MR. DENNEY: If your honor please, at this time I should like to offer as Exhibit 1, an affidavit of 3 December , 1946, which is the Niebergall affidavit with which I believe some of the defense counsel are familiar, and read it into the record. It merely has to do with some procedural matters that are followed with reference to the documents in the document room.
I believe that most of the defense counsel are familiar with the affidavit, but for the purpose of the written record, it has been handed up to your honors. It is not in the document book.
It is dated 3 December 1946.
AFFIDAVIT 3 December 1946 I, FRED NIEBEGALL, A.G.O. D150636, of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, do hereby certify as follows:
1. I was appointed Chief of the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "OCC") on 2 October 1946.
2. I have served in the U.S. Army for more than 5 years, being discharged as a 1st Lieutenant, Infantry, on 29 October 1946. I am now a reserve officer with the rank of 1st Lieutenant in the Army of the U.S. of America. Based upon my experience as a U.S. Army Officer, I am familiar with the operations of the U.S. Army in connection with seizing and processing captured enemy documents. I served as Chief of Translations for CCC from 29 July 1945 until December 1945, when I was appointed liaison officer between Defense Counsel and Translation Division of OCC and assistant to the executive officer of the Translation Division.
In my capacity as Chief of the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC, I am familiar with the processing, filing, translation, and photostating of documentary evidence for the United States Chief of Counsel.
3. As the Army overran German occupied territory and then Germany itself, certain specialized personnel seized enemy documents, records and archives. Such documents were assembled in temporary centers. Later fixed document centers were established in Germany and Austria where these documents were assembled and the slow process of indexing and cataloguing was begun. Certain of these document centers have since been closed and the documents assembled there sent to other document centers.
4. In preparing for the trial before the International Military Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "IMT") a great number of original documents, photostats, and microfilms were collected at Nurnberg, Germany. Major Coogan's affidavit of 19 November 1945 describes the procedures followed. Upon my appointment as Chief of the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC, I received custody, in the course of official business, of all these documents except the one's which were introduced into evidence in the IMT trial and are now in the IMT Document Room in Nurnberg. Some have been screened, processed, and registered in accordance with Major Coogan's affidavit. The unregistered documents remaining have been screened, processed, and registered for use in trials before Military Tribunals substantially in the same way as described below.
5. In preparing for trials subsequent to the IMT trial personnel thoroughly conversant with the German language were given the task of searching for and selecting captured enemy documents which disclosed information relating to the prosecution of Axis war criminals.
Lawyers and Research Analysts were placed on duty at various document centers and also dispatched on individual missions to obtain original documents or certified photostats thereof. The documents were screened by German speaking analysts to determine whether or not they might be valuable as evidence. Photostatic copies were then made of the original documents and the original documents returned to the files in the document centers. These photostatic copies were certified by the analysts to be true and correct copies of the original documents. German speaking analysts, either at the document center or in Nurnberg, then prepared a summary of the document with appropriate references to personalities involved, index headings, information as to the source of the document, and the importance of the documents to a particular division of OCC.
6. Next, the original document or certified photostatic copy was forwarded to the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC. Upon receipt of these document, they were duly recorded and indexed and given identification numbers in one of six series designated by the letters: "NO", "NI" , "NM", "NOKW", "NG", and "NP", indicating the particular Division of OCC which might be most interested in the individual documents. Within each series documents were listed numerically.
7. In the case of the receipt of original documents, photostatic copies were made. Upon return from the Photostat Room, the original documents were placed in envelopes in fireproof safes in the Document Room. In the case of the receipt of certified photostatic copies of documents, the certified photostatic copies were treated in the same manner as original documents.
8. All original documents or certified photostatic copies treated as originals are now located in safes in the Document Room, where they will be secured until they are presented by the Prosecution to a court during the progress of a trial.
9. Therefore, I certify in my official capacity as herein above stated, that all documentary evidence relied upon by OCC is in the same condition as when captured by military forces under the command of the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces; that they have been translated by competent qualified translators; that all photostatic copies are true and correct copies of the originals, and that they have been correctly filed, numbered, and processed as above outlined.
/s/ FRED NIEBELGALL FRED NIEBERGALL Chief of Document Control Branch Evidence Division, O.C.C.I believe this document has been handed to Major Hatfield and I request, if your Honors please, that it be marked as Exhibit 1.
