Q. Will you turn now, General Lanz, to page 135 of the German Document Book XIX, Page 115 of the English, Your Honors. I believe your explanation of the reference here, General Lanz, to four hostages' having been immediately shot as a reprisal for the attack on your convoy going to the funeral of Regimental Commander Salminger was that these people were not really hostages, but they were actually bandits dressed in civilian clothes, who were killed in the course of the attack on the convoy.
A. In this report we have a different wording from the report which comes soon afterwards on Page 136, where not hostages but four civilians are mentioned. I am of the opinion that these were partisans who participated in the surprise attack. And it has nowhere been established, nor was it possible for me to establish anywhere that these four hostages were actually shot.
Q. Now, if you'll look at that report which mentions that four civilians have been shot, on page 133 of the German Document and page 117, Your Honors, it states there that counter measures in progress up to now four civilians shot to death. In the previous report it states that four hostages were immediately shot and that further reprisal measures were being carried out. Are you quite sure that the reference to four civilians' having been shot to death as counter measure did not refer to an additional four persons who were shot? That is to say, that the four hostages were shot immediately and then, as part of the counter measures which were reported, four civilians were later shot.
A. I believe that the same persons are concerned in both reports. At least it is rather striking that the figure "4" is the same in both reports. The assumption could be drawn that the same people are involved in both reports.
Q. Why do you suppose it says "as counter measures four civilians were shot?" If it meant that four civilians were shot during the course of combat wouldn't the report have said just that?
A. If after this surprise attack we took measures against the partisans, that amounts to a counter measure. It is, so to speak, a reaction to the action taken by the partisans, it is a counter measure, a counter measure following a measure taken by the enemy.
Q. General Lanz, the First Mountain Division knew what a hostage was didn't it? Why do you suppose that the report says "hostages" if "civilians" engaged in combat were meant?
A. I believe that the terms in this sharp differentiation, as they have been worked out in the case of this so-called hostage case, did not exist at that time in the minds of the men who would draw up such a report. Of course I don't know who drew up this particular report. It may have been only a clerk who did it. It may not even have been an officer. I don't know whether, at that time, the term "hostage" was so sharply distinguished from the term "civilian", as great emphasis is attached to it today which was not done at that time. In that band war the majority of the opponents concerned were civilians, and the concept of a "civilian" is very closely related, seen from those days, to the concept of a "hostage." I don't therefore, believe that the differentiation was made in the legal sense at that time as it is being made here today.
Q. Would you say, then, that when the reports referred to civilians' being shot it is possible that in those cases "hostages" were meant? Mere the terms "hostage" and "civilian" used interchangeably in your reports?
A. Today, of course, I am no longer in a position to establish how this was actually handled. It is not possible for me to do that because I was not the man who drew up such reports. But if one knows how such reports used to come about, then one would see the possibility for the fact that "civilians" were sometimes termed "hostages," even if they did not happen to be hostages. All I meant to say is that these sharp legal differentiations which came out here in the course of these proceedings must not be supposed as having existed at that time.
What strikes me in the report is that the same figure appears in a very short interval, and that in the second case civilians are mentioned. Since I did not know anything about a hostage shooting in that connection, let alone ordered one, the conclusion is fairly obvious that the civilians concerned were partisans who participated in the attack and were involved in the fighting near the spot of the attack. That is a conclusion which seems more or less obvious.
Q. General lanz, what did your Ia report on an incident of this kind to Higher Headquarters so that Higher Headquarters might know exactly what happened? Did you report that civilians were shot or that hostages were shot in the course of combat? How were incidents reported in the course of your reports?
A. If the report had been submitted to me before having been dispatched I suppose that I would have attempted to get at the bottom of the affair, and I would have ordered the facts to be established exactly.
Q. Well, this report was, in fact, given to you, General Lanz, because it was an attack on your convoys. Do you remember asking whether hostages had been shot or whether there had been a combat action in which civilians were killed?
A. I would like to say that this incident took place when I was enroute. I was on an official trip from which I returned only two or three days later. I stated that I went to Salminger's funeral in Privisa and then I went to Agrinion to the 104th Division. In either of these two places, it was reported to me that an attack on my convoy had taken place.
