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.
Q. If all the Italians were shot for being in civilian clothes on the 15th of September, and your Ic passed this order on on the 16th of September, can't one assume, General Lanz, that the order is a ratification and approval of the previous executions which occurred the day previously?
A. I don't think so. I don't know what the pre-conditions were which caused the death of these five Italians. I don't know who instigated their shootings. I don't know any details about it.
Q. Well, General Lanz, doesn't the report state the full fact when it says that five Italian members in civilian clothes were rounded up and shot? Isn't that a full statement of the crime which the Italians had committed?
A. I don't think so because the reason is not given.
Q. You don't think the reason is that they were found in civilian clothes?
A. I don't think so, no.
Q. Now, in this order that your Ic passed on, he doesn't mention that the Italians are to be given a trial before they are shot?
A. No, that isn't mentioned here. That's correct.
Q. Have you any idea why he didn't put that in?
A. I can only repeat that on account of this order nobody was shot.
Q. Now, we're going into the Italian capitulation, General Lanz. Did you know, when you went down to Greece, that in July, 1943 Mussolini had been replaced by Field Marshal Badoglio, as head of the Italian Government and as Commander in Chief of the Italian Armed Forces in the field?
A. I know that Mussolini, at the end of July, was no longer Prime Minister or Chief of State.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: At this time we'll take a recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(The court adjourned at 1215 to resume session at 0130)
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
AFTERNOON SESSION The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 26 November 1947.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will be seated.
The Tribunal is again in session.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed, Mr. Fenstermacher.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Thank you, Your Honor. The Secretary General's representative has not yet produced the original document which Your Honor asked for, but I assume that he will bring it here sometime this afternoon.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: (To the Assistant Secretary General) Is that NOKW-909, Mr. Secretary General?
This refers, Your Honor, to Document Book XIX, Page 110 in the English, Page 132 in the German. We will pass the original document to the Court Interpreters for their translation.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: It will be unnecessary to read the entire translation. The only thing that the Tribunal will be interested in is the last sentence in the paragraph before the words, "At 12:30 hours a light motor boat entered the port," -- the line immediately preceding that.
THE COURT INTERPRETER: "All civilians will be shot, or are to be shot." The German leaves both these interpretations open.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The correction then indicated by you, Mr. Fenstermacher, is that the word "were" will be changed to "will be" or "are to be?"
MR. FENSTERMACHER: That is my understanding, Your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed.
KARL HUBERT LANZ - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q. General Lanz, before the luncheon recess we were talking about the surrender of the Italian units, and I asked you whether you knew that in July Field Marshal Badoglio had replaced Mussolina as head of the Italian Government and Commander in Chief of the Italian Armed Forces, and I believe you said you did know that fact.
A. I said I knew that Mussolina had been overthrown and that his place had been taken by a new personage. I remember now that Field Marshal Badoglio was the man who took Mussolini's place.
Q. And, then, on the 8th of September 1943 I think you said that you heard about the armistice which the Italians had signed with the Allies.
A. That is correct.
Q. Did you know, at that time, that one provision of the Italian armistice provided for the return of the Italian units to Italy?
A. No, I did not know that. The armistice conditions only became known to me in Nurnberg.
Q. Now, when you talked to Vecchiarelli during the night of the 8th and 9th of September what did he tell you about the instructions or orders which he had received from Field Marshal Badoglio?
A. To the best of my knowledge and recollection he did not say anything about it at all.
Q. Did he say that he had authority to surrender his units to you?
A. I don't know whether he expressly said that, but from his whole behavior and from the way in which he negotiated with me I had to assume that. In any case he voiced no misgivings or doubts.
Q. Didn't you assume, General Lanz, that when you heard the Italians had surrendered to the Allies that there was also some provision in that armistice regarding the surrender of Italian units to the Allies?
