Against occurrences reported to him and constituting misbehavior on the part of the troops Field Marshal von Weichs took action in every way possible.
Besides, he in no case ordered or allowed civilians to be killed, as alleged by the Prosecution.
This is what I have to say concerning Count 1.) of the indictment.
b.) Concerning Count 2 of the indictment the Prosecution has proved no case in which Field Marshal von Weichs ordered or knowingly tolerated a w a n t o n d e s t r u c t i o n of towns or villages.
c.) In count 3 of the indictment Field Marshal von Weichs is charged with having forwarded or complied with unlawful orders, but such orders wrer partly not issued, partly disregarded.
Under 12 a) of the indictment Field Marshal von Weichs is charged with having ordered that persons being caught in uniform and in possession of weapons after the conclusion of the armistice should be shot.
This refers to a stipulation contained in the armistice conditions which had been laid down through agreement with the state of Yugoslavia. In this connection it will be sufficient to refer to previous explanations in my address.
The commissarial order mentioned under 12b) of the indictment did not apply to the Balkans, as I am going to prove.
The executive order dated 18 October 1942 (12 h of the indictment, Exhibit 225) was forwarded to the Balkan theater of operations, and the army corps was unable to prevent this order from being received. As I am going to prove, Field Marshal von Weichs raised an objection to this order. In no case was the order carried out, as I likewise intend to prove.
The measures against the Italian officers and troops following the capitulation (12 i - 1 of the indictment) were necessary from a military point of view. Executions of Italians took place only by virtue of sentences pronounced by military courts or courts martial for wartime treason committed through surrender of weapons to the partisans, support of the same in other ways, and of the illegal resistance in connection therewith.
Concerning Count 4 of the indictment I intend to prove that also during the time at which Field Marshal von Weichs was the highest strategic leader in the Balkans only such persons were and were supposed to be interned as had connections with or supported the partisan movement.
I am at the end of my statement and hope to have presented to the Tribunal the following evidence in broad outlines.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honor please, I have just been advised that the statement for counsel on behalf of the defendant Lanz is being mimeographed and should be ready shortly.
THE PRESIDENT: There was word sent to the desk here that the address for counsel Kuntze is now prepared and has been delivered.
MR. DENNEY: I have been sent a copy here in the courtroom, Your Honors. I will be glad to see if they have delivered one to Your Honors' secretary; I will see if it has been brought in.
THE PRESIDENT: If you will check that, Mr. Denney, we will appreciate it.
The Tribunal is informed that Dr. Sauter, counsel for von Geitner, is ready and prepared to present his opening statement at this time. Is that correct?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, it is.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, may I inquire as to whether or not there will be two opening statements, one on behalf of the defendant von Geitner and one on behalf of the defendant Lanz.
DR. SAUTER: Two, yes. One for von Geitner and the other for Lanz.
THE PRESIDENT: You are now prepared to present your statement for the defendant von Geitner?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And the one for the defendant Lanz we are informed will be up here shortly and if it is here by the time you complete your statement for von Geitner you can then proceed with the one for the defendant Lanz.
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: If that is not true, we will take it up when it is reached or brought to the Tribunal.
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, you may then proceed. May I inquire of the Marshal as to where the English translations are of Dr. Sauter's opening statement concerning the defendant von Geitner. Is there more than one copy?
THE MARSHAL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: It is undisputed that the defendant v. Geitner is accused in his character of Chief of the Commanding Staff (Operation Staff) to the Commanding General and Military Commander in Serbia and afterwards in his character as Chief of the Commanding Staff (Operation Staff) to the Military Commander Southeast and that his former military activity is also not debated in those counts of the indictment in which the prosecution does not cite summarily a longer space of time of the Second World War.
He held the first position in the time from 12 July 1942 to 26 August 1943, the latter position in the time from 26 August 1943 to 6 October 1944.
V. Geitner was in these positions during the time of July 1942 to August 1943 under General Paul Bader, in the time from August 1943 to October 1944 under General Hans Gustav Felber, who gave the affidavits of 19 February 1947 and was interrogated as a witness before court on 11 to 13 August 1947.
Consequently the responsibility of the defendant v. Geitner could not be in question for the cases of the indictment of 10 May 1947 for reasons of timing already.