Q. As a matter of fact, General Lanz, your Corps reported to Army Group # that four hostages had been shot. Will you look at Document NOKW1831? This is offered as Prosecution Exhibit No. 621, Your Honors, that it be paginated from Page 1 through Page 10. It appears on Page 9 of the original document, General Lanz.
The reference here, Your Honors, is on Page 9 of the document which has been distributed.
A. On Page 6 is it? Or was it Page 9?
Q. I believe it's on Page 9 of the original document, General Lanz. It's a Corps report of the XXIInd Mountain Corps, for the 3rd of October 1943.
A. It's so poorly printed that I can hardly read it.
Q. Can one assume, General Lanz, that your Ia investigated the incident and ascertained that it was, in fact, hostages which were shot?
A. One can assume that, or one cannot assume it. A long time later it is difficult to say anything with certainty. The report has been received from the First Mountain Division. At the time it was the first report about this incident. It was then -- I believe while I was absent on an official trip -- passed on by my staff. I would assume that is how the facts were.
Q. I think we can leave that document now, General Lanz, and turn now to Page 156 in the German Document Book. Page 147 in the English, Your Honors. As you will note there in Paragraph 4, a request from the battalion . . .
A. Can you give me the page again, please?
A. Page 156 in your Document Book; Page 147 in the English. You will note there, General Lanz, that Battalion 79 is asking whether eight hostages held for the murder of the interpreter might be hanged. Later on, on Page 163 of your Document Book, Page 153 of the English, there is an indication that reprisals for the interpreter were carried out. Did you ever hear about the execution of these eight hostages?
A. To the best of my recollection I read about the incident in the documents here, in the report which you're having reference to. This report was sent to the First Mountain Division at that time.
Q. Were these prisoner hostages, in fact, or were they civilians who might possibly have been executed in the course of a combat action?
A. I'm afraid I cannot make any comments here on the basis of what I find in the document book. That is the only indication I have about the incident at all.
Q. Can't you make an assumption on the basis of what you see here?
A. It's possible that reprisal prisoners were, at that time, executed as a reprisal for the murder of the interpreter. That is possible. I cannot say it with any certainty because I did not issue such a directive, and to the best of my knowledge I only found reports about this incident in the documents here; therefore, I can only make an assumption because I was not the person who ordered this measure.
Q. What did you mean by "reprisal prisoners?"
A. It is possible when we consider that band-suspect civilians, lived in the vicinity of the place where the murder took place, and that it was made known at that time that hostages were to be executed if further such attacks took place, and that after this interpreter incident has occurred the execution was actually carried out. I would think that is possible, but, as I have said, I can only make an assumption.
Q. Do you believe that the hostages mentioned here were, in fact, bandit-suspects?
A. I said that is an assumption; it is a possibility. I cannot represent it as a certainty since I only heard of this case here.
Q. General Lanz, who was Commander of German Troops in the Epirus section of Greece in May of 1943--rather May of 1944?
A. Could you repeat the question please? (The court interpreter repeats the question.)
In May, 1944, I was the man. In May, 1943 it was an Italian.
Q. Now, would you look at this document, Document NOKW-1987? This is offered as Prosecution Exhibit No. 622, Your Honors. You say here, General Lanz, in what apparently is a proclamation, that in reprisal for various band attacks "an operation against the locality of Pogonion and further operations in the area there are taking place, shortly. The male population of Pogonion is to be seized as hostages and brought to Joannina."
How far from Pogonion was Joannina?
A. Approximately 40 km.
Q. And then you continue, "If a surprise attack on German troops between Elea and Kakavi takes place again, a large number of hostages will be shot as a reprisal measure."
Do you recall this proclamation?
A. I recall this incident, and I can make a supplementary comment to this proclamation.
Approximately two days later Pogonion was occupied by German troops, to the best of my knowledge without any fighting, and on this occasion 18 persons were arrested as suspects. Presumably they were sent to Joannina to the prisoner collecting point. A report exists about this fact which might possibly be known to you.
