people who belonged to the Division" and the Prosecution used the word "Division" twice, as if one Division had been added to the Division.
MR. RAPP: Not the Prosecution; the Prosecution did not do that. The young lady in the interpreter's box did it.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: To err is human. Let's proceed.
A Since the 15th Corps had no direct contact at all with the Brandenburg Division, and could not, because this Division was outside of the Army, therefore, the Division applied to the Army in order to ask the 15th Corps to refrain certain people to them.
Q Witness, in other words, to start from the very beginning of your statement, the Division, first of all, had to get your approval in order to operate at all in this area?
A No, if such an operation had taken place, it was certainly ordered by Hitler. This can also be seen from other documents showing orders issued in this area. Then I am not in any position at all to give an approval, or to reject the whole matter. This document has, as only an informational purpose, but it never applied for an approval.
Q In other words, you saw that also in this case, as in so many others, the Fuehrer was personally in charge of the matter and ordered it?
A Yes, without doubt in this case. Might I say, -
Q Did the Fuehrer also have anything to do with the fact that this English equipment was made available to the Brandenburg Division by the 15th Army Corps?
A No, not directly, but indirectly, in so far as this whole operation was tried out on a basis of an order by Hitler. The 15th Corps had probably captured such things, and then it is quite out of the question that one unit could withhold something from another, but whatever you ask me here then I was never concerned with it, because I never received any knowledge at all of such things.
Q.- Central, whether this concerns you or not, will be determined by the Tribunal; do you know, whether the 15th Corps had packets of bandages which they had to give away.
A.- Well the Brandenburg Division certainly knew that the 15th Corps had captured such things, and therefore they had a right to ask for these things.
Q.- Do you know where the 15th Corps got hold of all of these things.
A.- Well, I don't know. I can only imagine that it was after the fighting on the Island, or the partisans had these things, because it came for the most part, from English sources.
Q.- Now, General, you have told us that you insisted that this drunken man who was there, was to be removed. Doesn't that show a certain influence on the Division, or do you want to express that this was again a sign of the fact that you did everything possible, everywhere; even that people were acting against you? I don't know what you are trying to say.
A.- Well here, I would like to say the following: I was not able to order the Division to remove this man. Therefore I chose another way in order to force this Division to remove the man, by finding out all of his weaknesses, - I got somebody to do this, - so that the Division could do nothing else except to remove this man.
Q.- Now, witness, the fact that you did not read this letter, but that as you say, perhaps your 1-C read it, does that preclude the fact that this operation was planned with the help of the second Panzer Army?
A.- Yes, that definitely precludes it, because the Division informs us here of this plan, with rather a lot of detail as to what they think about it. The planning of the whole matter, had nothing to do with my Army.
Q.- Except for the fact, witness, that your Army was asked to provide specialists, as well as special equipment, for the execution or the success of the operation is that correct or not?
A.- Well, not specialists, insofar as it did concern Brandenburg people who attended courses of the Corps for the purposes of training, and then were reassigned afterwards. So far as the equipment is concerned, then this concerns their uniforms and bandages, etc.
Q.- Of the enemy?
A.- Yes, of the enemy.
This equipment must certainly have been in the possession of the 15th Corps and was asked for by the Division Brandenburg. That is what they are asking for, and these are measures of very subordinate officers who did this amongst themselves.
Q.- The equipment was in the possession of the 2nd Panzer Army, and it was asked that it be made available to the 15th Corps for further disposal?
A.- I would like to answer you where to find this.
Q.- In the letter.
A.- But where?
Q.- We must find it; it is here somewhere.
A.- Yes, I have found it; here it is. It comes after the 6 points which I put down here. Under Point B it states the the Second Army is requested to make these objects, etc., available. They certainly must have been with the Corps.
Q.- They were not with you?
A.- What would we do with such things? And if they had been there for study purposes, I certainly would not have had any knowledge of them, but from the letter one cannot see this, that these things were with the staff of the Army.
Q.- Do you know, incidentally, General, who had to hand over the dead hostages?
A.- No, I do not know anything about that at all.
Q.- They certainly came from Berlin?
A.- I do not know who did that.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION DEFENDANT RENDULIC BY DR. FRITSCH:Q.- General, just one more question to this long interrogation.
The question is, where was the Divisional Staff?
A.- Berlin.
Q.- Were the orders given from Berlin?