THE PRESIDENT: It is so ordered.
MR. DENNEY: Turning now to the first document in Book 1, I might say by way of preface, if it is agreeable with your Honors and with defense counsel, in view of the fact that these documents are placed chronologically by date, at the time we offer it, we propose to mention generally the defendant's name against whom it is ordered, and a general characterization of the document, and on the following day, after a book has been completed, if it is agreeable with your Honors and defense counsel we will submit a table at the left of which will be the documents which have been offered, then the Count under which it is offered, and then the defendant's name against whom it is offered, so that everyone will not have to keep going back and looking into the record. I believe that will make it more simple.
THE PRESIDENT: That is satisfactory to the Court -- to the Tribunal, if there is no objections on behalf of defense counsel.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I have to say that I haven't correctly understood the proposed procedure. Could it please be repeated so that I could state my attitude towards it?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Denney, you will kindly repeat your statement.
MR. DENNEY: Yes, Your Honor. The documents have been arranged in the books by date. If at each time a document is offered we specified all of the defendants against whom it is offered and all of the counts that it is offered on, it will cause a constant searching of the record as to whether or not a defendant is implicated in a count, according to our position, or whether or not a count has been specified. For the convenience of the defense counsel and the Court it is proposed that we will make a general reference at the time we offer specific documents, and at the close of a day we will prepare a table which states all of the exhibits in a book, the counts on which it is offered, and the defendants against whom it is offered. We will furnish tables to each of the defense counsel. They won't have to be translated because it's purely a matter of numbers and names, and we will furnish copies to the Court, and these tables will aLways be furnished the morning following, following the completion of a document book. Is that agreeable, Dr. Laternser? (Dr. Laternser and other defense counsel agree by nodding in the affirmative.) The other counsel seem to be in accord.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for defendants having indicated that such a procedure meets with their approval, you may follow that course of procedure, Mr. Denney.
MR. DENNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. The first document which we offer is NOKW-860, which is an affidavit by the Defendant List, executed on 7 March 1947, which contains various biographical material with reference to promotions and declarations. This is offered as Pro secution's Exhibit 2---Document NOKW-860. There being no objections by defense counsel, it is requested that the document be received in evidence and marked as requested, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: it is so ordered.
MR. DENNEY: The first page of the affidavit sets forth some basic information about the Defendant List. I don't think that it's necessary to read it. From information about his promotions on Page 2 it will be ween that he entered the service in 1900, and at the time of the capitulation he had somewhere some few months less than fortyfive months service, and that he became a field marshal in 1940, and that, at the time--in 1939, he was a Generaloberst, equivalent to a four-star general in the United States. The next section, the decorations, will show that he had received his share of them. The Party material indicates that he was not a member of the Party and that he never joined it. On the English copy there is missing a statement to the effect that the affidavit was voluntarily made, but I believe that that appears on the German copy. Perhaps Dr. Laternser can give us some help on that. It is just at the end of the document Doctor. Dr. Sauter advises me that that does appear on the German copy. An error in translation is all, Your Honor. They failed to put it on here, but there is a statement in the German to the effect that the statement was voluntarily made by him. The next document is N0KW-1042, which we offer as Prosecution's Exhibit 3, which is a copy of the personal record taken from the personnel file concerning the Defendant List. This is similar to that is known in our Army as the 201-file. This document is offered by the Prosecution as Exhibit 3. There are no objections, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: There being no objections, it may be admitted in evidence.
MR. DENNEY: We would like to call the Court's attention to the entry on the first page, at the bottom, where it says "10 September 1942, resigned as Commander in Chief, Army Group, and at the disposal of the Fuhrer."