Q. How large was the male population of Pogonion?
A. I'm afraid it's not possible for me to say that. I don't know.
Q. Now, you say here that "a large number of hostages will be shot." What did you mean by "a large number?"
A. I stated just now that this is a proclamation, or, if you like to put it that way, it's a threat or a warning. What happened is, as I said, is that 18 persons were arrested as suspects in Pogonion. These persons, not contained in the other report, were presumably brought to Joannina to the prisoner collecting point. Whether or not 18 people can be considered a large number is an individual opinion. One can judge that in his own way. I did not know anything whether or not any one of these 18 people was shot. Unless you have a document which you can give me concerning this fact. I know nothing about it.
Q. General Lanz, if you had German troops stationed in Pogonion why couldn't they guard the hostages instead of sending the hostages 40 Km away to Joannina?
A. I would like to point out that in the report which I have reference to and which is dated two days after the proclamation it is merely stated that 18 people were brought to Joannina. That is an assumption, or a guess, which I made on the basis of the proclamation in front of me. It doesn't have to be a fact. I'm not sure. Possibly those 18 persons remained in Pogonion. I don't know. In Joannina there was the prisoner collecting point, and it is possible that these prisoners were brought there. I think that is possible, but I'm in no position to say it with certainty. I don't consider the whole incident as of great material importance.
Q. General Lanz, several of your affiants have said in their affidavits that no hostages were shot within the Corps area. Do you agree with what they have said?
A. I can, of course, always subscribe to the opinion expressed by other people. Furthermore, I don't know what these people actually knew, and it is not possible for me to establish that. Certainly it is not possible in the position in which I find myself. I am not aware that in accordance with one of my orders hostages were shot. That is not known to me.
Q. Were hostages shot within your Corps area, General Lanz?
A. I consider it possible that they were shot, but I want to state that I did not know that they were shot in accordance with any of my orders.
Q. Whether or not you gave any orders for the execution of hostages, do you know that, in fact, hostages were shot within your Corps area?
A. I gather today, from the files, possibly in surveying these documents, more than I knew at that time. I get, so to speak, the account of the whole year which I spent down there, with special emphasis on these particular matters. I believe, Mr. Fenstermacher, that at that time to me the situation was slightly different. I have to comment on that in more detail in order to arrive at a factual evaluation of the situation at that time. It was in the nature of things that, at that time, which we evaluate so many years later, certain affairs were to me of a different important than is being given them here now. It is possible that at that time, in individual and specific cases, the shooting of hostages was reported to me. At this moment I do not recall any such reports, which is not possible either, considering the abundance of events of the time. Furthermore, it is possible that, at that time, I did not attach as much importance to those matters as is being given them today. I would only like to relate here the impression of the events such as I had at that time when they took place, and that could be of a greater importance for any judgment.
Q. Let's turn now, General Lanz, to band warfare, The methods which the bands used in their attacks upon German troops. I believe you said that many of these attacks on your troops were made at night. They were made from ambush, and a good deal of them were surprise attacks. Now if the bands were in fact legal belligerents, would you have considered the methods of their attacks unlawful?
A. I believe that the illegality of the method of warfare pursued by the bands is mainly based on the fact that the opponent facing us did not correspond with the provisions of international law.
Q. You didn't object to the manner in which he attacked your troops. That is to say, you found nothing wrong with attacking at night or in surprise or from ambush?
A. I would like to comment on that, if I may. The method in which the bands waged war was a method which was not customary in soldierly usage, especially so through the fact that these bands restricted themselves exclusively to a surprise attack and sabotage acts. Of course, even during normal warfare, there are such things as night fighting and surprise attacks at night but they don't exist exclusively in a normal warfare and that was the characteristic of the band method of warfare that they exclusively consisted in such surprise attacks and sabotage acts.
Q. If the bands were legal belligerents, General Lanz, and they exclusively resorted to guerialla type of attacks, would you have considered those attacks unlawful or unsoldierly/?
A. I believe that the illegality of the partisans cannot merely be judged in accordance with their method of warfare, although this method of warfare quite obviously violated provisions, for instance, of the Geneva Conventions which has been proved.
Q. Did you know, General Lanz, when you took over command in Greece in September '43 that from July 1943 all of the bands---that is the EDES and the ELAS Greek bands were subordinate to the Allied Middle East Command?
