In the ensuing vote General Speidel was elected unanimously as an ordinary member of the Archeological Reich Institute. It was and is a particularly glorifying distinction for a non-expert and non-scientist, such as it was only rarely conferred during the long history of the Institute. To me personally, who as the only one of the members of the central administration present knew the general personally, this honor bestowed on the General appeared as the finest appreciation of the genuine philhellenism of that noble man."
I recommend the other passages of the affidavit to the judicial notice of the Court.
The next document which I offer is Speidel Document No. 28, which may be found on Pages 52 and 53 of Document Book III, and it is offered as Speidel Exhibit No. 51. This is an affidavit given by Hans von Huelsen, who is a writer. He, for many decades, was an intimate friend of Gerhart Hauptmann, the world-famous poet, who died in 1946 and who heard much about relations with and the well-nigh paternal affections of the poet, Gerhart Hauptmann, for General Speidel. I recommend this document to the judicial notice of the Court. For the final document in this connection I would like to offer Speidel Document No. 32, which may be found on Pages 61 and 62 of Speidel Document Book II. This document is offered as Speidel Exhibit No. 52. It is an affidavit by Christiane von Stuenzner, who, between June 1942 and December 1943, was a secretarytypist on the staff of Military Commander Southern Greece, and later on the staff of the Military Commander Greece. This, again, I recommend to the judicial notice of the Tribunal.
Q Now, General, I shall start on the concluding chapter--the conference and the checking up of details, such as you are charged with by the Prosecution, and all the other details of your attitude towards the Greek people and the Greek area were necessary. But this conference and checking up makes it only too easy to push the more basic principles into the background, which were uppermost in your own mind and in the minds of the military leadership in Greece.
The Balkan Theatre of War brought with it methods of warfare which in that form, I am sure, are quite unique. How can you explain that phenomenon?
A In the course of this trial the term "barbarizing of warfare" has been coined. The barbarizing of warfare is in my mind quite generally a compulsory consequence of total warfare, total warfare and technological warfare looded at by the broadness of the world have found their most visible expression in the mass destruction of human lives in air-raids; the question of military necessity or non-necessity may be left out for the time being. If that sense and looking at it from this comparative point of view warfare became barbarous in the Balkans without any doubt. However, only too easily are people tempted to misjudge international relations mixing up cause and effect. The measures we took in the Balkans were not done for their own sakes. They were always reactions to the actions committed by others, namely, the reactions to the actions by the population. These actions led to franc-tireur warfare on a broad basis. Both methods of warfare aerial warfare and the turning of a whole population into franc-tireurs was not provided for by the Hague Conventions for Land Warfare. In other words, the factual developments of warfare overtook formal, set down legal provisions. That is to say, the basis in International Law of both types of warfare was to say the least somewhat unstable.
Q Were the methods chosen by German war leaders in the Balkans conditioned by military necessity?
A Military necessity behind all measures but in particular, of course, behind reprisal measures existed a priori by the fundamental task which confronted us, i,e. to defend ourselves against the outside. The basic condition for that, however, was security, law and order in the interior of the country. As military methods as such cannot prevent murder, sabotage and surprise attacks, reprisal measures become inevitable, but also independent of how strong the units were because no military leader can sit with his hands in his lap when Ms soldiers are being murdered without trying to protect himself against such methods.
This was also realized by the generals on the Allied side when they threatened reprisal measures and carried them out. But there are two fundamental differences here. The first difference is when the Allied generals threatened or carried out reprisal measures, they were superior in their forces without any doubt and victory was within their grasp. This, my assertion, could be contradicted by the fact that reprisal measures are a consequence of too weak forces, and therefore there is an interrelation between those two facts; and the second difference is that in this case the German population was war-weary and lacking in discipline, with the result that these reprisal measures did not have to be taken in full. But in the Southeast the activities indulged in by the population inevitably led to the Wehrmacht being forced to carry out these measures.
Q General, you said just now that generals on the Allied side did not only threaten to carry out reprisal measures, but that they actually did carry them out. Can you supply any proof for this assertion?
A Yes, I know a few cases.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honor please, I object to that question This proceeding is not concerned with any reprisal measures which were carried out upon the Allied side.
DR. WEISGERBER: If the Tribunal please, may I make a very brief statement? In this trial the question whether the seizure of hostages and the killing of hostages are justified, is a highly important one. The prosecution alleges that the seizing and killing of hostages was not legal under international law. If I, on behalf of my client, cite a case based on affidavits and sworn documents where the Allies carried out reprisal measures and shot hostages, then the analyzing of that event is of great importance to this trial. I at least regard it as my duty as a defense counsel, to look sufficiently after the interests of my client by describing here in this trial in open court what actually happened in at least part of the Allied Armies.
THE PRESIDENT: The evidence will be received for such value as it may be determined it should receive.