In the cases concerning the defendant Geitner I need not repeat this summary and I continue on page 3 under Roman 2.
II The attitude of the defendant v. Geitner towards these accusations is as follows:
1) In general:
a) V. Geitner was never during the given time commanding officer of a unit, but always only Chief of the Operation Staff. As such he never had any commanding power. The responsibility for the orders directed to the troops rested according to German conception always and only with the commanding officer; this is also unequivocally recognized in the "Handbuch fuer den Generalstabsdienst in Krieg" (Handbook for the Service of the General Staff in War) of 1 August 1939. The Chief of Staff of a commanding authority is merely the first collaborator of a commanding officer in questions of tactical leadership and supplying of troops and had to organize the staff of his commanding officer besides.
It was his responsibility to turn the decisions taken by his commanding officer into orders, which were technically unobjectionable from the General Staff's point of view and to secure their execution. But the orders issued to the troops were always only orders of the commanding officer, never orders of the Chief of Staff. If the commanding officer instructed the Chief of his Staff to issue an order, so was according to the German conception only the commanding officer responsible for it. This legal position found its expression in the German service of the General Staff also in the fact that the Chief of Staff, it is true, had the right to express his dissenting conception towards the commander in case of differences of opinion, but that the decision rested solely and exclusively with the commanding officer; the Chief of Staff had in such cases not even the right to have his conception recorded and registered in the files. He had, on the contrary, to use all his power for executing the will of the superior leader.
b) In consequence of this fundamental conception it was not the commanding officer's Chief of Staff who acted for him in case he was prevented, but the highest ranking troop leader of his territory; only in exceptional cases when the commanding officer was really only quite temporarily absent the Chief of Staff could act for him, then, namely, when the commanding officer could not be reached immediately but when the situation demanded an immediate decision. But the orders were to be considered as orders of the commanding authority even in these exceptional cases, not orders issued by the person of the Chief of Staff. Such exceptional orders did not occur in the case v. Geitner and can, therefore, be left out of consideration.
c) V. Geitner in his character as Chief of Staff had nothing to do with the work (report, establishing, and decreeing) on retaliation measures. These measures are no tactical actions but are derived from the "executive power". V. Geitner and his two commanding officers, Bader and Felber, always also took the stand that its release be tied to the character of the commanding officer as "Supreme Judicial Authority" (Gerichtsherr). The sphere of retaliation measures was out of the field of the Chief of Staff's advisory duties.
This goes especially for all questions in the field of the justice which undisputedly was and is a part of the "executive power". Although the commanding officers have talked about the "fundamental" of the retaliation measures with the Chief v. Geitner, General Bader as well as General Felber reserved the decision on retaliation measures and the decreeing of them exclusively for themselves. They used for work on the cases the service of an officer destined for this purpose. This was never v. Geitner, but in the office of the Commanding General and Military Commander in Serbia and later in the office of the Military Commander Southeast of the 0 1 an administrative jurist.
d) The fact that v. Geitner in his character as Chief of Staff had to put his sign (Signum) also under such orders of the commanding officer which decreed retaliation measures and similar things is not in contradiction to this regulation. Such a sign by the Chief of Staff meant within the service according to undisputed German conception only that the Chief of Staff expressed by it that the order corresponded according to his personal opinion to the commanding officer's views and to the directions of the superior office and was formally all right.
On the basis of orders from the top the proscribed daily reports were signed by the Chief from a certain time on. But the Chief of Staff assumed merely the responsibility for the correctness of the report, with the signing of a daily report that means the responsibility for the correct rendering in the report of events, happening in the report time within the territory of the order. But the Chief of Staff did absolutely not assume the responsibility for the measures given in the report which were taken by the commanding officer or the troop or intended by them. The daily reports were submitted to the commanding officer every day before delivery through the operational department (Fuehrungsabteilung) and signed by him.