We have heard much in Nurnberg about the impossibility of resigning. On Page 2 of the document there is an entry with 24 April 1942 by Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel of OKW, commenting on the defendant List's performance in which he states "The Commander in Chief of the 12th Army, and Wehrmacht Commander, Southeast, most highly proven, enjoys the unlimited confidence of the Fuhrer." On the next page, which is Page 3, still Exhibit 3, Document NOKW-1042, we believe in the German copy there is one error on the left-hand column of the dates. It should be 19 March. The date that follows 1 October 1913, and then precedes 2 August 1914, it should be 19 March 1914. The third page sets forth in some detail the rather broad experience of the Defendant List. It is to be noted that he went to the Artillery and Engineer schools and in 1908 he went to the War Academy. Thereafter he was with an Infantry Corps. In 1920 he was commander of an Infantry division and an Infantry regimental staff officer, and he served as a battalion commander. He was in the Reichwehr Ministry and became a brigadier general in the early 30's. He was a first ranking major general in October, 1932. He was commander of a Wehrkreis, which is similar to our service command, in 1933, and he became a general of Infantry in 1935, and General Oberst, or a four-star general in 1939. He became a (6) Field Marshal in the Wehrmacht in July 1940. I referred earlier to his being a major general. That should he Generalleutnant, which is a major general in the American army. The next document which the Prosecution offers as Exhibit 4 in evidence is 071-PS. This document was received as United States of America Exhibit No. 371 before the International Military Tribunal.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, before the submission of this document, may I see this document? (Defense counsel looks at document).
Your Honor, I object to the submission of this document. At first glance I can see that it is a photostat copy. From this photostat copy it cannot be seen, first of all, whether it is a carbon copy of the letter or whether it is a copy of the letter. Also, it doesn't show a letter-head nor from whom the letter comes. As to the signature this document isn't even signed.
Thirdly, what the prosecution intends to prove by this I could take from yesterday's opening speech. I would like to suggest the following, the letter proves that it has been written but it doesn't prove that its contents are true. As a rule it shows the opinion of the writer of the letter and need not be in line with the actual conditions since, for all these reasons if cannot be regarded as a proper document, I would ask the Tribunal to look at the document, it must be rejected as evidence of any kind of value.
MR. DENNEY: If your Honor please, the rules provide that documents received in evidence before the International Military Tribunal shall be received in evidence in these cases. Of course with this document as with any document that is offered by the prosecution or the defense, it is for the court to determine what weight they shall give it, if any, and we have nothing to do with probative value. There is a certificate with this document certifying that it was received as an exhibit. It was United States Exhibit No. 371 in IMT. It was put in as part of the case in chief. I believe against the defendant Rosenberg, and while I do not content that one who writes a letter necessarily speaks the truth, we have a later document which refers to a task force Rosenberg which is operating in the Southeast area, which indicates that what is said in this document is true.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you claim for this exhibit?
DR. DENNEY: We claim that this exhibit, your Honor, involves the defendant List. It shows that he was cooperating with the program in the party whereby they were seizing cultural works of art and enabling them to send people to the Southeast. I believe the particular reference here is to the cremation in the Archives in Jewish libraries.
THE PRESIDENT: Who do you claim wrote this letter?
MR. DENNEY: It was written, if your honor please, by Rosenberg who was later to become the Reich protector for the Eastern occupied territories.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the letter so show?
MR. DENNEY: The letter does not so show.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, the letter doesn't show at all who wrote it. In addition the prosecution doesn't even say that this letter was sent. If a copy is made, then I don't understand why this copy doesn't contain the signature. I maintain that this letter was never signed. I could even go further with my allegation. I could, for instance, say--I don't know this--that is wasn't signed because the contents weren't correct. Also, your Honor, the fact that the letter was accepted in the first trial was evidence doesn't make this letter a document. For at the time it was submitted, it was submitted for another reason than it is submitted today, at that time, it was submitted against Rosenberg, I don't know why the cleeague at that time didn't object to this letter. I would like to say once again that I cannot see from the document itself, and that is necessary, who wrote the letter. The letter from the document itself, and that is necessary, who wrote the letter. The letter isn't signed and I don't know whether it was ever sent off.
MR. DENNEY: If your Honor, pleases, the rules provide that documents which have been received in evidence before the International Military Tribunal shall be received here. However, for the benefit of the court, I will be glad to check the record there. It is my impression that it was further identified during the proceedings-and see whether or not we can establish that. In any event, it was received in evidence before the IMT.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, may I just say something else? I have already emphasized that the fact that the letter was presented and accepted in the first trial should not matter at all. I am of the opinion that the Tribunal now should rule on my objections to this document and should not be bound by the ruling of the first Tribunal whether it is admissible or not, because I am bringing in a new reason why this document should be admissed as a document.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will reserve ruling on the admissibility of this particular exhibit.