DR. WEISGERBER: If the Tribunal please, I beg to offer from Document Book Speidel number 4, Speidel Document No. 64 which may be found on page 18 of that document book. I shall give the document Speidel Exhibit Number 53. This is an official statement by the office of the Mayor of Reutlingen in Wurtemberg and this is what it says:
"Office of the Mayor of Reutlingen, Reutlingen, 25 November 1947. On 24 April 1945 four hostages were shot in Reutlingen by French combat troops. Entry is made in the death register of which a single copy will be made.
"The troops delivered a proclamation to the provisional German administration in the French and German language to be printed and posted in the city district of Reutlingen. The proclamation was posted, a fine amounting to 200,000 marks in cash, payable within a few hours, was imposed to the city administration.
"The city administration did not receive official information about the shooting of hostages. This official confirmation is made to be submitted as evidence to the Military Tribunal 7 in Nurnherg.
Stamp: City of Reutlingen."
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I object to the admission of this document. It is not a sworn statement. It does not comply with rule 21 of the Uniform Rules of Procedure.
DR. WEISGERBER: May I make a statement about that, Your Honor? This is an official declaration by the office of the Mayor of Reutlingen. Official declarations issued by authorities are not sworn to as a rule, at least not with us in Germany, because the department which in this case issued the declaration, that is to say, the office of the Mayor, is also the police authority and it would hardly make sense to expect an administrative department which holds police authority and represents the police itself, to give a sworn statement as well. But if the Tribunal should not share this opinion, which is completely usual, here in Germany at least, namely, that declarations made by departments and authorities need not be specially sworn to, I shall, of course, be only too glad to furnish an affidavit in the manner in which the Court might wish me to do.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If it please Your Honor, this is simply a piece of paper signed by some man whose authority does not appear anywhere in the document. For all that appears this man might be a citizen of the city of Reutlingen. Nothing appears that he is Mayor at all.
DR. WEISGERBER: If the Tribunal please, in the left-hand corner of this document it says "Office of the Mayor of Reutlingen". That expresses the fact that this is an official document which could not have been signed by anybody. It can only have been signed by somebody who is authorized to issue a declaration on behalf of the Office of the Mayor, and the document submitted by me also shows the stamp of the City of Reutlingen and that makes the statement an official and authoritative declaration by an official department.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honor please, anybody could print out pieces of paper and put on anything he or she wanted to put on. Anybody might get hold of the stamp of the city and put it on any document at all. I submit this document is completely inadmissible.
THE PRESIDENT: It is the thought of the Tribunal that this party signing this statement signs it as an individual and there is no indication that it is issued for and on behalf of any municipality, and if we are to follow the rulings that we have heretofore announced, it is necessary that the objection be sustained. It will not prevent you, Dr. Weisgerber, from submitting it later if and when it is presented in proper form.
DR. WEISGERBER: The next document is Speidel Document Number 65, offered as Speidel Exhibit 54. It may be found on page 19 of the document book number 4. This is a certified copy of a death register issued by the official in charge of the registrar's office in Erpfingen, and this is what it says: "Reutlingen, 18 May 1945, the carpenter Jacob Schmid -
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I repeat my objection to this document. It is the same as it was to the preceding one. We don't know the authority of the man signing the document, don't know what his office is. For all that appears here it is a piece of paper signed by an unknown individual.
DR. WEISGERBER: May it please the Tribunal, I have this to say about that. This again is an official document issued by the registrar's office of the city of Reutlingen. It shows the stamp, registrar's office in Reutlingen, and that in German eyes makes it a document with full probative value. I really can not see why this document should not have the same legal significance which would be given by all other documents if and when they show that the person concerned here, namely, carpenter Jacob Schmid, was shot on 24 April 1945 at 1600 hours as a hostage.
But should the Court hold the view in this case that this document does not comply with the complete requirements of this Tribunal, I would be grateful if this document could be admitted temporarily and I shall here, as in all the other cases, supplement the declaration with the required clause, namely, that the contents of that document have been given in lieu of oath.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honor pleas, this document was simply signed by a man named Mandel who claimed that he is the registrar. We have no reason to believe that he is or is not unless some further proof is introduced.
DR. WEISGERBER: If the Tribunal please, I am not informed as to how these things are handled in the United States, as far as statements made by official departments are concerned. It is, however, my view that declarations made by public authorities which show the official stamp need not also be supplemented by an affidavit or sworn statement that the contents are correct in order to acquire full probative value. I should also like to call to mind the custom observed by the military government of the United States in Germany.
Those departments are always quite satisfied with a registrar's document which is usual in Germany and which we have in front of us now and it always is regarded as a fully valid certificate before the military government of the United States in Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: It is the judgment of the Tribunal that the correctness of this document and similar documents should be shown in a manner which would meet the requirements of the rules as previously set down.
DR. WEISGERBER: I shall then at a later date offer these documents in the form in which the Tribunal desires, but it might be expedient in order to keep the presentation of my evidence in a continuous form to admit the documents which I am about to offer temporarily by the Tribunal with the proviso that I shall later on supplement these documents with the sworn statement.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't believe that is advisable, Dr. Weisgerber. Until such time as they are actually admitted, they should not receive the designation of even a temporary admission or that they are temporarily admissible.
