That is this road here (POINTING), which runs along the main railway line. They made attacks especially against the most important points of the main railway line, Vogany (V-O-G-A-N-Y), Mitrovica (M-I-T-R-O-V-IC-A); Lacarac (L-A-C-A-R-A-C)-this has been mentioned before; and Martinci (M-A-R-T-I-N-C-I). Then, after the acts of sabotage had been completed, they withdrew again into their hide-outs. Quite apart from the fact that this was certainly a justified reprisal measure, the destruction of this band stronghold was, for reasons of maintaining public order a security, urgently necessary. From the Washington Diary I also saw that shortly before this, heavy fighting had taken place; and it is not quite out of the question that the village, which was built of straw-roofed houses was set on fire during the fighting. As can be seen from the diary, one battery of Field Artillery, one company of anti-tank guns, and heavy mortars were in action against the villages. It was a rather heavy battle. We lost, during this battle, one company commander and twenty-eight soldiers. It is also possible that what was reported here as reprisal measure had already been destroyed in the previous fighting.
Q. I now will discuss cases which are not set down expressly in the Indictment. I will show you, first of all, the teletype dated the 4th of November 1943, Document NOKW-075, Exhibit No. 358, Document Book XIV, Page 112 of the German and Page 87 of the English. I'm sorry; it's Page 112 of the English and Page 87 of the German. Under letter "d" there is a note that on the second of November the village of Novo-Tropolj was burned down. Please comment on the form of this document.
A. The document is a copy. It bears no signature-even the usual notation (Corps Headquarters 69th Reserve Corps) is missing, as well as the reference number.
The copy is not certified, and on the document itself there are no initials at all, nor is the sender given. The entire document doesn't seem to have been photostated, since part of it is not here.
Q. When you were Commanding General of the LXIXth Reserve Corps did you hear about the burning down of the village of Novo-Tropolj?
A. Of course, today I can't remember if I heard about it at that time, out of all the incidents which took place. I certainly didn't receive knowledge of it in the form submitted here.
Q. On the basis of the document submitted can you comment on this incident?
A. It is a typical Cossack report about which I have already commented. It is very vague and nothing can be assumed from it. I have already mentioned that the Cossacks were, for the most part, illiterate and couldn't speak German. This can also be seen from various documents. I assume and reconstruct the case like this for myself: The troops were fired on from the village, and then they attacked the village. Fighting took place, whereupon the village was burned down, probably through the gun-fire. Band suspects--according to the language of the Balkans "active band helpers"--were taken along. If in this case any kind of excesses were committed by the Cossacks then they would certainty have been followed up by the Corps, as the usual excesses committed by the Cossacks were very carefully investigated and followed up.
Q. Witness, what is the basis for the statements you have just made?
A. They are based on statements which are to be found in Document Book XIV.
Q. Document look XIV, page 112 of the English, page 87 of the German.
A. Where this report by Col. Vubic is given, and then the compilation of the individual excesses committed by the Cossacks in Document Book XIV, page 24.
Q. Which report--the one dated the 25th of November? Which one?
A. Unfortunately, the report isn't dated. It is Exhibit NOKW-509.
Q. Exhibit 340, Document Book XIV, page 26 of the German and page 43 of the English. I am sorry, your Honor, page 112 wasn't correct. It is page 43.
Witness, I meant what other basis have you for the description? From the document, and is it a pure assumption on your part?
A. No, it is from experience. We experienced this quite frequently.
Q. I now come to another case. I will show the teletype dated the 26th of September 1943, NOKW-658, Exhibit 375, Document Book XVI, page 9 of the English, page 22 of the German, under letter "A" of this teletype, with the 187th Reserve Division is stated the following:
"As reprisal for an attack, the well known brand strong point of Susnievci is to be burned down."
Were you in office on the 26th September 1943?
A. No.
Q. Where were you during this period?
A. I was on leave.
Q. How long were you on leave?
A. I was on leave until the 26th of September, inclusive.
Q. Did you know about the destruction of Susnievci?
A. I can't remember anything about it today.
Q. On the basis of the statements in the teletype, can you comment on this destruction?
A. Susnievci was a band strong-point and from this village the band committed a number of attacks against Brod and against the main railway line which ran along near Brod. I assume that the destruction of this band strong-point was a military necessity.
