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.
divisions and it talks about Evzone regiments. Weren't the Evzones your enemies?
A Obviously, one regiment amongst them was with the Communists but the bulk of the Evzones were, as far as I know, a police troop belonging to the Greek state.
Q. Here it talks about two different regiments; 5/42 Evzone Regiment; 1/38 Evzone Regiment. If these seventy-one communists were shot by Evzones, how are you able to determine which Evzones actually did the shooting?
A. As far as I know, these were Evzones who were stationed in Agrinion or in Messolongion and there they were used subordinate as Police to the Greek state or perhaps to the SS and Police Leader. There is no doubt about that.
Q. Did you permit troops operating within your area other than your own to take reprisal measures without your permission?
A. The carrying out of reprisal measures was in general an affair which had to be done in agreement with the territorial commander and in this case obviously this measure was carried out by these Evzone Units on the instigation of the territorial authorities.
Q. Who was the territorial commander in your area?
A. The territorial commander in my whole area was the Military Commander of Greece.
Q. Do you mean General Speidel?
A. Yes, General Speidel.
Q. Do you think then that General Speidel must have given permission for the execution of these communists?
A. I don't know whether the competent sub-administrative area commander got General Speidel's permission for this. I don't know that.
Q. Yet the communists weren't shot on your authority and they couldn't have been shot on the Evzones' own independent authority. They must have been shot on Speidel's authority. Isn't that true?
A. They could have been shot on orders of the competent field commander there but I don't know.
I only know that they were not shot on my directions and I knew that the division also stated that they were not shot on orders of the division.
Q. To whom were the field commanders who might have given permission subordinate?
A. The sub-area headquarters commanders were under the military commander of Greece.
Q. General Speidel?
A. Yes.
Q. Now you mentioned in this report 8 dead of your own. Now if the eight dead had been members of the Evzone Regiments who were Greeks, would you have described them as being eight dead of your own?
A. No, I have not maintained that the eight dead of our own were members of the Evzones. They were members of the German troops, not of the Evzones.
Q. Then you mean that although eight dead, eight German dead were suffered, the reprisals against seventy-one communists were in fact carried out by Evzones rather than by German troops?
A. Yes, that is what I wanted to say.
Q. Was it customary for Evzones to retaliate for German losses?
A. I can't see anything about what was customary in this case. At any rate, from a former incident I know that communists were shot by Evzones and, according to a document which has just been submitted, this can also be seen and what I know from the division in this case too -- it was the Evzones who carried out the shooting.
Q. Now, General Lanz, will you turn again to Document Book 19 to page 144 in the German, page 128 in the English. Now in this report it states about two villages having been burned down in reprisal and I believe you testified or perhaps one of your affiants stated that in fact only two houses were burned down in this village.
Have I got that correct?
A. No, I think there is an affidavit about this incident by the troop commander concerned at that time which deals in detail with this matter. I myself cannot say anything about this affair because I did not know the local conditions there.
Q. General Lanz, if only two houses were burned down, but in fact two villages were reported to have been burned down, how were you able to rely on the reports which you received from your subordinates?
A. One cannot generalize here. Of course, all reports aren't absolutely incorrect as in this case. Of course, it happened and everyone knows that in the course of time as the war progressed the reports were no longer very reliable but even if I rule out any bad intentions, then of course it is quite understandable that reports were drawn up which, when they were checked, did not correspond to the facts.
Q. As a matter of fact, General Lanz, didn't your troops burn down villages even though they didn't find any bandits in the village or engaged in no combat action with the bandits?
A. I am inclined to doubt the last thing but the first may be correct in so far as I know two incidents in which the bands left the localities in which they were formerly when they had found out that the German troops were nearing. That is what I remember.
Q. What happened to the civilian population?
A. The civilian population was, as far as I know, no longer in the locality in this case but they had left it as far as I can remember.
Q. Well, suppose the civilian population had not left the village and that only the bands had left--would your troops then burn down the village anyway because the bands had been previously stationed there?
A. That is very difficult to say with absolute certainty. Of course--it depends on the circumstances, but on principle I cannot answer this question because it is a hypothetical one.
Q. Would you look at Document Book 20, General Lanz, at page 29 in the German, page 40 in the English? You will note from that report of your corps "further mopping up with destruction of all villages without important contacts with the enemy." Was it customary for your troops to burn the villages even though there was not combat?
A. That was not usual; in the case here, as far as I know, in the vicinity of the village of Kabenision there were various band villages which for many months had been used by the bandits as bases and we had already carried out one or two operations against them before. Nevertheless, the bands came back again and settled down in this area and from here they continued their attacks against us.
Q. General Lanz, would you turn now to page 46 in that Document Book, page 63 in the English? In this pamphlet which relates to towns and villages which were not in your area, it states that unless the population revealed the whereabouts of the bandits, the German troops would burn down their localities and their houses. Did you ever publish proclamations of this kind in your area?
A. I don't know about this from my area.
Q. Yes, I know that you did not publish this particular pamphlet but I am asking whether perhaps in your area you published other pamphlets of a similar nature?