A.- Yes.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Haven't we covered that matter quite exhaustively before?
DR. FRITSCH: Then I have no further questions.
DIRECT EXAMINATION DEFENDANT RENDULIC BY DR. TIPP: (Counsel for General von Leyser) Your Honors, during the submission of this Exhibit, I was allowed to present sur rebuttal; with the approval of the Tribunal I wanted to call General von Leyser into the witness stand, but since General Rendulic has been questioned so much by Mr. Rapp about this document, with regard to the 15th Corps, therefore as regards General von Leyser, I would like to ask the Tribunal to allow me a sur rebuttal for General von Leyser, and to put a few questions to General Rendulic.
Only after I have seen what the outcome of these questions is, will I know whether I have to call General von Leyser into the witness stand. I do not know whether General Rendulic will be able to answer from his own knowledge the two questions which I have to put to him.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Make them brief, and make the answers also in the same category.
DR. TIPP: Yes, Your Honor, I will do that.
Q.- General, with regard to this document, only one thing seems to me to be important for General Leyser.
You have stated, if I understood you correctly, that this operation was not carried out, and that you disapproved of the man in charge of the Brandenburg Division, who was supposed to carry out this operation. You stated previously that you wanted the man who was supposed to lead this Brandenburg Division removed, and you did your best to do this.
A.- That is incorrect insofar as I didn't have the man removed but was merely instrumental in securing his eventual removal.
Q.- And now, from this document, there is mention of a few points in which your office was asked to urge the 15th Corps to do such and such a thing. Might I ask you whether these orders which are mentioned here, these instructions, -- this is the last page of the document if you want to look at it, General, -- were these directives actually given from the Army to the 15th Corps?
A.- As an Army order to my knowledge, these directives certainly did not go to the 15th Corps. At the most it may have been request from the 1 C to the 15th Corps asking them to carry out these things, since they were unnecessary things from the point of view of the Army, and from the point of view of the Corps, - bandages and such things as that, certainly then no orders were given.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Hasn't the question been answered?
DR. TIPP: No, unfortunately not.
Q General, I must put one more question to you. You said the 15th Corps was to make available bandages, etc. I assume here you want to refer to page 3.
A No, I am not referring to anything definite but only to general things with regard to providing general things, whether the 15th Corps or another Corps did it I don't know -- I can't tell from the material here.
Q General, excuse me if I correct you here. You said it was immaterial which unit made these objects available but from your point of view it is no doubt immaterial but it is not immaterial from the point of view of General Leyser.
A Yes, I understand this and I regret very much I made a mistake here but the 15th Corps certainly did not come into question with regard to supplying bandages, supplies, etc.
Q Then one more question. You therefore do not know whether these directions which the Brandenburg Division requested went from the army to General von Leyser?
A No, it is quite unknown to me.
DR. TIPP: Thank you very much, then. I have no further questions.
EXAMINATION BY THE COURT QUESTIONS BY PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE:
Q General, this Brandenburg division was a sort of a special divisions, was it not?
A Yes, it was a special formation which was used for such kinds of operations as especially surprise attacks and work behind the enemy's rear, etc. This formation was especially created for these purposes.
Q Some of the operations they carried on didn't receive the approval of the high offices of the Wehrmacht, is that right?
A We disapproved of it. These troops of the division in our area were only used for combat purposes and the divisions also raised objections to OKW, complaining to the OKW that these troops were being used for combat purposes and the troops could only get them with great difficulty for other purposes.
I myself was called up several times by the OKW and was asked to use these forces not so much so the divisions could use them more but I refused to do that because I needed all these forces for combat purposes.
Q I am not talking about the times this division was subordinated to the Wehrmacht units but they were used in operations that the high offices of the Wehrmacht did not approve of -- isn't that right?
A Yes. I did not know a single person who especially approved of these kinds of operations.
Q And that was rather generally known throughout the Wehrmacht, isn't that true?
A Yes.
MR. RAPP: May it please the tribunal I have one question I would like to ask.
CROSS EXAMINATION QUESTIONS BY MR. RAPP:
Q Was the Brandenburg unit a Wehrmacht unit, General Rendulic?
A Yes. The division belonged without doubt to the Wehrmacht.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I have no further questions.
