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.
That is the question about which I was not quite clear. But that is what one party asserted, and the other party denied; and that is what I had investigated.
Q. Well, General Lanz, was it usual for the 1st Mountain Division to send reports stating that fifty suspects were shot when in fact they meant fifty persons were shot in the course of a combat action? Didn't you ask General Stettner to make his reports more accurate and more clear and to say precisely what he meant?
A. I don't at the moment recall that I asked General Stettner to do what you just said. The Division reported in the way as it is reproduced here and this caused me to start an investigation which I have said on direct examination and the remainder of the facts I believe are known here. I did at that time what I considered my duty, on the basis of the facts.
Q. Now, General Lanz, will you turn to Document Book 21, to page 57 in the German, page 70 in the English? This, you will recall, is Hitler's military mission order which you testified you did not pass on. You will note that this order is dated 22 July 1944, just two days after the attempt on Hitler's life. Weren't you afraid not to pass on this order, particularly in view of the investigations and suspicions under which many of the German officers labored at that time?
A. What my feelings were at that time, I am afraid I can no longer state here today. All I can say is that the order was not passed on by me. Or to put it differently, that I gave my I-c a directive, which he has also confirmed in an affidavit. I don't believe that fear or something similar would deter me from my attitude.
Q. General Lanz, you were an outspoken critic of Hitler and National Socialism, were you not?
A. There were several things which I didn't like.
Q. Now, especially after the attempt upon Hitler's life, isn't it quite likely that there were spies watching you to see whether you were passing on all the orders which Hitler issued? Isn't that precisely the mission which certain of the SS and the political leadership officers had?
A. In this case it is not only an assumption but a fact which I could prove, that the SD command in Joannina and which I avoided and cut wherever I could, had the task to spy on me and to make reports about me. I happen to know this through my I-c, and he knows it from the interpreter who worked there.
Q. Weren't you afraid not to pass on this order?
A. Apparently not.
Q. General Lanz, on page 63 of the German, page 74 of the English, there is an indication that the military mission order is to be destroyed after it had been read. Do you remember whether you destroyed the order and passed it on to your subordinate units orally perhaps?
A. I beg your pardon. Where is it in the book?
Q. I believe in your book it is on the last -- it is the last paragraph on page 63, and the middle of page 74 in the English.
A. I don't remember that it was made known.
Q. You don't remember that you were instructed to destroy the order after you received it? Perhaps you only received the order orally, General Lanz, because you will note that one copy goes to the commander-in-chief Southeast and perhaps that is the copy that is meant to be destroyed after having been read. Can you recall now whether you received the order orally or in writing?
A. I cannot say that with any certainty.
Q. This wasn't just an academic order, General Lanz, there were in fact military missions with the partisans. I believe you testified to that already.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, let's move on to the question of reprisals, General Lanz, and turn first to your order-of-the-day regarding the death of Lieut. Col. Salminger. I believe it appears on page 127 of the German, page 104 of the English Document Book 19, your Honors. General Lanz, one of your affiants has stated that you were with Salminger at the time of the attack, is that true?
(Question repeated by Counsel: "One of your affiants has stated that you were with Salminger at the time of the attack, is that true?").
A. That I was together with Salminger when the attack took place? That must be a mistake. I don't believe any affiant said that.
Q. Perhaps it is a translation error, but it appears on page 72 of your Document Book 2, and it is an affidavit by Karl George Rall who says that he was a Captain and Regimental Adjutant of the Mountain Infantry Regiment 98. And on page 72 he states -
A. What is the man's name, Wolf -
Q. Karl George Rall, R - A - L - L, who on page 72 states:
"In September, 1943, on this very same road, the then Regimental Commander of the Mountain Infantry Regiment 98, Lieut. Col. Salminger, on his nocturnal return trip to the regimental command post, in the company of the Commanding General, Lanz, was attacked and killed."
A. That is an error. That is not correct. Mr. Rall is mistaken. I wasn't present.
Q. I wonder if there are any other errors in Mr. Rall's affidavit that you noticed? Did the attack take place in September or October, 1943?
A. The attack took place during the night from the last day of September to the first day of October, but I was not present.