A. I cannot remember a pamphlet with this text right now.
Q. You never asked the population to come and tell you where the bandits were hiding and if they did not do that the villages would be destroyed?
A. I don't remember such a case at the moment. Perhaps you could give me some indication so that I can know what you mean, but this general question I can't answer. At the moment I don't remember whether I ever ordered anything of this kind. I don't think so-but I can't say with absolute certainty - I don't think so.
Q. I have nothing particular in mind on this point, General Lanz, I simply wanted to know whether you had any recollection of having issued proclamations of that nature? Would you look, however, at NOKW-1831 which has been previously introduced as Exhibit 621 and will you look at page two of the original document, page 2 of the copies which your Honors have. That is a report from your Corps and it states that there was "Telephone sabotage in the area of Arta. Poles sawed off at two places. 30 male civilian suspects arrested and shot." Do you recall that incident?
A. Yes, I remember this. It was mentioned here on direct examination.
Q. Isn't that a particularly high ratio, General Lanz, for the sawing off of just two telephone poles?
A. Well the people were arrested and there is nothing against an arrest during wartime.
Q. It states that they were also shot, General Lanz?
A. They are to be shot, it says. It doesn't say they were shot.
Q. Perhaps it is an error in the translation.
A. It states they are to be shot and I have proved that they were afterwards sent to the prisoners collection center and there were not 30 but 45 people who were arrested.
Q. Now would you pass the original document to the court interpreters so that we might have a proper translation of this particular passage of this document?
THE COURT INTERPRETER: The translation from the German original: "Thirty male civilian suspects arrested and shot."
BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q. General Lanz, is it your contention that this report is wrong and that the 30 male civilian suspects were not, in fact, shot?
A. In Document Book XIX, on page 131.......
Q. This is on page 110 of the English, your Honors.
A. .........and on page 132 these people are spoken about again. And it states "are to be shot." It does not say "were shot".
Q. Now, General Lanz, perhaps there's another translation error. Would the Court Interpreters read the translation which appears on page 132 of the German Document Book, and page 110 of the English?
THE COURT INTERPRETER: The translation from page 132 reads: "All civilians will be shot."
MR. FENSTERMACHER: It says "will be" in that case?
If your Honors will please make that change on page 110 of your document books.
BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q. General Lanz, these two reports seem to be in conflict. The one which your Corps sent out states that the 30 male civilian suspects were shot. Do you believe that the Corps report is in error?
A. Could you please tell me which report you're talking about here?
Q. I'm talking now about NOKW-1831, which has been offered into evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 621.
A. Well, the two reports contradict each other. The troop report which was issued twice is different from this Corps report here, which is a draft and has a lot of corrections on it.
The report, as it came from the troops, was quite different. I can only state these two facts.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Have you the original of the document on page 110, NOKW-909, Document Book XIX?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: We don't have that here at this moment, your Honor, but we can get it very shortly.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: If you can produce it after the noon recess please; and ask something else for the time being.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: We'll be glad to do that.
BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q. General Lanz, I'd like to turn now to the Italian situation. And first, will you turn to Document Book XIX, page 85 of the English, page 111 of the German? This is a report stating that five Italian members of the Wehrmacht in civilian clothes were rounded up and shot to death. Do you know whether those Italians were given a trial before they were shot?
A. I can't give any real information about this because I don't remember this incident. And I can't see anything else from the report except what is set down here. I don't know for what reason they were shot or under what circumstances.
Q. You don't suppose, General Lanz, that they were shot simply because they were found in civilian clothes?
A. No, I don't assume that.
Q. Well, would you turn to your own order which was one day after that incident.........your order of the 16th of September 1943, which appears on page 15 of the English and page 9 of the German Document Book? You order in this communication that Italians found in civilian clothes are to be arrested by patrols and are to be shot.
Did you think the wearing of civilian clothes by former Italians soldiers was a crime that should be punished by death?
A. I think that I have proved, firstly, that this order did not come from me but that it came to us from above; and, secondly, that I declared myself not to be in agreement with this order, and that it was not carried out like this. It was altered; and, thirdly, this order is dated the 16th of September, and the other matter was from the 15th of September, so these things have nothing to do with each other.
Q. Now, General Lanz, if this order had come from above wouldn't you have made a reference to the fact that the OKW had ordered, or that Army Group F, or Army Group E had ordered such and such, and that you were simply passing the superior order on?
A. This order, which we are discussing here, was issued by an officer from my staff without my knowledge, and he chose words which I, at that time, had no influence over.
Q. Did you ever change the wording of this particular order which was issued you by your Ic?
A. As far as I know, this order was changed to say that the people were to be arrested, first of all, and then to be sent to a prisoner camp. I don't know of any case of any Italians in civilian clothing being shot on the basis of this order which was issued on the 16th of September. I know of no case amongst the documents in which this happened. And, at least, it would have been very remarkable that this wasn't found because, at that time, there were very many Italians in civilian clothing, and a report of this kind would have been very frequent.