Q. And now I come to another case. I will show you the teletype of the 9th of October 1943, Document NOKW-658, Exhibit 375, Document Book XVI, page 12 of the English and page 30 of the German; under figure "2", the burning down of the village of Vetojevci is mentioned. Did you sign the document submitted?
A. No.
Q. Is the document submitted signed at all?
A. No, and it does not bear my initial either.
Q. According to the document, who carried out the destruction of this village?
A. According to the document, the destruction of the band strong-point of Vetojevci was carried out during the police operation Kammerhofer. That is, in any case, the troops under the orders of Kammerhofer, the police, carried this out.
Q. Did you give any kind of order for the burning down of this village?
A. No.
Q. Were you informed about it before hand?
A. No, I was not informed about it.
Q. Can you today, on the basis of the statements in the teletype dated the 9th of October, 1943, tell us whether this concerned a reprisal measure at all?
A. The incident in itself is not known to me in detail since it was not a measure undertaken by my Corps. On the basis of the teletype, nevertheless, I assume that it was not a reprisal measure but a destruction, which was necessary from a military point of view, of a fortified band strongpoint and in the report the expression "well known band strongpoint" is used.
This destruction of the village of Vetujevci is not noted in the War Diary of the Corps.
Q. Now another case. I will show you the daily report dated the 20th of October, 1343, Document NOKW-658, Exhibit 375, Document Book XVI, page 18 of the English and page 43 of the German. Is this teletype signed by you?
A. This is another one of these very many teletypes which are not signed, but only Dear the typewritten words "Corps Headquarters LXIXth Reserve Corps" and a reference number.
Q. Can you tell us whether you knew about the document submitted?
A. I find no initials on this document at all and I assume that I received no knowledge of it because, otherwise, I would have initialed it. The stamp "Commanding General" has no initials, and indicates that it was to have been submitted to me, but apparently this didn't happen. I can't give the reason for this. Perhaps at this time I was absent from the headquarters.
Q. Did you issue the order for the destruction of the village of Arak*vac?
A. No.
Q. According to the teletype submitted, did troops subordinate to you destroy this village?
A. No.
Q. Who destroyed this village?
A. From the teletype, it can be seen chat the destruction of this village was carrion out by police forces under Kammerhofer.
Q. Witness, did you have previous knowledge of the intended destruction of this village?
A. No.
Q. Could you have prevented this intended measure?
A. No, that was quite impossible.
Q. Can you tell us more details about this?
A. I couldn't give Kammerhofer any orders because Kammerhofer wasn't subordinate to me.
Q. Was the destruction of this village, if one can regard this as having been proved at all, a reprisal measure?
A. From the daily report, one cannot see this. The village is described here as a definite bend next in which explosives, infantry munition, hand grenades, propaganda material, and other stocks were stored.
Q. Witness, when can the village have been destroyed?
A. It is possible that the destruction of the village occurred during tin fighting, when the village was set on fire by the shells. The destruction of this village was in any case necessary from a military point of view in order to maintain peace and order. This destruction is also not mentioned in the War Diary.
Q. Now another case. I will snow you the teletype dated the 28th of November, 1943. Document NOKW-658, Exhibit 375, Document Book XVI, page 31 in the English and page 75 in the German. Did you sign this document?
A. No.
Q. Is this document signed at all?
A. No, just as in the case of the others, it is not signed at all.
Q. Can you tell us whether the document submitted by the prosecution as evidence was submitted to you at the time for information?
A. No. I don't think so. Otherwise, the document would boar my initial.
Q. And further in this connection, I will show you the radio message No. 487, Document NOKW-509, Exhibit 340, Document Book 14, page 44 in the English and page 26 in the German. What was the reason for the destruction of Grabovo?
A. A purely tactical reason. This was a tactical operation against band villages fortified and consolidated as strong points, from which the mountain village of Grabovo, thanks to its situation and its fortification, was regarded as the most dangerous. The village was defended, and we also used heavy weapons, artillery, anti-tank guns and trench mortars.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKER: At this point, we will take our afternoon recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Court will be in recess until 1515.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. FULKERSON: We have had a cross-fire motion on the matter of General von Weichs. First we submitted one, then Dr. Laternser did, and view of the order which the Court issued yesterday appointing a medical commission to examine General von Weichs, I assume that you would hold the motion of Dr. Laternser's in abeyance, that is the motion to sever, until the report of the medical commission was made; and for that reason we haven't filed any pleading responsive to that motion.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: That is correct.