Q. That is simply an error on the affiant's part.
JUDGE BURKE (PRESIDING): The Tribunal will stand in recess until eleven-fifteen.
(A recess was taken.)
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
(Following recess)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may continue, Mr. Fenstermacher.
BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q Thank you, Your Honor.
General Lanz, before we go on with the reprisal measures, I want you to look at document book 19 at page 141 of the German and page 124 of the English. You will note in that report in the paragraph which just preceeds that relating to booty, the reference to 30 persons, some were killed in combat, some were shot to death; was that distinction a usual one to make, General Lanz?
A I think this is an expression which the man who drew up the report used. I don't know any regulation about using this kind of term.
Q Now, when you received a report of this kind, what did you assume the facts were?
A I would probably when I received this report, I would probably have made inquiries with the man who drew the report up.
Q Didn't you assume that some people were killed during the course of the fighting and other persons were killed after the fighting had ended?
A Of course this is possible. But it is not proved. If I wanted to be absolutely certain what the whole thing was about, I would certainly ask the commander concerned to give me another report and ask what it was about, because only in this way could I know exactly.
Q You believe, as the report states there, it is ambiguous?
A Yes, that is what I think about it. It is not clear.
Q Now, will you return to the Corps order of the day of the death sermon of Lt. Colonel Salminger, page 174 of your book, page 124 of the English? Do you agree, General Lanz, that reprisal measures should depend upon deterring future attacks and not upon vengeance for past attacks.
A Yes, that in principle is true.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Q Why then do you use the words vengeance in your Corps order of the day.
A In my testimony I stated that this order was written in temporary excitement, secondly, I stated that in an obituary note and this is one, one uses language which is not usually used in a tactical order.
Q Did you have vengeance in mind, General Lanz, when you instructed your troops to proceed in a ruthless reprisal action?
A Of course I would like to say I was indignant about the way the bands acted, but there was not a thought of revenge. I possibly wrote it without thinking because in an order of the day one uses words and also in daily correspondence which one would not use otherwise. I would like to say that one should judge these words with human understanding.
Q If the perpetrators of this attack had fulfilled all the requirements of article No. 1 of the Hague Convention, there would be nothing illegitimate about the method or manner of this attack; would there?
A Well, of course, one can have various opinions about this. In any case, it was a way of fighting which is not usual among soldiers. If one is caught in a road trap at night and if one is shot at from the darkness, one cannot say that is a chivalrous way of fighting, at least it is contrary to all soldierly feelings.
Q Did you expect that the bandits would have fled immediately after this attack, General Lanz, and the only persons left within 20 kilometers after the scene of the attack would have been civilians and not bandits at all?
A Of course I expected that the bandits would not remain exactly on the scene of the attack. But I counted on the fact that they would remain in certain surrounding districts and I therefore limited the extent of the area as I had to assume the bandits would remain in this area and that is how it was.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Q Why did you assume that this attack would not take place of one of the divisions of either the Elas or Edes units, who would return to the base of the division, which may or may not remain outside of the 20 kilometers you indicate?
A Well, in practice it was like this, the division which knew about the local happenings more than I then had to undertake an operation against the band which was responsible before my order arrived.
Q Will you turn to page 91 of your document book, page 68 of the English, this is the report in which you state that in reprisal for the murder of Salminger and sabotage of telephone lines, all the inhabitants of the village of Akmotopos were shot; now, General Lanz, when the reporter stated that all of the inhabitants were shot, isn't it possible that he might have meant women and children and old men as well as the male population?
A First of all one can see that this report as it stands here does not come from me, but from Army Group E, in addition, in the meantime, because of the reports which were submitted, it has become clear that this was a mistake. Not all the inhabitants were concerned, but the inhabitants according to an eye witness account had left the village except those who were fighting with the bands and in the meantime that has been cleared up.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Q How is it possible that the report is so erroneous?
A Well, I think every report that is drawn up -- reports are given for every kind of possible reason and sometimes they do not contain the truth. Of course, a report should be correct and this is such a case, quite obviously.
Q As a matter of fact, General Lanz, you suffered no losses during that attack on Akmotopos, isn't that so? If you will turn to page 143 -
A Well, I can't say that by heart.