MR. DENNEY: Would your Honor wish that we point out the parts at this time which we offer, subject of course to a motion to strike in the event that the tribunal rules against it?
THE PRESIDENT: The court will give consideration to the document in itself and if and when it is admitted, if it is admitted, then you can comment upon it.
MR. DENNEY: Very well, your Honor. Then if I may suggest that we mark is Exhibit 4-A for Identification at this time so that it will have a number. That is not in evidence, Dr. Laternser, that is merely for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: Purely for the purpose of marking of the exhibit and not for a consideration that it is being admitted, it may be so numbered "4-A".
MR. DENNEY: Thank you, your Honor.
The next document is NOKW-1111 which we offer as Exhibit 4.
DR. LATERNSER: I would also ask if I might look at this document before it is submitted to the Tribunal.
(A copy of the Exhibit 4 was handed to Dr. Laternser)
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I am unfortunately, forced to object to this document too. First of all, it is a photostat copy and is a photostat copy of a copy, which is expressly stated on it. This means that is not a carbon copy of the order which was issued but a copy made afterwards. Your Honor, at the top of this letter is written "Secret". If secret matters were copied in the German Wehrmacht, then the copy had to be certified, and on this photostat copy I see no certification. How can I find out that the typist who copied this order copied the actual order and copied it correctly. In other words, this document is nothing than a sheet of paper typed by someone whom I don't know, without certification.
The probative value is very small, though I realize that just now I cannot concern myself with the probative value; but the lacks of this document so obvious that it should not be accepted in evidence.
Might I stress again that it is not a carbon copy but a copy and that was prepared later that this copy had not been certified by anybody. I don't know whether the typist has made mistakes.
MR. DENNEY: Your Honor, I certainly don't know whether the German army typist made any mistakes or not either, but as such it is taken from the captured files of the German Army and it is headed 11th Corps Command", and at the bottom it is typed out "Signed von Kotzfleisch, the Commanding General." The probative value is whatever the court wants to give it. We unfortunately did not make the records for the Wehrmacht.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I am very sorry that I have to add something else. The prosecutor says that this letter is signed. It isn't signed. From the beginning to the end, it is typed. I am extremely sorry to say that the original copy from which the photostat was made is not available. Then one could even see more clearly what sort of a document it is.
MR. DENNEY: If your Honor please, I did not say that it was signed. I said that at the end it was typed "Signed von Kotzfleisch," and I would appreciate it if Dr. Laternser would keep the earphones on so that he would understand what I tell the Tribunal.
DR SAUTER: (Attorney for the defendant von Geitner) Your Honor, may I draw your attention to something.
It strikes me that in my copy here, the copy of a corps order, the journal number is missing, that is, the number form which it can be seen which index number the order has received. Such important orders, especially when they are secret orders, must necessarily have a journal number. Every soldier knows this, especially every officer, and it strikes me that in this copy the journal number is missing. I would like to point this out to the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: This Tribunal is conscious of the fact that this is a copy taken from the files as found by the American or Allied authorities. It will be accepted for such probative value as the court feels that it should receive, and it is better with the understanding.
MR. DENNEY: Major Hatfield, will you mark it No. 4, NOKW-III. This is dated April 27, 1941 and as has been indicated it is a copy. It is offered as against the defendant von Weichs, Paragraph 2, No. 2, of this order provides "I expect every instance of resistance to be broken with ruthless force. Every person encountered resisting or fleeing with weapon in hand, is to be shot dead immediately; persons surrendering are to be handed over to courts martial or summary court martial to be judged immediately."
Then they speak of the decree dated 2 April, sent forth by the Commander in Chief of the Corps Army, and hereafter, "furthermore, hostages are to betaken, who are to be shot in case further enemy resistance should occur. Any consideration shown by the German troops is interpreted as weakness and is a mistake.
"The disarming and pacification of the areas assigned to the divisions, is to be varied out with extremes care and in compliance with Corps order No.8. The divisions will mop out the areas combed through by the troops and note down the respective dates."