MR. FULKERSON: Thank you.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed.
DR. GAWLIK: We stopped before the recess when we discussed documents NOKW-658, Exhibit 375 in Document Book 16, on page 31 of the English text and page 65 of the German text; and Document NOKW 509, Exhibit 340 in Document Book 14, on page 44 of the English Text and page 26 of the German text. That document dealt with the destruction of the village Krabovo.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. At whose instigation, General, was Krabovo burned down?
A. Krabovo was burned down at the instigation of the Croatian authorities. I am inclined to assume since these were representative authorities of the Croatian government, that these representatives had expressly requested that this village be destroyed. This goes to prove how dangerous the Croatian authorities considered this bandit strong point, although they must have had a particular interest in preserving every house. It follows further that the destruction of this band strong point for the maintenance of public safety and order and order was expressly necessary.
DR. GAWLIK: In this connection, if it please the Tribunal, I'd like to draw attention to the daily report dated 28 November 1943, Document NOKW-658, Exhibit 375, on page 31 of the English Document Book and page 75 of the German text. Of particular interest is paragraph 2-A where it says expressly that at the request of Croatian agencies both villages were burned down as pronounced band seats.
From the preceding sentences it becomes apparent that the places were Krabovo and Zvilos.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. General, did you issue an order to destroy Zvilos?
A. No, I did not issue such an order.
Q. Why then was that place, Zvilos, destroyed?
A. The village was also destroyed within the same tactical operation, and likewise at the request of Croatian agencies because that was a fortified band strong point. It was located in inaccessible territory also in Fruska Gora, and that was why it was destroyed. From this village and from this position our troops were shot at. We were waging a difficult and serious battle from that village, during which we employed heavy weapons. I also know that on the outskirts of those villages, trenches were found.
Q. This brings me to another incident. Again I am going to show you again the teletype of 28 November 1943, which is Document NOKW-865, Exhibit 375 in Document Book 16, page 31 of the English and page 75 of the German. In this daily report of the 28th of November 1943, it is further started that Lecimir bas burned down. Before this village was destroyed, were you informed of the intended measure?
A. No, I was not.
Q. Would you have been in a position to prevent this measure?
A. No, the place was already destroyed when I heard of it.
Q. According to the teletype of the 28th of November 1943, was it a reprisal measure?
A. On the basis of this teletype of 28 November 1943, I am not in a position to answer your question with certainty. From the context of this report, I feel inclined to assume that a military necessity existed for this measure because Lecimir was also fortified and was also a band strong point.
Q. Can you give us any further reasons, General?
A. Lecimir was, just like Krabovo, very in accessible. It had been fortified by the bands and was defended by them. It was in the Fruska-Gora mountains, and a hide-out and a strong point of the bandits. From there we had frequent attacks on the main highway Ruma-Erdevic, (spelling) E-r-d-e-v-i-c, and against the railroad line. I assume that the village was destroyed for military reasons by police forces as is stated in this teletype.
Q. In this connection I will show you Document NOKW-509, which is Prosecution Exhibit 340, contained in Document Book 14 on page 48 of the English text and page 28-A of the German text. What was the reason for this communications?
A. The 173rd Reserve Division reported to me at the time the following: After conclusion of the tactical operation against the FruskaGora, and after withdrawal of the troops of the 173rd Division, the police forces were released from the temporary tactical subordination and were no longer subordinated to the 173rd Reserve Division. This was an exceptional case where a small unit of the police had been subordinated to the 173rd Reserve Division for a limited period of time and for a certain purpose. After the police had been released from this relation of subordination, the rest of the population who were in the Lecimir community centre, were shot allegedly on the order of the police forces in the clutch in Lecimir as becomes apparent from the Document NOKW-509which we are discussing.
Q. General, when you received this report, what did you do?
A When, on the 6th of December 1943, the 173rd Reserve Division reported the incidents to me by way of the communication of 6 December 1943, I demanded explanations from the Sector Leader of the police in order to be able to follow up this matter through the channels to me, that is, the Wehrmacht channels. This communication complied with the usual forms of politness, but in spite of this it was an unusually serve one, in view of the fact that it was addressed to a non-subordinate agency. There have to be very severe and stringent reasons if one addresses such a communication containing such reproached to a unit which is non-subordinate and which furthermore was under Himmler's protection, this is proof of the fact that the Corps Headquarters disapproved of the section very strongly, if such an action really took place.