If retaliation measures had been undertaken they had to be told of in the next report, and it made no difference who had decreed them and who was responsible for them and no difference, whether the Chief of Staff approved of them or had previous knowledge of them. Absolutely not all happenings were reported (sabotages, attacks form the ambush). the reports of such happenings wore frequently suppressed with the knowledge and approval, partly oven at the inducement of v. GEITNER in order to evade the retaliation measures decreed from the top.
e)The fundamental attitude of the defendant v. GEITNER towards retaliation measures and similar things was absolutely negative. He also expressed the conception of his towards his commanding officers (General BADER and General FELBER) from the beginning to the end over and over again, emphasized always the principle of a "winning administration" (gewinnende Verwaltung) and turned aside every thought of a permanent domination of the Serbian people by the Germans. V. GEITNER never even heard of a plan to exterminate the Serbian people, as the prosecution asserts, much less did he agree to it. Both his commanders however saw themselves forced, despite inner hesitations, to carry out such retaliatory-measures, not only on account of compelling orders which the commanders received from their superiors, but most of all because of the totally illegal and often cruel fighting methods of the partisan units and because of the hostile attitude of a part of the population, which again and again allowed itself to be carried away to commit acts of sabotage and terrorism.
When GEITNER took over his position as Chief of Staff to the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia, the question of retaliatory measures was generally regulated by reason of superior orders, through an order of General BADER, dated 20 February 42. This order made the carrying out of retaliation measures of killing of human lives principally depending on the assent of the commander. By this all violations and arbitrary acts of the troops were to be prevented. On 28 February 43 General BADER had this order issued in a new form (NOKW No. 382, exhibit 263) without that GEITNER assisted thereby.
f) GEITNER'S attitude towards the Serbs (serbophile attitude) put him in a considerable contrast to the Higher SS and Police Leader MEIYSZNER: the latter acted in matters of police-security but only according to direct instructions issued to him by Reichfuehrer SS HIMMLER, Therefore v. GEITNER had no influence on that.
2) In particular:
Pertaining to the cases mentioned and under I, the defendant v. GEITNER intents to submit as evidence the following facts:
To No 5 e:
Had not been ordered by v. GEITNER To No. 5 f:The same.
Moreover, it has to be remarked that this measure was not only carried out for the assassination of 3 German soldiers but also on account of a shooting attack on a Bulgarian leave train, whereby another 3 were killed and 2 wounded. The orders themselves were issued by General BADER end are to be found in document NOKW No 340 exhibit 276 document book XI page 44 To No 5 g:Had not been ordered by v. GEITNER.
Those shot, were not "hostages" as assumed in the indictment, but retaliation prisoners.
To No 5 h:
Had not been ordered by v. GEITNER.
To No 9 d:
Had not been ordered by v. GEITNER. Moreover, no "retaliation" is in Question in this case, but it concerns a battle action on a larger scale in the course of a continuous series of military operations on both sides of the Moravica against the DM Main Staff and against the DM bands, by the 24. Bulgarian Division and the German Police Regiment No 5. Nor did v. GEITNER order any destruction of inhabitated places.
To No 12 b:
The "Commissar order" of 6 June 41 resp. 8 June 41 had been issued long before the activity of v. GEITNER in Belgrade. In any case, v. GEITNER did not forward this order to the troops or brought this order to the recollection of the troops.
As a precaution, it is remarked, that the order of 10 October 42 (document NOKW No 1722, exhibit 228, document book IX, page 66) was not issued by the defendant v. GEITNER, but by the Commander, General BADER (in understanding with the Higher SS and Police Leader) and that this order, which refers to the general treatment of all rebels (insurgents), only states that Commissars who are found with weapons in their hands among the bands, are to be treated just s the other insurgents, yet are to be interrogated before shooting. This order has therefore no connection with the "Commissar order" of 6 June 41.
To No 12 h:
Order of the Command of 18 October 42:
v. GEITNER is absolutely unable to recollect, that the so-called order of the Command of 18 October 42 was ever received or forwarded by the Commander for Serbia; the detailed reasons given by HITLER, as stated in Document C-81 PS, exhibit 225, were unknown to him.
V. GEITNER assumes that this Commissar order never reached the Commander for Serbia. This Commissar order had also no validity for the battle against the guerilla bands, as follows from document PS No 1279, exhibit 487, document book XXI, page 57. It never was applied in Serbia.
V. GEITNER can also not recollect an order of the Chief of the OKW of 30 July 41 regarding the treatment of Military Missions with the bands in the South-East; it was not applied in Serbia and was certainly not forwarded, because according to an explicit "regulation" it was not to be distributed beyond the General Commands and Staffs of equal rank of other Wehrmacht parts. The forwarding of this order to subordinated units was therefore quite out of the question for v. GEITNER, just as he had nothing to do with the carrying out of this special Command order.