MR. RAPP: No further questions.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I will be finished in two or three minutes. I would just like to refer to Exhibit Number 655. First of all when I objected to the submission of this exhibit I made a mistake. It is Exhibit 655 document NOKW 2632 and I would like very much to correct this mistake for the record. When discussing this I stated that these documents were already in the so-called Washington chest. In the meantime I have found out this was not the case and I would like to state the following about this. When the requests to be made to Washington were specified here, I asked for the war diary of the 2nd Panzer Army. These war diaries or rather this war diary was not given to me therefore I had to assume that it was not in Washington or it did not arrive in the hands of the prosecution. Now the prosecution has this exhibit 655 and has submitted parts of the war diary of the 2nd Panzer Army and from this we can see that the document submitted here, if I might express myself in this way, is rather mixed up.
First of all there are excerpts from the war diary of the 2nd Panzer Army followed by excerpts from the war diary of the 21st Corps and then again there are parts from the war diary of the 2nd Panzer army and I am not in a position and I don't want to be in a position to object against this exhibit because I need this exhibit for the defense. I would only like to state here that although this exhibit, that is the war diary of the 2nd Panzer Army is available to the prosecution and this has been withheld from me at the moment I don't want to maintain my rights in this direction but I would just like to state my point of view and show that in my opinion to this extent the rulings of the tribunal have not been adhered to.
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, just to set the record straight and I hope it will be for the last time we have to go through this because we all have been listening to it for a long time, but I feel it is incumbent upon us now. Dr. Fritsch like his colleague Dr. Laternser goes off on a tangent. Yesterday I found a document in Dr. Laternser's document book on Weichs. That document was taken out of the Washington document, it was (To Dr. Laternser) I don't know what you got in the translation, Dr. Laternser, but that document came from Washington sources, as a matter of fact, it was taken out or reproduced from the originals which Washington sent to the Secretary General's office, which were then returned to Washington by the Secretary General's office and when they asked Washington again to send those back to us -- now I am not saying the defense took any originals out of these documents they didn't return, if they did they would have violated the Secretary General's instructions.
I say they merely reproduced it. That particular document I have reference to is contained in the diary of the 21st Mountain Corps and it was included there as part of the diary of the 2nd Panzer Army.
Now, I don't know whether Dr. Fritsch got the diary of the 2nd Panzer Army or not. We have asked for it but it seems to me that the document which I found in Dr. Laternser's document book which by the way is included in Rendulic Book No. 4 it is perfectly obvious they have gotten everything that is due them. Of course, they will continuously and until the end of the world say they did not get what they wanted and I feel we would appreciate it - we of the prosecution - if the court at some time now or later would possibly set the record straight as to whether or not the court feels we abided by the court's ruling.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: There being no official matter before the court you may proceed with the next item.
MR. RAPP: Does your Honor want to have Felber called in or is the defense through with its surrebuttal?
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Is the defense finished with the surrebuttal?
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I don't want to answer to the statement previously made by Mr. Rapp because I know it is not the wish of the tribunal that I do so as I would very much like to object to these statements. I just want to make one statement and that is the following. The photostatic copy of Exhibit 684 I gave to the interpreter, sir, so that the record can be brought into order as regards the excerpts I read this morning. I should now like to ask the Secretary General to please refer the 17 pages of Exhibit 664 to the exhibit file so that this file is complete.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well. The tribunal will recess until half past 1:00 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours 22 January 1948.)
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: We will continue.
DR. TIPP: If it please the tribunal I would like to ask permission to put General von Leyser again on the stand in the procedure of surrebuttal, as I have announced only concerning Exhibit 603 which was discussed this morning and which incriminates him.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
GENERAL Von LEYSER, a defendant took the stand in his own behalf in surrebuttal and testified as follows:
REDIRECT EXAMINATION QUESTIONS BY DR TIPP:
Q General, I have Prosecution Exhibit 673 that is Prosecution document NOKW 069 handed to you. In order to make this clear for the record it is a report by the division Brandenburg dated 12 November 1943 and addressed to the headquarters of the 2nd Panzer Army, General, my first question concerning this document is: Did you receive that communication at that time and did you ever see it then?
A No.
Q You mean you saw this communication here during the trial for the first time?
A Yes.
Q Other than that, did your superior agency inform you to the effect that an operation of that type was to be carried out in that manner at that time?
A No.
Q My last question. On page 4 of that document it is said the 2nd Panzer Army is requested to send to unit Kirchner via 1C of the 15th Mountain Corps all such available information. Was this request of the Brandenburg Division complied with, was such information made available to the unit Kirchner via your 1C?