Then the third paragraph speaks of, "The new frontier between the German 2nd Army and the Royal Italian Second Army as ordered by the Commander of the Second Army, von Weichs, as well as the necessary measured for the evacuation of the area occupied by the German troops thus far and its transfer to the Italians, and also for the salvaging of loots from these areas."
And, typed on the copy that we have is the Commanding General, signed von Kotzfleisch. He was at that time the Commanding General of the XIth Corps which was under the 7th Army which was commanded by the defendant then Field Marshall von Weichs.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I am extremely sorry that I have to make such frequent interruptions but it is my duty to do this. I have just found a relevant mistake in translation. I point to Paragraph 2, first passage which reads in German which is the basic text: "In areas of unrest further hostages are to be taken whose execution by shooting has to be applied for in case of further resistance. The translation reads: "Who are to be shot in case of further enemy resistance should occur." The translation says they should be shot. In English, it is translated "who should be shot" which in the German text it says expressly the shooting of whom should be applied for. The German version means something else than that which can be seen from the English text. I would ask that this translation is to be corrected.
MR. DENNEY: Your Honor, as we can probably anticipate some of these translation difficulties from time to tine occur and perhaps Dr. Laternser and I can get together out side of court and work them out to our mutual satisfaction. If not then we can bring them into court and he can say what he thinks the Germans means and I, through someone who knows German better than I, can say what I think it means and the court can decide what it means.
I think we can work it out satisfactorily.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me the translation which is presented should be accepted at this time and if it is not a correct translation then the defense counsel can so indicate in its presentation of its case in chief. We cannot and should not at this time engage in some arguments as to translation. I believe that is a defensive matter which should receive consideration by the defendant at such time that it cares to present its case.
MR. DENNEY: May I further make the statement that if counsel for the prosecution and the defense can agree on the translation that of course will solve the problem and it will be helpful to the court and may I suggest that before we give any further time to this matter that we try to work this out between the respective counsel and avoid any further time now.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Your Honor, may I still say something quite briefly. Of course I agree with the counsel of the prosecution that translation should be gone through by us beforehand and we should agree upon them; but I want to avoid something, and I would like your Honor to take this into consideration. A wrong translation if once submitted to the Tribunal will give the Tribunal a false idea of certain orders. Your Honor, I think it would be more difficult for the defense counsel to eliminate a wrong impression once it is there; than to prevent a wrong impression to a rise at all. I would prefer the latter. Checking the translation of important documents beforehand we could avoid difficulties. Before submitting documents the translation should be agreed upon by the prosecution and the defense and this would allow the trial to go on without disturbances.
MR DENNEY: If Your Honor pleases, with reference to the suggestion that the prosecution and defense agree on translations beforehand, that I believe is a practical impossibility.
We have people who are translating these documents, some of whom are in our division, some of whom are in the translation division which is a common pool, or rather a joint pool, for everyone in the court house, including various other divisions. In addition the defense, the people for the most part, are German speaking. Now, I would suggest in line with Your Honor's ruling that if they quarrel with a translation that they bring it up as part of their case in chief by way of defense; at anytime we will be available after court to discuss particular translations with them, and see if we can work something out; But it a ruling such as that is made that we must clear everything with the defense at first, it will prolong the trial.
THE PRESIDENT: The court has indicated its attitude in connection with this matter and it is the suggestion of the members of this Tribunal that counsel endeavor to carry out the suggestions as made. Counsel may make the objection and then if they later wish to raise the same question in the case in chief in the presentation of the defendants' case they may do so. But, the court cannot be liable for translations. I wish that I were able to but that would be impossible. The Tribunal will take a recess for 15 minutes at this time.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Denney, before you proceed with the presentation of any other exhibits, the Tribunal wishes to rule on the exhibit marked Exhibit 4A. This exhibit will not be admitted unless it is connected with some particular individual or is shown to have been signed by someone who is connected with this case or in some other way can be further connected with the issues that are involved in this particular trial; the ruling being, therefore, that the objection is sustained, unless it is show that it was issued by someone in authority who had the right to issue it.
MR. DENNEY: Your Honor, we are having a search made of the I.M.T. records. I should like to call Your Honors' attention to the Ordinance VII, Article 9, which has to do with these tribunals, it being that "the Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. They shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of any of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various Allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military or other tribunals of any of the United Nations."