Q Witness, could you have done more as a consequence of that report of the 173rd Division?
A I was in no position to do more than I did.
Q Can you answer the question of what was done as a result of this communication by the SS Police Sector Commander Esseg?
A I can no longer recall what was initiated by him because I went on leave soon afterwards, but it is possible that while I was on leave the matter was further up. It is possible that one of the other witnesses whom we hope to get here to testify can give us more details.
Q This brings me to yet another incident. I am showing you the daily report of the 8th of December 1943, Document NOKW-658, Exhibit 375, contained in Document Book 16 of the Prosecution on page 35 of the English text and on page 85 of the German text, under paragraph 2-D.
THE PRESIDENT: The page, please?
DR. GAWLIK: Page 34 of the English text.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Under paragraph 2-D, it is reported that the villages Pistana, Logocac, Drenovac, and Rejenci were burned down by police forces.
was the destruction of these villages carried out by troops subordinated to the 69th Reserve Corps?
A No. As it is expressly stated here, the police was not subordinated to me.
Q And what about the Panzer Grenadier Training Regiment, did this Regiment participate in the carrying out of this reprisal measure?
AAlthough it says in this report that resistance was offered in these villages during mopping up operations of the Panzer Grenadier Training Regiment 901, I believe that preceded the incident by one or two weeks. At the time when the villages were actually destroyed by the Panzer Grenadier Regiment was no longer stationed in that area. By that time it had moved much further south, approximately 150 kilometers to the southeast. This is where the four villages are located (indicating), and at the time when the destruction of these villages took place, the Panzer Grenadier Training Regiment was approximately in this district. Therefore, that regiment cannot be concerned at all with the destruction of these villages, which can also be seen from the document.
DR. GAWLIK: If it please the Tribunal, this becomes apparent from Document Berk 6, page 84 and 77 of the German text which is not contained in the English document book. The English text is contained in Document Book Rendulic, Rendulic Document 125 in the first supplement on page 72 of the English text.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Before these villages were destroyed, General, were you informed?
A No.
Q Would you have been in a position to prevent these villages from being destroyed?
A That likewise would not have been possible.
Q This brings me to yet another incident. I will confront you with Document NOKW-710, Exhibit 377, in document Book 16 on page 42 of the English text and page 94 of the German text.
This is an entry in the War Diary concerning village Smedlica. Did you sign this entry, General?
A This entry into the War Diary was not signed by me. Why that wasn't done, I can no longer tell you today.
Q Can you give us your comments on the question of whether or not this villages was destroyed at all?
A The War Diary does not contain any entry dealing with the destruction of the village. If that village had been destroyed, I am sure an entry would be available. Furthermore, as can be seem from this very brief entry, the village was knows as a band strong point. The village was fortified and consolidated for defense purposes. Details concerning this fact could most likely be found in the endosure of the War Diary which, however, unfortunately was not submitted. The destruction of this village, of this band stronghold, if it was carried out at all, was done for forceful military reasons. It is expressly stated, further on, that the destruction was to take place after a consultation with the competent Croatian authorities. Whether these authorities actually agreed is not stated here, nor it is said what further action was taken.
Q This brings me to another document. I will show you document NOKW-1430, which is Exhibit 370 Document of the Prosecution. It is contained in Document Book 15, on page 54 of the English text and page 82 of the German text. This document deals with the operation "Brandfackel" (torch). Did the 69th Corps carry out this operation Brandfackel?
A No.
Q Was the First Cossack Division subordinated to the 69th Corps in January 1944?
A No, at that time the Cossack Division left in November and was completely gone in December 1943.
Q Who carried out the operation Brandfackel?
AAnother Corps, certainly not, my Corps.
Q Did the 69th Reserve Corps have any jurisdiction over the units which carried out the Operation Brandfackel?
A No.
Q Why then was this teletype which I showed you sent to the 69th Corps for information?
A Because it was customary that neighboring corps informed each other of such incidents.
DR. GAWLIK: That brings me to the end of Count II of the indictment, and it brings me to Count III of the indictment, 12-B of this Count of the indictment.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. What was your official rank before the Russian Campaign started?