Did you know that?
A. In the course of my stay in the Epirus, I am afraid I cannot give you the exact date today, I learned from my Ic that the partisans in Greece were in contact with the High Command Middle East, possibly for the very reason that General Zervas asked from time to time there how he should conduct himself in relation to myself. That is how I learned about these facts.
Q. Didn't your Ic tell you that they had heard from tapping radio reports and radio messages that the bands were receiving orders from the Allied Middle East Command and were regularly sending reports to that command?
A. I am afraid I cannot answer the question in the same precise manner in which you put it. Generally speaking, I knew that between the partisans, mainly between Zervas and the Middle East, there was a certain connection. I knew that.
Q. Now you also testified, General Lanz, that there---I believe you said the Zervas units had in September 1943 about five to six thousand men and that the ELAS units had considerably more than that, perhaps ten thousand men.
A. I said there were approximately 6,000 men and approximately 12,000 men respectively so that is quite right.
Q. And I believe you said that you had heard that both of those units were organized into companies, regiments, battalions, and even divisions?
A. I don't believe I said that; I don't remember that I did.
Q. Well, is it true that both the ELAS and EDES units were so divided and organized?
A. I believe that we received reports concerning the fact that the two partisan units were organized in a manner similar to the manner used amongst the military.
Q. Isn't it unlikely, General, that units so organized, with the weapons which the reports indicate they had and the large numbers of men belonging to the units, that they didn't wear insignia or uniforms?
A. I did not dispute that these people didn't wear any insignia. I even mentioned the insignia which they wore and I even gave you the distance from which such insignia could be recognized and I referred to the Greek Crown witness, the man who was ADC to General Zervas. I furthermore said that General Zervas had certain units which were clothed in uniforms and that, supposedly, those were the units which fought in the immediate surroundings of Zervas because from a human and a military point of view, it is comprehensible that the best troops are kept by the General in his vicinity. That is where the term "guard" originated from, which I particularly mentioned, if I remember correctly.
Q. I believe you said that the Greek witness Tryandaphilidis said that the EDES units had thrown away their insignia and their arms.
A. That is going a bit too far if you don't mind my saying so. I said and Tryandaphilidis probably said the same thing, that they did not throw away the insignia, but that they threw away their arms at such times when they were in danger of being encircled or captured. I don't think, to the best of my recollection, that I mentioned anything about insignia.
Q. Do you recall, General Lanz, that Tryandaphilidis specifically limited his testimony regarding the throwing away of insignia and or arms to the period prior to March 1943? This, if Your Honors please, appears on pages 2105 and 2106 of the English transcript.
A. No, I am afraid I didn't remember the month of March and I didn't look it up either.
Q. You didn't take over in Greece until September 1943, did you, General?
A. I took over on 9 September in the afternoon, 1500 hours to the best of my recollection, and where the March incident is concerned, I would like to say that it seems a little doubtful to me whether on 31 March the partisan method would suddenly have changed
Q. General Lanz, did any of these Greek partisans wear arm bands instead of uniforms, particularly during the period before the British aid, as you stated, arrived by air transport?
A. I think that is quite possible but I am afraid I cannot make any statements about it. I know too little.
Q. Would an arm band be sufficient to satisfy the prerequisite for insignia under the Hague Convention in your opinion?
A. I believe that such an arm band would have to fulfill the following conditions; one, it would have to be issued officially, that is by such a leader who is entitled to organize the unit in question. With us, it was customary that arm bands which were worn in addition to the uniform were officially stamped and that a certificate was carried concerning such arm bands.
Q. From how far away would you say an arm band could be seen?
A. If such an arm band is white, and if the general visibility is good, and if the arm band is carried in such a manner that it can be seen, it should be visible from a distance of about two to three hundred meters. That is an assumption but I wouldn't like to say the distance with any certainty. I can't do that.
Q. Do you recall what color the arm bands were that the EDES units wore?
A. I believe that I said before that I do not exactly remember the arm bands. I believe that was your last but one question and I cannot make any comments on the details with regard to the arm bands. It is well possible that they were white. As a general rule, they are white, but it is also possible that they were not white. Furthermore, white arm bands don't always remain white in wartime.