A. I have to admit that I did not reflect too much about that problem because the relationship with the Allies did not interest me as much as did the relationship between ourselves and the Italians. I don't believe that I had any misgivings or hesitations. Furthermore, my assignment and commission was quite clear.
Q. When did you first hear that Field Marshal Badoglio had ordered his troops to remain with their arms at rest but were to repel any attempts of disarmament?
A. I cannot recall that I heard about it. At least I did not hear about it at that time.
Q. Now, General Gandin told you that his orders were unclear at one point during his negotiations with you. What did you think he meant by that?
A. I thought that possibly he had received contraductory orders or that he hadn't received any orders yet. It also occurred to me that he personally might have a different opinion about the commission which he had received. All that is possible. What he said is that his orders were not clear. This is what I remember.
Q. Didn't you ask him what he meant by that?
A. I did not ask him because immediately afterwards, to the best of my recollection he said to me, "General, please, you give me an order," so to speak, to free him from this unclear situation in which he found himself.
Q. But General Gandin was not subordinate to you, General Lanz. How could you give orders to him?
A. Well, I believe that there is a difference of opinion here. I maintain a different attitude. First of all, General Gandin asked me to give him an order. There is no doubt about that.
Therefore, I had no reason not to do that. Furthermore, in my opinion, after General Vechiarelli had surrendered his army, General Gandin was a prisoner of war of the German Armed Forces. The Italian Army of General Gandin was - there can be no doubt -- subordinate to the XIth Italian High Command. It was a part of this High Command. Furthermore, the third point is that General Gandin found himself in the area under my jurisdiction.
Q. You said that General Gandin was a pro-German Italian officer prior to his resistance to your units. Now, General Lanz, isn't it quite reasonable to assume that what General Gandin meant when he said that his orders were unclear was that he had received orders from Field Marshal Badoglio not to surrender, and, on the other hand, had received orders from Vecchiarelli to surrender? And the fact that he was a pro-German Italian officer is a further indication that he would have been glad to surrender if he had not, in fact, had an order from a higher authority than Vecchiarelli?
A Well in that case. I would have had to expect that General Gandin told me, "I have received an order from General Badoglio which is in contradiction to an order from General Vecchiarelli. Please, what am I to do?" Something to that effect, but he did not say anything about General Badoglio or about an order from General Badoglio. He did not say one word about that.
Q Now the Italian Commandant of Korfu, according to one of your affiants, told your representatives that he too had no authority to surrender his island. What do you suppose he meant by saying that?
A I assume that he was doubtful about what he had to do. To the best of my recollection, the situation of Korfu was that part of the occupation forces there wanted to surrender the island and other parts did not want to do that. The Commandant apparently did not quite know what steps he should take.
Q I made a mistake, General Lanz. It was not one of your affiants who said that but it is contained in your Document Book V at page 29 and it is an excerpt from your own War Diary, and the entry for the 11th of September, 1943, states that those occupying the island of Korfu alleged that they have no orders to surrender from their superior authority. Now, isn't that an indication that the Commandant of Korfu had perhaps no orders at all from Vecchiarelli or perhaps had conflicting orders from Vecchiarelli and Badoglio?
A This question was clarified through the fact that to the best of my knowledge on the 13th of September, the Chief of Staff of the Italian Corps on behalf of the Italian Army came with the German officer to Korfu to the best of my recollection and gave the clear order to lay down arms and to surrender the island. And that eliminated all such contradictions.
Q During all these negotiations with the Italians, they never told you and you never assumed that they had received orders from Badoglio which were in conflict with those which they had received from Becchiarelli?
A Neither did an Italian tell this to me nor do I have any other knowledge about this. I am not going to deny the possibility that might have been the case but it was not known to me. I was not told that, and Gandin undoubtedly was in a position to tell me so had he wished to do that.
Q What other explanation have you for Gandin's conduct, particularly in view of the fact that he was a pro-German and would perhaps have preferred to surrender to the Germans than to resist them?