A. Before the Russian campaign started, I was Divisional Commander and as such commanded the 106th Infantry Division.
Q. For how long were you the Divisional Commander of the 106th Infantry division?
A. I was Divisional Commander as of December, 1940 until 1 November, 1942.
Q. For how long were you committed in Russia?
A. I was in Russia from July 41 until March 1942.
Q. I shall show you document N.O.K.W. 1076, which is exhibit 14 of the Prosecution. It is contained in Document Book 1 on page 49 of the English text and page 34 of the German text. This is the order of the O.K.W. dated 6 June 1941 and it concerns directives for the treatment of political commissars. Did you receive this order, General?
A. No, you mean the order from 6 June and 8 June?
Q. Yes. Was this order passed on to the regiments subordinate to you?
A. Not to the best of my knowledge.
Q. Within your area of your division ---
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me. One time the witness said "No" and then he said "Yes". At one time, General, you said "No" and then you said "Yes", you received it. Now which is correct?
THE WITNESS: No.
DR. GAWLIK: I think there must be a mistake somewhere I don't think the General said "yes." That should be seen from the German record.
THE PRESIDENT: You did not receive it?
THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Was this order passed on to the regiments subordinate to you?
A. No.
Q. Within the area of your division, that is the area of the 106th Infantry division in Russia, were political commissars ever treated according to the directives given in this document?
A. No instance is known to me where a commissar was treated in accordance with the directives of the Commissar Order.
Q. As Divisional Commander or as Commanding General in France, did you ever receive the orders mentioned, did you ever pass them on or carry them out?
A. That was not possible alone for that reason that the commissar order was only valid for the east.
Q. As Commanding General in Croatia did you ever receive the orders mentioned, did you ever pass them on or carry them out?
A. No.
Q. If the Tribunal please, in this connection I would like to submit from Dehner Book 11, document Dehner No. 13 and this will become Dehner exhibit 11. This is an affidavit executed by Richard Wahl, it is dated 5 October 1947. Wahl states the following in this affidavit. I beg your pardon it is document book 2, page 22:
"From the activation of one 106th Infantry Division until in July 1941 I was in General Staff Office of this Division. I no longer know whether at the beginning of the Russian campaign the Division received the commissar order, but I know for certain that the 106th at the beginning of the Russian campaign gave orders to subordinate troop units for all prisoners, that is, also commissars, to be sent to the prison collecting centers, according to regulations. From these collection centers, according to international law, these prisoners were transferred to the POW camps. I never heard that during the Russian campaign a commissar was ever shot in the area of the 106th Division. I had official and personal contacts with all troop units of the Division, and I would certainly have heard about it if any such shooting had taken place."
I shall further submit from Document book Dehner 1, from page 10 of this document Dehner No. 5 and this will become Dehner exhibit 12. This is an affidavit executed by Ludwig Steyrer, who made the following statements:
"From the time of activation of the 106th Infantry Division in December 1940 until April 1942, I was the Commander of the artillery regiment of the 106th Division, which was on active service in the east."
I shall skip the next paragraph and further down it says:
"During the period of my service with the 106th Division in Russia, I never saw or heard of a case in which a commissar had been shot."
In this connection I further offer from document book Dehner exhibit No. 3 from page 50, document Dehner No. 17, which will become Dehner exhibit 13. This is an affidavit executed by Richard Ruoff, retired General and the affidavit is dated 14 November 1947. Ruoff made the following statements:
"During the Russian campaign I was Commanding General of the 5th Army Corps, and Commander in Chief of the 4th Panzer Army. General Dehner was Commander of the 106th Division and was my subordinate."
In the next paragraph it says:
"During the period when General Dehner belonged to my Corps, the Commissar order was not put into effect at all, as far as I can remember. Those commissars, who were captured, were not dealt with in accordance with the Commissar order, but were handed over to the Army for further interrogation."
I am further going to show you, General, the teletype of the 3rd of November, 1943, which is contained in document N.O.K.W. 568, exhibit 375 in Document Book 16 of the prosecution on page 22 of the English text and page 54 of the German text. In paragraph 11-E we have an entry, a report stating that a supply commissar and one bandit were shot. Was this a political commissar within the meaning of the well-known Commissar order of the 6th and 8th June, 1941?
