of 10 October 1941 in December 1941. As General KUNTZE stated in the witness stand and as was confirmed by the witness HOLSTEIN - furthermore by wi [ ... ]
General KUNTZE clearly expressed in the witness stand, this was to enable the commander alone competent for the ordering of reprisals not only to ex [ ... ]
Furthermore reprisal measures were reported as ordered or as intended or as being in progress and Testimony FOERTSCH which according to the document [ ... ]
This difference between the 10 daily reports of the Acting Commander-in-Chief in Serbia to the Wehrmacht Commander South-East and the reports to the [ ... ]
This is also clearly proved by the fact that after the implementation of this harsh but justified measure the situation in the Banat calmed down. T [ ... ]
the fact that the order was limited to this area and was not issued to the commanders in Greece and the commandant of Crete. On the other hand, the [ ... ]
Above all, however, the references to ordering reprisal measures contained in subsection 6 of these directives do not constitute an order. It is ex [ ... ]
no command agency construed this reference as an order. This is quite obvious from the order of the Commander-in-Chief in Serbia of 25 March 1942 - [ ... ]
summer of 1942, there were no reprisals at all. This fact at the same time corroborates the principle derived from experience that frequently the t [ ... ]
found guilty were liable to reprisals as prisoners held for atonement, while guiltless persons were to be released. These orders furnish proof that [ ... ]