They usually get a little gray and dirty.
Q. Would you say that it was a blue and white arm band with the letters "EDES" on it?
A I can only say that is possible. It is possible.
Q From what distance away, General Lanz, can a man in full uniform be seen?
A That would depend on a number of circumstances: It depends on the shape and form of the uniform, whether he wore a camouflaged jacket or not; it depends on the background again -- such a man might be silhouetted; it depends on the weather too; it also depends on the fact of whether or not the observer has good eyesight or not, whether or not he uses binoculars or not. Only to name you four such different conditions. Probably I could find more. That is just put vaguely -roughly.
Q General Lanz, in your reports -- that is, the reports which came up from out subordinate units and which you in turn sent to your superiors -- there seems to be a distinction made between bandits and civilians. Will you look, for example, on page 133 of Document Book 19 in the German, page 112 in the English, your Honors. You will note there under "Group Haken" it talks about forty bandits having been killed and under "Group Eisl" five civilians having been shot to death. Could it be assumed that whenever your reports talk about bandits they mean persons who were members of these organizations and wore insignia and carried arms and when you talk about civilians you mean persons not in uniform or did not wear insignia?
A The reason why sometimes civilians are mentioned and other times partisans-can be found in the fact that bandits and civilians in many instances were one and the same. I mean they were men in civilian clothing who fought against us with arms. It may well be that one or the other would wear an armband, but he also might not wear one. He might wear breeches, as it is mentioned in one report, or high boots, or he might wear peasant's clothing. That surely always depended on the individual case, just according to what kind of clothing the person in question had at his disposal. The very fact that it was not a regularly uniformed unit led to the fact that sometimes civilians and at other times bandits are mentioned.
Q May I interrupt you, General Lanz? Would you turn to page 142 in the German, page 125 in the English? This is a report from the 79th Battalion to the 1st Mountain Division and you will note in about the fourth sentence there is a reference to detached groups of bandits as well as fleeing civilians. How was it possible to distinguish between the bandits and the civilians?
A I believe that the people who drew up such a combat report at the time did not think too much about the legal distinctions in these terms or the international law differences in those terms as much as we do here today. The fact remains that in many cases bandits and civilians were identical and that such a report would sometimes talk of a bandit and at other times of a civilian, and would yet mean one and the same person.
Q But here he talks about two different types of persons, groups of partisans and fleeing civilians. Don't you suppose he had a distinction in mind between the two?
A It is difficult today for me to make any comments on the intentions of a man who wrote a report several years ago. I am afraid I cannot do that. I can only discuss this question on principle, and the fact remained that not a regular army was concerned. If, for instance, one would write reports in France or England about such things, there would be no doubt about bandits and civilians because the situation would be clear-cut.
Q General Lanz, there seems to be no mention of any mutilations by the bandits of German troops in these reports. Can it be assumed, therefore, there were no mutilations of your troops by the bandits?
A If I am not mistaken, in the affidavits such things were read. I myself, Mr. Fenstermacher, did not assert any such thing, because I did not see it with my own eyes; but I believe in affidavits it was mentioned, and one could look it up if one wanted to.
Q If those things had happened, wouldn't they have found their way into the official reports, General Lanz, the official reports of your army corps?
A That is very probable. However, I don't know whether we have all reports available here which were ever made. I believe this question could only be answered exhaustively if one really had all the material which existed at the time at one's disposal now.
Q General Lanz, do you recall that many of the captured partisans were shot after their capture?
A No, I don't know that.
Q Page 107 in the German of Document Book 19, page 80 of the English, your Honors. Perhaps we better not take that one, General Lanz; I note that is a report before your time. Would you look, however, at page 149 of the German, page 138 of the English? You will note there a report of the Mountain Jaeger Regiment. It states:
"Eight bandits were captured and four were shot to death."
A That does not mean that those four men belong to the eight taken prisoner. Otherwise it would have to say, "Of those four shot." But it doesn't say that.
Q Now, General Lanz, if those four men were killed in combat wouldn't the report have said, "Four men killed in the course of combat"?