Q Page 143 in the German Document Book.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: 127 in the English, your Honors.
Q You will find there mentioned certain villages, amongst them Akmotopos, a reference to about 40 persons having been killed and own losses none.
A Yes, that is what it says here.
Q Now, in retaliation for no losses on your part the original report states that all the inhabitants were killed.
A Yes, I think that's a wrong interpretation. This isn't a reprisal in return for no losses but this is a case in which the troops from the division had received the task to clear a certain district from bands -- and this tactical task had been carried out by the troops and on this occasion, as can be seen from the report, fighting took place for the village of Akmotopos and the fact that during this fighting we suffered no losses, as it states here, this is no reason to doubt the correctness of this fighting or to describe it in a disadvantageous manner.
Q Now, would you turn, General Lanz, to another report which appears on page 99 of your book, page 74 of the English. This relates to the reprisal operation against a village in Korea and again the report states: "All men capable of bearing arms were shot," and you testified on direct examination that means that the defenders of the village had been shot in the course of a combat action.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Now, if these men were shot in combat how do you explain, General Lanz, that it doesn't simply and flatly say that? Why is the method of describing the incident, "all men capable of bearing arms," used.
A Of course, from the point of view of the men who drew up the report, I can't explain this expression. I haven't spoken to the men who drew up the report; therefore, I cannot say what his reasons were for setting it down in this way. A measure which I found out about subsequently and which was not ordered by me, I can only try to explain since I know that the village concerned was a Communist band village from which at various times our troops were attacked, and from the text I assume that this village was fought for and, therefore, it seems probable that those people who defended the village were killed during this fighting. This assumption or explanation is quite obvious.
Q General Lanz, wouldn't it have been just as easy to say -in fact, perhaps make the report a little bit shorter -- saying "defenders killed in combat" instead of using this method of description?
A In any case, this method of expression would have been clearer. That is doubtless so but I can't say why the man who drew up the report at that time chose this method of expression. I interpret it as I have explained.
Q Now, would you turn to page 132 of your book, page 111 of the English? This is a report regarding the shooting of 17 civilians in reprisal for telephone sabotage and I believe you testified that you assume from this report that the 17 civilians were in fact killed during the course of a combat action.
A No, I didn't say that but this is set down in a statement by an officer who took part in it. He stated that these 17 civilians who were in a blocked zone at the time were shot there.
Q Dawn is the usual time to carry out executions, isn't it, General Lanz?
A I haven't had any experience with this. I don't know.
Q Now, if this meant, General Lanz, that the 17 civilians were Court No. V, Case No. VII.
shot in combat and not as part of a reprisal measure for some previously committed telephone sabotage, how do you explain that on the preceding page in your book -- I suppose it is the same page, 132 -
MR. FENSTERMACHER: In the English it is page 110, your Honors.
Q 50 Greeks were shot in reprisal for a raid which had taken place nine days earlier. They were shot on the 29th of September for a raid which occurred on the 20th of September. Do you assume that those fifty Greeks were also shot in the course of a combat action?
A I don't think so in this case. Seemingly they were shot in reprisal, I assume.
Q The 17 civilians were also shot in reprisal.
A Since I don't know about this incident personally, I can only base my opinion on what was stated here under oath by someone who knew about the incident. This affidavit was made known here and I personally have no reason to assume that this description is not correct.
Q When you use the word "reprisal", General Lanz, don't you have in mind retaliation for something which has previously occurred rather than for something which simultaneously takes place?
A In general, it may be that some action takes place and there is a certain amount of time between the actual deed and the counter measure. From the wording of this reprisal measure, I can only assume that something must have happened before.
Q Will you turn now, General Lanz, to Document Book XX, to page 12 in the German, page 16 in the English. That's a report from your period, General Lanz, which states that 71 Communists were shot to death as a reprisal measure for 8 dead and 14 wounded and I believe you testified that you recollected the Communists were in fact shot by certain Evzone detachments and not by German troops at all.
A Yes, what you say is, in general, correct.
Q Now, as a matter of fact, General Lanz, weren't the Evzones your enemies? Will you look at the next page, page 13 in the German, page 17 in the English. This is a report on certain of the enemy Court No. V, Case No. VII.