To No 12 i:
The order concerning the Italians, of 11 September 13 (document NOKW No 910 exhibit 327 document book XIII page 41) had not been carried out in the Serbian territory of the Military Commander South-East. Much more so, the Italians in Serbia had been transported according to rule as prisoners of war into camps; besides, the prosecution has already acknowledged, that this order concerns only the defendant RENDULIC but not the other defendants.
(Minutes of the session of 31 July 17, page 1931)
To No 14:
In SEMLIN (North of Belgrad, on croatian territory) existed a camp of the Higher SS and Police Leader Serbia, which sometimes was defined as a collecting camp and sometimes as a concentration camp, but, to be sure, was never a concentration camp in the sense of to-days interpretation. It served for the detention of prisoners from guerilla band fightings. V. GEITNER had nothing to do with this camp.
The Higher SS and Police Leader was not subordinated to the Chief of the Command Staff (v. GEITNER) but directly to the military Commander personally, who repeatedly intervened, partly upon proposal and instigation of v. GEITNER, when improprieties in the camp became known.
Besides that (camp)there existed in Serbia during the term of office of v. GEITNER various smaller camps for retaliation prisoners. Also for this camps v. GEITNER had no authority or responsibility whatsoever. The transfers to those camps, was always ordered by the district commands and the police offices. V. GEITNER as the Chief of the Command Staff had nothing to do with the transfer of retaliation prisoners.
The securing of workers (i.e. the putting at disposal of workers for Serbian plants, as well as for Germany) belonged in Serbia to the G.B.W. (Plenipotentiary for Economy) and as of September 1943 to the Administration Staff of the Military Commander South-East. The holder of these offices (by name of NEUHAUSEN) was at any given time subordinated directly to the Commander; v. GEITNER had no right whatsoever of giving directives to the latter.
To No 15 d:
The evacuation and transportation for work in Germany of the entire male population of especially important battle areas, as provided for by the order of the Supreme Commander South-East of 10 August 43(NOKW No 155, exhibit 306, document book XII, page 94) had not been carried out in Serbia.
It should be mentioned that in Serbia existed a, great lack of manpower. A deportation of manpower of entire battle areas would have been therefore senseless. The work allocation in Serbia belonged to the competence of the G.B.W. (Plenipotenciary for Economy) and as of September 1942 to that of the Administration Staff/Dept. Economy; both were not subordinated to v. GEITNER. The transport of captured bandits to Germany belonged to the competence of the Higher SS and Police Leader Serbia, who was not subordinated to the Chief of the Command Staff Serbia(v. GEITNER) either.
After receipt of the order of the OKW of 8 July 43, also captured bandits had later on been treated as prisoners of war and been deported to Germany.
III.
The defendant v. GEITNER intents on his part to base his arguments on the following:
1.) on his own interrogation under oath:
2.) on the testimony of various co-defendants, insofar as they will be called as witnesses;
3.) on a series of affidavits, partly from German, partly from foreign witnesses; some of these witnesses should be called to appear in person to testify; name and number of those witnesses of the defense which should be called personally, has not been established yet.
I have read the opening statement for my client.
THE PRESIDENT: As I understand, Dr. Sauter, the opening statement for defendant Lanz has not been delivered to the Tribunal as yet. Is that correct? The deputy Secretary General advises me that it has not been delivered. I understand that there is an effort being made to got it up here shortly. I am informed that the Marshal has gone for these papers now. In the meantime, while we are waiting for them to be brought here I am advised that the opening statement of Dr. Menzel for the defendant Kuntze is ready and can be presented at this time. Are the English translations here and do you have them, Doctor?
MR. DENNEY: If your Honor please, I have sent down from some English translations for the Court and tho interpreters and the court reporters and the secretary was just up and said they were on their way. I don't know by which means of transportation but they are somewhere between the assembling room and here at the moment but, not knowing where the assembling room is nor who is going to bring them, I don't think there is anything more I can do about it other than to wait.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess at this time, taking its noon recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
Tribunal V is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Before the next opening statement is made I think that it might be well to read two communications that I have received from the Director of the Language Division. One was received this morning, dated September 15, 1947 which is as follows:
"Subject: Status of Opening Statements in Hostage Case.