A That is possible, but again it is difficult to say now after such a long time today what should have been said or would have been said. Both of us might be right. I don't believe that the four shot were taken from the eight taken prisoner, because otherwise it would say "eight taken prisoner, four of those shot."
Q Now, look at page 107 in the German, page 80 in the English. This is a report a little before your time. But you will note there that it talks about five armed bandits being captured and that they were shot to death, and then on the next page -- still on page 107 of your book -- page 81 of the English, your Honors, the report which the Division sent on to the Corps simply says that five armed bandits were shot to death, and does not mention the fact that the bandits had been previously captured before they had been shot.
Can it be assumed that when the term "shot to death" is used it means in fact shot after capture?
A I believe that from the word "shot" one cannot draw a clear conclusion. Shot may mean shot in combat, but it may also mean shot to death not in combat. There is a possibility, even if it exists only in exceptional cases, that a prisoner is shot for a legal reason. For instance, because he tried to escape. Or for similar reasons. That is a circumstance which can quite easily be imagined. The term "shot" as such does not mean that one or the other took place. I also think that at the time when these reports were draw up and where those expressions were used interchangeably one did not swear to restrict one's self to certain terms in a legal sense.
Q Well, will you look at page 152, of Book 19 -- page 142 of the English, your Honors. The report there talks about enemy dead and about three prisoners having been shot to death. Have you an explanation for that fact?
A I have submitted an explanation for this particular incident through a man who participated in the fighting at the time. If I am not mistaken, that was Captain Hoelz. Perhaps his affidavit might once again be looked at.
Q How does it happen, General Lanz, that those reports are so wrong in describing an incident of this kind?
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
A. Could you please repeat that?
(Question repeated by the interpreter.)
A. I don't know what you mean by an "incident of that kind."
Q. Well, when the reports specifically say that prisoners were shot to death and the affiant says that is not what happened, the report must be wrong. I am wondering how it happens that the report is wrong.
A. I beg your pardon. What report is supposed to be wrong, the one contained in the files or the affidavit? Which one?
Q. I am wondering if in fact three prisoners were shot to death as the report states or as you say, that the affiant states, the prisoners were not shot to death, perhaps I misunderstood what you say the affiant states.
A. To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't state in the report that the prisoners were not shot. I am afraid I don't remember the text by heart, but perhaps it could be read here to clear up the question. I am afraid I am in no position to give the exact wording. I believe -- could I please see the document in question?
Q. I don't think we need to go into that if you don't recall the incident. We can pass to something else. Would you look at page 138 of the German Book 19, page 119 of the English? It states here that fifty persons suspected of being bandits were shot to death. What is a band suspect, General Lanz?
A. Band-Suspects at the time, I believe, were persons who were in some way connected with the bands without this connection having been clearly and indubitably proved.
Q. Did you permit persons to be executed merely on suspicion that they were members of the bands?
A. An incident is involved here which as I stated in my direct examination involved a court-martial procedure against members of the troops that is the case "Lingiades". When I talked about it I said that in cooperation with these civilian authorities this matter was cleared up but that we did not succeed in clearing it up completely.
One part -one party asserted that the people had shot and the other party maintained they had not. Which is to me quite understandable. It is, of course, very difficult to reconstruct a combat action after it had taken place in the way it actually did take place.
Q. I think you said that after investigation you decided that the civilians had not shot upon your troops.
A. I said I was under the impression that it was not clear beyond doubt that the civilians had shot and that I therefore tried to investigate the incident with the help of the civilian authorities a court-martial proceedings. Just because it seemed doubtful.
Q. Well, were the fifth suspects shot or not?
A. According to the report, they were shot. That is what it said in the report.
Q. You said they were shot after a court-martial procedure.
A. No, I didn't mean that. I said they were shot near the place Lyngiates during a combat action.
Q. But I thought you testified that after investigation you discovered that they had not in fact been killed during a combat action and that therefore you punished the guilty German soldiers.
A. I beg your pardon. That is not quite right. But I am in no doubt whatsoever that these people were connected with the combat action. But I was in doubt whether or not these people had actually with their arms in their hands opposed the German troops that is whether they actively participated in the fighting.