A No, this is a supply commissar; he is designated in that way in the report.
Q Was this supply commissar shot in accordance with the Commissar Order of the 6th and 8th of June, 1941?
A No.
Q On hand of the documents which were were submitted, can you comment on the question why this supply Commissar was shot?
A I would feel inclined to assume that he was shot during combat. At least, he defended himself with his weapon in his hand, which becomes apparent from the fact that 34 bandits and band suspects were arrested, whereas two further bandits were shot. One of them was a supply Commisar. At least, those two defended themselves and deviated in their behavior from the behavior of the others. Otherwise there was no cause to treat the two persons shot differently from the 34 persons who were captured.
Q Who carried out this shooting?
AAs the report bears out, Croatian troops of the VIIIth Mountain Regiment carried out this shooting.
Q How does this become apparent?
A It says here in the daily report on the 3rd of november 1943 "surrounded and searched by the IInd and IIIrd Battalion of Mountain Regiment VIII," and this regiment was part of the Croatian force.
Q Was this regiment subordinated to you?
A No.
Q To whom was it subordinated?
A The regiment was subordinated to the Croatian Ministry of Armed Power.
Q This brings me to Point 12-H of Count 3 of the Indictment and in this connection I would like to show you Document 0-81 which is Exhibit 225 of the Prosecution. This is contained in Document Book IX on page 28 of the English text and page 41 of the German text. This is the Commando Order.
During the time in which you served as Divisional Commander of the 106th Infantry Division was one commando order ever carried out within the area of this division?
A No.
Q If your honors, in this connection, I would like to offer from Dehner Document Book I from page 4 of the German and the English text, Document Dehner No. 2 which will become Dehner Exhibit 14. This is an affidavit executed by Albert Kempner dated 23 September 1947, and this statement reads:
"From May 1942 until 31 August 1943, I was Regimental Commander in the 106th Infantry Division. During this period, particularly as long as General Dehner was Commander of the Division, the Commando Order was not carried out within the area of the division." While you served as Commander of the 82nd Army Corps was one Commando Order ever carried out?
A No.
Q As Commanding General of the LXIX Reserve Corps in Croatia, did you receive the Commando Order?
A To the best of my knowledge, I did not receive the Commando Order in Croatia.
Q Was this order ever carried out within the area of the LXIX Reserve Corps?
A No.
Q That brings me to 12-1 of Count 3 of the indictment. In this count, General Dehner is charged with having on or about the 11th of September, 1943, as Commander of the LXIX Reserve Corps, passed on and carried out an order to shoot one staff officer and fifty men of each division of the surrendered Italian army, or one officer and ten men of each division. The prosecution has submitted as evidence for this two orders issued by Keitel, dated 9 September 1943, and 15 September 1943. These are documents NOKW-898, Exhibit 317, contained in Document Book XIII of the Prosecution on page 27 of the English text and on page 18 of the German text; and NOKW-916, Exhibit 323, contained in Document Pork XIII of the Prosecution on page 42 of the English text and page 29 of the German of the German text.
General, I am going to show you these documents now, As Commander of the LXIX Reserve Corps, did you receive the Keitel Order of 9 September 1943?
A No, I couldn't have received this order because I was on leave at the time.
Q And what about the Keitel Order of the 15th of September, 1943?
A This order also falls into the period when I was on leave.
Q For how long were you on leave at that time?
A I was on leave until the 26th of September, 1943.
Q Did the LXIX Reserve Corps receive these orders and pass them on?
A Not to the best of my knowledge. On the basis of the distribution list, I believe I can state that the Corps never received these Orders.
Q Were Italians soldiers shot within the area of the LXIX Reserve Corps?
A No.
Q Were there any Italian troops at all in the area of the LXIX Reserve Corps?
A While I served as Commanding General of the LXIX Reserve Corps, I did not know that any Italian troops were in my area at all. From the War Diaries which we received from Washington, I notice now however that a small economic group of a few men, a few Italians, were stationed within my Corps area. Most likely, this group was not subordinated to me. Larger groups units were certainly not stationed within the Corps area. Otherwise, I would have known about this,
Q In this connection, General, I am going to show you Document NOKW-052, which is Exhibit 335 of the Prosecution. It is contained in Document Book XIII on page 136 of the English text and page 106 of the German text.