"From: Thomas K. Hodges, Director Language Division.
"To: Charles F. Wennerstrum, Presiding Judge, Tribunal V.
"1) Already delivered to the Defense Information is the joint opening statement for the defendants List, von Weichs and von Geitner.
"2) The opening statements for the defendants Felmy, Kuntze, Lanz and von Leyser are in the process of translation and will be delivered to the Defense Information Center before the end of the work day, September 15, 1947.
"3) The opening statement for the defendant Dehner, Kuntze, Rendulic and Speidel have been turned over to the interpretor staff of Military Tribunal V and should be ready for presentation in Court by the end of work day, September 15, 1947.
"(Signed) Thomas K. Hodges, Director Language Division."
At the time of the recess I found on my desk a further communication from Mr. Hodges which is as follows, dated September 15 1947:
"From: Thomas K. Hodges, Director Language Division and Chief Translation Branch.
"To: Charles F. Wennerstrum, Presiding Judge, Tribunal V.
"Listed below are the names of the defendants in the hostages case with the date of the arrival in the Translation Branch of the opening statements on their behalf:
"Felmy -- Thursday, September 11, 1947; Kuntze -- Thursday, September 11, 197; Lanz -- Tuesday, September 9, 1947; von Leyser -- Tuesday, September 9, 1947.
"1) At 12 o'clock September 5, 1947 the opening statements for Kuntze and Lanz had been delivered to the Defense Information Center.
The statements for Felmy and von Leyser will be delivered to the Defense Information Center in the course of the afternoon.
"2) --the opening statements for the defendants Foertsch, Dehner, Rendulic, and Speidel were received, I am told, at 1730 hours Friday, September 5. I should like to point out, however, that these statements did not reach my desk until 9 o'clock Monday, September 15. These statements are being translated at the moment by the interpretor staff of Military Tribunal V and will be ready for presentation in court by the end of the work day, September 15, 1947.
"Signed: Thomas K. Hodges, Director Language Division and Chief Translation Branch."
There was handed me by the Defense Center a statement, which indicated the information that had been given them, which shows that the opening statement for the defendant Dehner was received in the Defense Center on September 12th and I am advised by Dr. Laternser that the counsel for the defendant Dehner, Dr. Gawlik, states that he filed his opening statement on September 11th.
As to the defendant Geitner, the records in the Defense Center show it was received on September 10th and Dr. Sauter states he filed in on September 5th.
As to the defendant Felmy, that would show it was received in Defense Center on September 11th by counsel Dr. Mueller Tougow on September 11th.
As to the defendant Foertsch, it was filed in Defense Center on September 13th and the counsel, Dr. Rauschenbach, states that he filed it on September 13th.
As to the defendant Kuntze, it was filed in Defense Center on September 10th and Dr. Menzel states it was filed on September 10th.
As to the defendants List and Weichs there are no complaints.
As to the defendant Lanz, it was filed on September 8th and Dr. Sauter states it was filed on September 8th.
As to the defendant vonLeyser, it was filed in the Defense Center on September 9th and Dr. Tipp states it was filed on September 8th.
As to the defendant Rendulic, it shows that it was filed on September 12th and Dr. Fritsch states it was filed on September 10th.
As to the defendant Speidel, it shows that it was filed as on September 13th in the Defense Center and Dr. Weisgerber states that he filed it on September 12th.
As to all counsel, other than Dr. Fritsch, there does not seem to be any excuse for the delay that has been occasioned in the presentation of these opening statements. This Court originally adjourned to convene on September 12th and this Tribunal does not see where there is any excuse for the filing of any opening statements on September 13th, 12th, 10th or 11th or any of those days.
If there is any delay here occasioned by it, the Court will endeavor it by requiring the necessary translation by the interpreters themselves.
This statement is made for the record to show the occasion of the reason of any delays.