A Since I did not receive that order I did not send the information.
Q Does that same answer apply to the other points that become apparent from that paragraph, what I mean is were the requests from the division Brandenburg sent to you as an order by the 2nd Panzer Army?
A No.
DR. TIPP: Thank you. In that case I have no further questions.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Any questions by the prosecution counsel?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR FULKERSON:
Q General, who was this Captain Kirchner?
A I don't know him.
Q You never did hear the man's name before?
PRESIDENT: Pardon me, Dr Sauter indicated - it appears from the bench here perhaps he desires to question this witness. I was mistaken. Apparently he does not. You may proceed, and pardon me.
Q You never did hear of this fellow before - this Captain Kirchner?
A Not that I remember.
Q Can you think of any reason why the 5th SS Corps would be reporting to your corps that they were carrying out a reprisal measure about this man's death if the man concerned had no connection with the 15th Corps?
A I believe the Prosecution is talking about another document.
DR. TIPP: If your Honors please, I object to the question. I believe cross examination will have to refer to direct examination but in the direct examination a reprisal measure for Capt. Kirchner was not mentioned nor is it contained in the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you referring to Document 674?
MR. FULKERSON: Well, actually this unit "Kirchner" is mentioned in Document 673, and document 674 has to do with reprisal measures taken on account of Captain Kirchner's death. Yes, I was referring to that.
PRESIDENT: The objection will be overruled. The examination will be made as brief as possible.
DR. TIPP: May I add something in this connection of which I have just been informed, so there will be no misunderstanding.
Captain Kirchner who is here mentioned as the bearer of the Oak Leaves and of the Knight's Cross is a completely different person from the man of unit Kirchner mentioned in this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you can bring that out in other questioning.
MR. FULKERSON: After that testimony on Dr Tipp's part it is useless for me to question any further along this line.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions?
DR. TIPP: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
DR. SAUTER: (On behalf of General Von Geitner) If it please the tribunal, I believe the ruling concerning a certain affidavit is still pending which the prosecution submitted during rebuttal. It is an affidavit executed by Theodor Fischer, Exhibit 645. I have objected against this affidavit which was submitted on the 14th of January and I have asked for the affiant to be called for cross examination, this in reference to one particular sentence which is contained in the affidavit. This sentence reads, "So-called mock executions could not take place either." This sentence is contained on page 2 of the affidavit. At this point I don't know whether this affiant Theodor Fischer is going to appear for cross examination, or - -
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Perhaps Mr Fenstermacher can save us some time by giving us his views.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I am unable to bring the affiant here in time and I ask that your previous ruling with respect to motions to strike be held true in this case -- that is those parts of the affidavit should be stricken in that the material in the affidavit is not corroborated.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: That has been the course followed in other matters and that will be the course pursued by the Tribunal at this time. You may proceed.
DR. SAUTER: I have another point to clear up. During rebuttal there has been submitted against von Geitner Exhibit 651 and Exhibit 652.
Exhibit 651 is a communication from the chief of the security police and SD dated 15 June 1944 and addressed to the OKW, operational department. The document with commando operations. The second communication which precedes the first one chronologically is Exhibit 652. This is a communication of the chief of the security police of the SD Dept. II, dated 9 June 1944 and it is addressed to Department H in the same building. That is another department of the chief of the security police and SD. Concerning these two exhibits, I have studied them very thoroughly and repeatedly, and I have nowhere been able to find that in the two communications the defendant von Geitner is mentioned nor the agency with which he served in Belgrade. I would like to request that the prosecution. inform me why despite of this fact these two communications were submitted as incriminating General von Geitner who had nothing whatever to do with them, if the prosecution in actual fact intends to use them as incriminations.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Mr. Fenstermacher, perhaps you could throw some light on this subject.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I think I said, at the time the documents were offered, your Honor, they were offered to show the relationship between the SD and the German units operating within the vicinity with respect to execution of commandos. The two documents which Dr. Sauter specifically refers to indicate that certain commandos were turned over by the SD in Belgrade to an army unit and it is the Prosecution's contention that the defendant Geitner, who is the chief of staff of Felber's army unit in Belgrade, should have known about that. Dr. Sauter's remarks to the contrary are simply argumentation at this point.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Sauter, I think it is the feeling of the Tribunal that they may be received for such probative value as they may have and no more.