THE PRESIDENT: The ruling as made will stand, subject to such further presentations as the prosecution may wish to make in connection with it.
MR. DENNEY: As Your Honor pleases.
The prosecution offers, as Exhibit 5, NQKW-1198, which is a copy of an order from the Commander-in-Chief of the 2nd Army, Weichs, with an additional order from the Commander of the 11th Corps. This is dated 28 April 41 and the Court's attention is directed to the fact that this was at about the time that Jugoslavia capitulated as well as Greece and these units were in Jugoslavia.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, before this document is submitted, I want to have a look at it.
Mr. President, I have to object to this document insofar as it con tains a copy of the order of Field Marshal von Weichs.
This document, as far as it concerns von Weichs' order, is also a mere subsequently prepared copy, i.e. not a carbon copy of the original. This subsequent copy contains the same mistake and the same sources of mistakes as in the case of the other documents for which I have already presented my reasons for objection. You will notice immediately that this order has no number at all.
I maintain that it cannot possibly be a complete copy because a copy that is signed by the Supreme Commander of an army group must have an index number (Briefgruppennummer). Whether this copy has been prepared correctly I cannot tell. I especially don't know whether the photostat was made in such a way that the factual connection is maintained with page 2, that on page 2, that part which has been signed by General Kotzfleisch, that I don't know; whether it is one page or one sheet or whether it is two, this is not clear from looking at the photostat.
As the prosecution apparently sets great store by this order, we must be especially careful in finding out whether such a copy can be accepted as a document.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection as made will be overruled.
MR. DENNEY: It is requested that this be marked Exhibit 5 in evidence, Document NQKW-1198. Your Honors, please, this is a copy in the first instance and I might point out to the Court that on the photostat which has been offered the signature which appears on page 15 of Kotzfleisch is actually on the photostat in evidence and these are two consecutive pages. The certification accompanying the document will show it if Your Honors at a later time care to look at it. The Commander -the order is from the Commander-in-Chief of the 2nd Army, dated Army Headquarters 28 April 1941.
"Order.
"The increase of treacherous surprise attacks on German soldiers necessitates the severest reprisal measures. Only immediate and ruthless action guarantees the maintenance of peace and security and prevents the formation of bands.
"1) A detachment from a division was sent to carry out the disarming of a Serbian village. The commanding officer with another officer and a sergeant were riding ahead and were attacked by a band of Komitatshi (in Serbian uniform). The commanding officer was shot dead and his companions were severely wounded. This event causes the following statements:
"a) After the conclusion of the armistice there is no Serbian soldier in the entire Serbian area who is authorized to carry weapons.
"b) Who, nevertheless, is encountered in Serbian uniform carrying a weapon puts himself outside of international law and is to be shot to death immediately.
"c) If in an area an armed band appears, the men who are capable of bearing arms who are found in the vicinity of the band are also to be shot to death, if it is not immediately determined without doubt that they had no connection with the band.
"d) All persons shot to death are to be hung up and their corpses are to be left hanging.
"e) The arresting of hostages after a surprise attack is a mistake and may in no case enter into consideration. Rather one must act only according to points 'a' - 'd'."
Those are the four points listed prior to the one statement about these hostages.
"2) As a preventative protection for the troops against such treacherous surprise attacks, I order:
"a) In the area not yet pacified one may not march without security patrols, especially not without flank patrols.
"b) In billets in such areas security measures are to be taken similar to actual conditions in the field.
"c) Within the areas of the division motorized detachments (use of motorized convoys) are to be in readiness; they are to be on call at any time, in order to be able to carry out security and reprisal measures.
"d) In the endangered villages, posters are to be hung up, which draw the attention of the population to the serious consequences of surprise attacks (the posters will be sent separately)."e) In every village occupied by the troops in the endangered area hostages are to be taken immediately (from all classes of the population) who are to be shot to death and hung up after a raid.
This measure is to be made known in the villages immediately.
"3) If raids on the troops occur, the commanders of divisions must examine closely whether guilt lies with the leader of the units concerned.
"In the divisional reports concerning surprise attacks it must be always reported immediately if and how the surprise attacks were avenged, by ruthless measures."
Typed on the copy which has been submitted is "Signed, Freiherr von Weichs".