DR. SAUTER:(Counsel for the defendants Lanz and von Geitner.) Your Honor, the statements which have made to you by the Translation division are not correct with respect to my clients, but are incorrect. For sometime I have had the habit to always ask for a receipt, which shows the date when I have submitted certain material. I apply this precaution because I have had many sad experiences in the early days. I have here two receipts by the Defense Information Center, that is the roper authority where we defense counsel have to submit our documents. The confirmation for the opening statement for the defendant von Geitner says here expressly, "Delivered on 5 September, 1947." that is 5 September 1947, that was Friday, a week ago and it is signed "Mueller." She is the responsible employee for the Information Center for the Defense. Furthermore, I have here a receipt for the opening statement for General Lanz, which is a receipt showing that this statement was submitted in four copies, as is prescribed, on 8 September 1947, that is a week ago today.
I had assumed , and I assume even today, that one week should be sufficient to translate an opening statement to the extent of about ten pages. This second receipt is signed, regarding the statement for General Lanz, is signed by an employee, "Falkemeyer" of the Defense Information Center.
Your Honor, I attach importance to this last statement, because you can see from this that I should not be reproached because of a delay of the proceedings. These receipts can be submitted by me at any time in order to prove that the two opening statements were already submitted on the 5th and 8th of September, respectively.
May I add something else, Your Honor? During the course of the previous weeks, I have asked repeatedly at the Defense Information Center about the state of the translations. It is rather difficult to get information on this because the staff of the defense is not allowed to visit the rooms of the translation branch. We defense counsels can therefore only put our complaints or inquiries to the Defense Information Center of the General Secretary and I have done that. That is for my part, I have done everything I could and everything that has been said to you to the contrary can be repudiated by these receipts, which I have here.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, you have ---
(Dr. Sauter hands the receipts to the Tribunal.)
DR. SAUTER: This is for Lanz for the 8th of September and for von Geitner for the 5th.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, will you take one of the earphones so I can make a statement?
I think I avoided making any statement or criticism, which might apply to you, Doctor, I did endeavor to restrict any critical statements to any documents, which were filed prior to September 10th. I again repeat, however, that I can see no excuse for the documents being filed September 10th and afterwards. We were to have convened on September 12th and I cannot see how we could have been prepared to have opening statements when some were filed on September 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th. The criticism was not directed to you, Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand we are now prepared to have the opening statement for the defendant Kuntzby Dr. Menzel.
DR. MENZEL: (Counsel Menzel for the defendant General Kuntze.) Before I read my opening statement, I would like to say one thing concerning the reproach which we have heard concerning the delay of sub mitting our opening statements for translations.
I had submitted my opening statement on the morning of Wednesday, 10 September and I then pointed out that I was the second person to read the statement and that it would have to be finished on Monday morning. Thursday the 11th we made inquiries as to whether it would be ready in time on Monday morning and everyone was indignant that we should ask, as that would be a matter of course, that it would be finished on Monday if it was submitted on the previous Wednesday. Well, that finished the matter as far as we were concerned. This morning we again made inquiries and we were told it would not be ready until one o'clock as it had to be stapled, so that it would be at our disposal at 2:00 o'clock. At 1:30 we again made inquiries and we were told an error had occured and two pages had been omitted and that was the reason that caused the delay.
I am of the opinion that we of the defense counsel, or at least my own person, is not at fault and we cannot be liable for other departments and for delays which occur there.
May I now turn to my opening statement?
Your Honors:
The accusations brought against General Walter KUNTZE in the indictment concern the time between the end of October 1941 and the beginning of August 1942, when General KUNTZE was acting commander-in-chief of the 12th Army and acting commander-in-chief in the occupied district South East.
This command of General KUNTZE had been limited by the Army Personal Office to the period of illness of Field Marshal LIST who was Commander-in-Chief of the 12th Army and Commander-in-Chief South East. It was originally intended for 4 to 6 weeks only but as a result of the longer duration of Fieldmarshal LIST'S illness and his later re-assignment its extension was implied.
Respecting the duration, from a point of view of time, of his activity as acting Commander-inChief of the 12th Army and acting Commander-inChief in the occupied district South-East, according to the statement of the prosecution itself, it is established that General KUNTZE took over command on 27 October 1941 and held it until 8 August 1942.
From these established facts three deductions of a fundamental nature may be made to which I should like to call special attention at the beginning of my opening statement:
1. As a result of taking over the command on 27 October 1941, the defendant KUNTZE is freed from practically all responsibility for events in October 1941 and the beginning of November 1941, since General KUNTZE during the period after he assumed command had first of all to get a general idea of his territory and the position there before he could occupy himself with details at all.