DR. SAUTER: Then I don't have to call the defendant von Geitner to the witness stand but with these statements I can dispense with that.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I think you are entirely within your rights in dispensing with it.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, your Honor; then I have one final point to deal with which actually has nothing to do with rebuttal but it is merely a clarification for the secretary general.
Through an error I have assigned exhibit No. 173 to two documents in the case of general Geitner; namely, to Document Geitner No. 80 in Geitner Document Book III on page 92 and also to Document No. 205 contained in Document Book VII. When looking through the exhibit numbers I discovered this error. I believe it would be expedient if this error be corrected so that the list of exhibit numbers contains no mistakes.
I would suggest that Exhibit No. 173 remain with Document 205 but that Document No. 80 in Geitner Document Book III, page 92, receives the next exhibit number which is open -- that is, Geitner Exhibit 179. If we did that the exhibit numbers for Geitner documents would be in order and there would be no misunderstanding anywhere.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Is there any reason, Mr. Fenstermacher, why that may not be done?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: We have no objection to that, your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: It is accordingly ordered that it may be done. You may proceed.
DR. SAUTER: I have nothing to add. My evidence in the case of Geitner is complete.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Mueller-Torgow, you are completing the part of your regular case, I take it, Dr. Torgow?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW (counsel for defendant Felmy): I am completing my case now, your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: If it please the Tribunal, I am not in a position to judge what probative value the Court will give the testimony of the witness heard by the Prosecution yesterday, a man by the name of Finger. Since this witness has asserted completely now facts which up until now have not yet been produced by the Prosecution, I shall have to ask to be permitted to examine my client very briefly, to call him on the witness stand, and to put to him a few questions. I ask the permission of the Court to do this.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honors please, I object to this procedure. The two points to which Mr. Finger testified yesterday were with respect to whether or not the defendant Felmy ever himself issued any reprisal orders which had to do with a hostage quota; especially to rebut the testimony of the defendant Felmy with respect to the execution of 100 hostages in reprisal for the death of General Krech on the Peloponese.
The defendant Felmy testified that the hostages were rounded up and shot by Greek authorities under the command of a Colonel Popodongonos. The witness, Finger, gave testimony in rebuttal of that. The two matters were clarified and gone over in great detail, both on direct and cross examination of the defendant himself.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I think that is perhaps true but, following the precedent we have on the other matters, we will permit the defendant within reasonable limits to answer such brief questions as may be put to him touching these matters and these matters alone.
You may proceed.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: Your Honor, might I observe at this point that the witness Finger has not dealt with the incident Krech with one single word. If he had done that, I would be correct in stating that it was no rebuttal topic, because the case Krech has long since been presented by the Prosecution. I may now put the defendant Felmy --
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Mueller-Torgow, you may call the general your witness and interrogate him about such matters as may be pertinent to the present inquiry.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Perhaps we could be stipulation, if your Honors please -- I am willing to stipulate to that to Dr. Mueller-Torgow now, that when the witness Finger testified yesterday, with respect to the execution of 100 hostages in reprisal for a high ranking German officer, he was talking about General Krech. He did himself not know the name at the time. He told me he heard later that the officer he had in mind was General Krech and when we discussed it in an interrogation before he took the witness stand he told me he could not remember at the time the name of the officer and he dispensed with bringing out that part.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Would a stipulation to that effect satisfy the requirements of your matter, Dr. Mueller-Torgow?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: I don't think I quite understood what Mr. Fenstermacher was saying but I believe it will be all right, your Honor, if I call my client now to the stand and ask him these few questions which I have to put to him.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well, call him.
HELMUTH FELMY - Resumed REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. MUELLER-TORGOW:
Q General, is it known to you that you are still bound to the oath under which you testified before?
A Yes, I know that.
Q General, do you recollect the three alleged announcements of January and February 1944 of which the witness Finger talked yesterday? Do you recollect having initiated these announcements in any manner whatsoever?
A I have initiated the issuance of none of these three announcements., neither the one at the beginning of January 1944 nor the second one which was issued about one week later in which the reprisal measure carried out was made known, nor the third public announcement which he states was issued at the end of January or at the beginning of February 1944.
Q Did you know about these so-called announcements?
A No, I knew nothing of those announcements whatsoever.
Q Under whose jurisdiction was the Peloponese at the end of 1943 and the beginning of 1944?
