by us in Document No. 81. The court needs an affidavit concerning the fact that the compilation was done in the way that I have just indicated, and that is the affidavit which can be found on the same page on the first page of Document No. 81.
I myself executed this affidavit. The Prosecution asserts that this document does not comply with the rules of evidence of this court. I am not quite sure about what he means by this statement. What he might possibly object to is that in this affidavit I have not certified my own signature, but I would be inclined to think that formalities would not take first place to the extent that I myself should have to certify a signature which I gave in an affidavit executed by myself. The Prosecution further maintained that, if I understood correctly, one could not check the documents from which this compilation was taken. In answer to this I would like to point to the introduction which is contained on page 2 and where it is stated that "the evaluation of War Diaries of the Commanding General and Military Commander of Serbia produces the following," these, then, are compilations taken from the War Diaries which we received from Washington.
Now I would like to answer to the last objection made. How is one to prove whether or not this tabulation is correct? I myself have sworn under oath the correctness of this compilation. For many weeks we studied these War Diaries. If the Prosecution has any doubt left as to whether this compilation is correct, I can only advise them to do the same as I have done -- that is, sit down for weeks and study these forms, diaries, and, as I have done, make certain excerpts, and then the Prosecution will be in a position to make statements in the courtroom to the Tribunal as to whether or not this tabulation is a correct one. In my opinion there is no other way to deal with this matter. For all practical purposes, we hold the opinion that this tabulation is of importance, of extreme importance, for the evaluation of the whole problem.
MR. FULKERSON: In addition to the other unusual features of this affidavit, I would like to point out one other thing to the Tribunal. So far as I know, all of these defendants have said that reprisal measures were not taken for German losses either in property or in lives which were incurred in combat, that reprisal measures were only taken for sabotage raids, etc.
It is impossible to tell from this tabulation here whether it includes all German losses, however incurred, or exactly what the classification made by whoever compiled this was.
DR. SAUTER: This objection has nothing to do with the formal admissibility of this exhibit. This new objection refers to the probative value of the document. It will be the decision of the court to state what probative value this document will have, but the formal admissibility I don't believe is touched by this objection at all. I would therefore like to ask for this objection of the prosecution to be overruled.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Dr. Sauter, what do the figures on the column underneath the term "Appendix" indicate? On page 2.
DR. SAUTER: The last but one column?
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: All the figures contained on page 2 are figures which become apparent from the War Diaries. The War Diary contains continuous reports and most of those reports have appendixes. For instance, copies of orders, all reports which came in, etc., and these appendixes are numbered in sequence, in numerical sequence, because otherwise one would be in no position to insert where the individual page belongs; and I have included this sequence, this numerical sequence, in the last but one column so that he who wants to chock my compilation can find immediately where the correct page is to which the report in question refers. That is the idea of this column.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Well, are those appendices not exhibits that have been offered in evidence?
DR. SAUTER: No, they are numbers of individual pages in the War Diaries which I have looked through and on which I have worked. If your Honors please, you will have to imagine that you have a book and the pages run from 1 to 376, let us say, and the War Diary is quite a similar book; it is numbered in numerical sequence, and, so that one can find the page immediately to which the report refers, I have given the number of the page in this column under discussion.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Then the point ---
DR. SAUTER: It is for the evaluation of the court of no importance whether this column is here or not, but if, for instance, in your judgment and opinion, you want to check on a certain report, then all you have to do is refer to the page to which the report or communication is contained and you can find that page in the left column. Anybody can make use of this column. Who believes that what I said is wrong, they can take the same trouble I have taken and check up then stand here and say that either what Dr. Sauter has sworn to is correct or they will have to say that what Dr. Sauter has sworn is not correct, and then whoever says that has to prove it and bring evidence. I would consider that a fair way to conduct the trial on the part of the Prosecution.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I understand that, but what I am trying to find out is: Is this a recapitulation of exhibits that have already been offered in evidence, or does it include some that have not been offered in evidence?
DR. SAUTER: From the War Diaries which I have used here there have been several excerpts; in earlier presentation of evidence of the Prosecution which have been submitted, but only some. These documents which have been submitted at an earlier time are also contained in this compilation. The War Diaries which I worked on, however, contain other excerpts as well. If your Honors please, I can only answer your question by this: partially the War Diaries from which I have taken these excerpts have been presented at an earlier time and partially they have not yet been presented. The Prosecution has presented whatever seemed to them expedient for incrimination of the defendant, and I have used another system. I have studied all reports and taken this compilation from all reports, irrespective of whether it is favorable or unfavorable for the defendant.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: We will receive it for what it is worth.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, if the Tribunal please, this Document 81 which has cost us so much time contains on page 2 a tabulation or surprise attacks and sabotage acts dating from the period of the 26th of June to 15 November 1942. For this period of time -- that is, for approximately four and one-half months -- there are, for the Commander of Serbia, 1907 surprise attacks and sabotage acts committed by insurgents. That is, 14 surprise attacks every day, weekdays and Sundays. On page 3 you find the continuation of this tabulation applied to the following month -- that is, from the 16th of November 1942 to the 15th of April 1943. If you might ask why this tabulation on page 3 has been separated from the preceding statistics on page 2, I can answer this question by stating the following: During the period of time covered on page 2, the Military Commander for Serbia was responsible for Serbia and Croatia. Therefore, the figures mentioned on page 2 cover both those areas, Serbia and Croatia, whereas the figures on page 3 only refer to the Serbian area, no longer to the Croatian area. If you study page 3, you will find that during the period of time from 16 November 1942 until 15 April 1943 in the Serbian area alone, without Croatia, if you add it up, there were 1782 surprise attacks and sabotage acts. If you work out how much that is, concerning every individual day, you will have an average for every day, Sundays and weekdays, of 12 to 13 acts of sabotage and surprise attacks committed. Concerning other periods of time mentioned in this document, we could not make a similar compilation because we had no information for this. The information for the subsequent period would have been contained in the Situation Reports of the ic that is the intelligence officer. That is, in the reports which the 1c officer passed on to higher agencies. And those Situation Reports made by the 1c were not sent to us. from Washington. At least, they were not given to us, and therefore we could not evaluate them. The whole this Document No. 81 has been submitted, as already mentioned, so that the Tribunal, when examining the question whether in connection with such a gigantic figure of sabotage acts and surprise attacks, it was necessary to take reprisal measures on the part of the Military Commander in Serbia and, if so, to which extent it was necessary.