A My explanation is to the effect that possibly Gandin had originally been on the German side and had wanted to surrender the island but that later on because of a resistance group which had formed in Kephalonia, he saw himself forced to take their part, as he actually did. The possibility further exists that at a later time he received different directives. That is possible but I don't know.
Q General Gandin told you that he couldn't surrender because his orders were unclear, not because there was a group of Italian officers in his division who didn't want him to surrender?
A I believe the way you describe it is not quite correct. I asked him why he wouldn't lay down his arms as all Italians in the army area had done. After all, he had to know the orders of his superior officers. In answer to that, he said that his orders were not clear and immediately afterwards he asked me to please give him an order. From that I had to conclude that the man subordinated himself to me because he had asked me for an order that means, according to military usage, that the person concerned subordinates himself to me and to my authority.
I see no other interpretation. If the situation had been different, he could have told me "I can't do that. I can't surrender because I have a different order from Badoglio and this is the order which I have to carry out," but this was not mentioned.
Q From your map, General Lanz, it appears that the distance between the island of Korfu and Italy is only 110 kilometers and I suppose the distance between Kephalonia and the Italian mainland is somewhat greater than that. Do you happen to know how communications were between the Italian mainland and the islands of Korfu and Kephalonia?
A You mean the Italian communications?
Q Yes, do you know anything about those?
A I could only hazard a guess. I have no exact knowledge. I can assume that there was a radio connection; I don't know whether they had a sea calbe. I wouldn't know that. I am not informed.
Q General Lanz, during the course of your negotiations with Gandin, you made some misrepresentations to him did you not? You told him that if he surrendered, his units would be allowed to return to Italy like all other Italian divisions and you knew that wasn't true, didn't you?
A That was not a false representation. It was my firm conviction. There can be no question of making misrepresentations.
Q Now look at Document Book 13, General Lanz, at page 18 in the German and page 27 in the English. This is Field marshal Keitel's order of the 9th of September, 1943, and you will note on page 18 of the German, this is on page 28 of the English, your Honors, that Italian prisoners of war who did not wish to fight on the German side were to be used in the proportion of seven to one as workers for the construction of the East Wall and you were promising Gandin that his units could return to Italy.
A That was, at the time, my honest conviction when I told him that. I don't know when I received the order which you are having reference to but under no means was it my intention to deceive General Gandin.
Q Now you didn't tell Gandin until the 14th of September that he would be returned to Italy with his units if they surrendered. Do you mean that you didn't receive this order of the 9th before the 14th of September?
You were in constant communication with Army Group E according to your affiants.
A I can't tell you at the moment when I received that order. I don't know it. I can only repeat that I made this offer to General Gandin under my honest conviction that it would be carried out and that I did by no means intend to deceive him.
Q Now on the 15th of September, Lt. Col. Bartsch also promised Gandin that he would be returned to Italy if he peacefully surrendered; and again on the 17th of September you yourself in a leaflet which you distributed from an airplane told the Italian units that if they surrendered they, like their Italian comrades, would be able to return home.
A That was my conviction. Otherwise, I wouldn't have said it.
Q General Lanz, is there anything in either the OKW orders of the 9th or the 11th of the 15th of September which indicated that Italian units which surrendered would be permitted to return home to the Italian mainland?
AAt the moment, I cannot recall it. I don't know it well enough by heart to be able to say so here. I can only say that I did not intend under any circumstances to deceive General Gandin.
Q Now I believe you intimated that if Italy had declared war on Germany at the same time as Gandin resisted your units, you might have considered Gandin's situation a little bit differently. Did I misunderstand you?
A I don't believe that is quite correct. If I understand you correctly, I am not quite clear about what you mean.
Q Well, perhaps I can clarify it. Did the fact that Italy didn't declare war until October 13 have any importance in your mind regarding the treatment which you should give Gandin? In other words, would you have treated Gandin differently if Italy had declared war at the same time as he resisted?