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: That was covered quite extensively on your direct case. Isn't that correct?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: Yes, that was just to be a very brief foundation to another question.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
Q General, where were you personally in January and at the beginning of February 1944?
A On direct examination I testified to the fact that in the afternoon of the 13th of January 1944 I landed in Tatoi when I returned from Christmas leave.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The answer of defendant General Felmy clearly proves the point that I sought to make a moment ago. The matter was entirely covered on direct examination.
It would appear unnecessary to proceed any further.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: Your Honor, we are concerned with two cases here. The first case, as the General stated here, has already been discussed in direct examination but the second case hasn't yet; but, to make it complete, I wanted to have these two points discussed together.
Q Would you please continue, General?
A On the 22nd of January in the morning I left Athens again by plane for a conference in Posen where I had been ordered to go. On the 3rd of February 1944 in the afternoon of that day I landed again in Tatoi. I do not only recall these dates; they are also contained in my small pocket diary.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: The fact that the defendant was away from headquarters is certainly part of his direct case.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I am inclined to think so, Dr. Mueller Torgow, that unless you have some other reason for presenting it de novo we are prepared to retain our original recollection of his testimony on the same subject.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: If it Please the Tribunal, this absence of General Felmy from Athens and his trip to Posen which he mentioned just now was not the subject of direct examination.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If not, it should have been, your Honor. I submit it is untimely.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Proceed, Dr. Mueller-Torgow.
Q Will you continue, please, General?
A In January I was active in Athens for one week only and, therefore, it is hardly possible that I knew of three posters at three different times and that I initiated them to be made public.
Q You mentioned a pocket diary just now, General. What were you going to say about that?
A I in that pocket diary have the entries. I have an entry concerning my flight from Athens and my return flight.
Q When did you enter those notes?
A I did that at the time when the events took place.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If there is any reference to the diary for the dates, the Prosecution is obviously going to have to examine it and make use of it for such purposes as it sees fit. That is certainly going to delay matters.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection is going to be sustained.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: I put it at the disposal of the Prosecution. May I then put the pocket diary of General Felmy at the disposal of the Court?
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: For what purpose?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: In order to check with it, whether General Felmy's statements just now are correct.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, we just want to dispense with the whole matter.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You are objecting to it for what reason?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I can't speak German, if your Honor please, and I wouldn't be able to examine it in any -
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: What is your specific objection, Mr. Fenstermacher?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: My specific objection, your Honor, is that this whole matter was gone into on direct examination and, if not, it should have been.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection will be sustained.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: Your Honor, I had no cause to discuss this matter on direct examination.
Q General, do you remember that around the end of 1943 or at the beginning of 1944 -- that is, either at the end of December or at the beginning of January -- a high ranking German officer or a general, as was later announced, was murdered and that subsequently some German agency ordered reprisal measures and carried them out?
A During the period of time in question which is being discussed just now -- that is, the end of December 1943 and the beginning of January 1944 -- no high ranking German officer was murdered.
After my return from furlough I would have been informed of that. I would have learned of it during the eight days that I spent in Athens or I would have heard to it when I returned to Athens at the beginning of February if that incident had taken place during the last days of January. At the very least, it would have been contained in one of the many documents or daily reports and that is not the case.
Q General, what designations did the so-called 999th Battalions have, a member of one of which the witness Finger was?
A They had Roman numerals, the VII battalion of the 999th Division was staioned on Xantos and the IV in the Elis area.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: To be proper sur-rebuttal it has got to be stated whether or not posters were in fact issued signed by General Felmy, as the witness testified to, or whether the hostages which were executed in reprisal were in fact rounded up by Germans and not Greeks. Only those two things were put in issue by the rebuttal testimony yesterday. I submit that counsel is limited to those two questions on sur-rebuttal.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection will be sustained.
Q General, who was the man Buschenhagen mentioned by the witness Finger, the president of the so-called summary court martial, as he called it, which sentenced him for fifteen years in the penitentiary.
A That was Judge Advocate General Buschenhagen and he was the corps judge. The court in Question here is a military court and when we organized the 999th Battalions we had several such cases. Concerning the indictment against the soldier Finger, I signed same at the time and after the military court had pronounced a sentence I submitted the verdict to the army group for confirmation since the sentence as such exceeded my sphere of competency.
Q Did you give an expert opinion on it when you requested the confirmation?
A Well, I suppose that I made a comment to the effect that I was in favor of it.