DR. WEISGERBER: Then I shall not read these documents today, but I should be grateful if at a later period of time in this trial, I might submit these documents during the presentation of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: If it is presented in the proper manner while this Tribunal is in session, why we will give them such consideration as the Tribunal considers it merits at that time.
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q. I should now like to offer Speidel Document No. 69 which may be found on page 27 of Speidel Document Book No. 4 and it is offered as Speidel Exhibit 53. This is an affidavit by a photographer called Karl Nacher of Reutlingen which he gave on 25 November 1947, and this is what it says:
"On 20 April 1943 the French entered Routlingen.
At once a guard was placed in the town-hall, the former electric power plant building.
On the morning of the 24 April, towards 10 o'clock my father-in-law the carpenter Jakob Schmid, born on 24 July 1880 had some business to do in the town-hall in connection with a delivery of timber to the municipality. He never returned from that journey.
Instead, a man from Reutlingen called on us already before lunch in our home. He told us, he was coming from my father-in-law, who sent us the message that he had been detained as a hostage. His wife should visit him. Nobody thought, at first, of an execution by shooting. Nothing yet was known to us of the alleged murder of a French soldier during the night of 22/23 April 1945.
Thereupon, my mother-in-law went immediately to the town--hall. After her return she too did not tell us more than that my father-in-law had been detained as a hostage. We heard nothing more in the course of the day. My mother-in-law wanted to visit her husband another time in the afternoon but did not find him any longer.
A neighbor too tried to see him in the afternoon and failed.
In the later afternoon the parish priest Keiner called on us, told us that my father-in-law had been shot, and brought a last letter from him. This letter I accepted myself. My father-in-law wrote that he was innocent and did not know why he would he shot.
In fact, my father-in-law had no left the house during the night from the 22 to 23 April.
Next day a bill was posted in various places at Routlingen containing, in French and in German, the following announcement:
Lst French Army Military Command.
A french soldier was murdered at Reutlingen during the night from 22 to 23 April.
The people responsible for this deed have been shot. A fine of 200-000 Mark has been imposed on the municipality.
Civilians must from now on remain indoors between 18 hours and 9 hours.
Should a new attack be made on our troops, a new military operation will be undertaken against the town.
Signed The Commandant."
End of quotation.
I myself have seen and read the poster.
Reutlingen, 25 November 1947.
Duly signed: Carl NAEHER.
Duly signed and certified by the notary.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honor please, I ask that the reference in this affidavit to an alleged announcement by the French Army Military Command be stricken. It is complete hearsay; the best evidence rule is violated. If the man was able to give an exact text of the order we certainly should be able to have the announcement itself brought here and introduced into evidence. Finally, I should like to point out that there seems to be an inconsistency between a person being shot as a hostage as is alleged in the affidavit, and being shot because he was responsible for having committed the deed, which the announcement states.
Finally, the whole document itself seems to be completely irrelevant and immaterial and has no probative value regarding the charges alleged in this indictment.
DR. WEISGERBER: If the Tribunal please, may I point out here that the affiant does not refer to the announcement poster merely from hearsay. He states that this announcement was posted publicly in Reutlingen. He himself read it with his own eyes; and in this affidavit he gives us the contents of this announcement verbatim. I myself have included the contents of that proclamation in my next document and the announcement contained in Document No. 70 coincides verbatim word by word with what the affiant says in his affidavits. In other words, the prosecution are attempting to say that the witness merely says something which he has heard from hearsay. No. It is the original text of the announcement; It begins "First French Army Military Command" and ends with the signature of the commandant. This in other words is the original version of the announcement such as the witness has seen himself and which he puts down in writing here.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Dr. Weisgerber intends to introduce as an original document a copy of the announcement of the French Army Military Command which the affiant mentions in his affidavit, I will of course withdraw my objection on that ground. I maintain, however, that the whole matter of this affidavit and any alleged announcement by the French Army Military Command are completely irrelevant and immaterial. I don't know whether Dr. Weisgerber is attempting to maintain that because the French Army allegedly shot hostages that that is a defense for his client or any of the other defendants in this case for having executed hostages in Greece and Yugoslavia.
THE PRESIDENT: That part of the affidavit which is based on hearsay -and a portion if not a goodly portion of it is based on hearsay--will be sustained, and that which refers to this proclamation particularly seems to be based on hearsay. The Tribunal has the desire to be liberal in its rulings on evidence, particularly in this type of a case; but on the other hand, we must necessarily follow general rules which would be followed in any court in any country and that being true, the objection as to portions of this document being hearsay will he sustained.
The motion as to the proclamation will he sustained. As to the objection that it is immaterial, that portion of it will he overruled. It seems to me it goes to the question as to whether there is a settled rule on the question of hostages and reprisals. You nay proceed with that ruling.
DR. WEISGERBER: If the Tribunal please, may I make a very brief remark in this connection. I am bound to assume that what I have said just before the ruling of the Court was perhaps misunderstood. The Tribunal has taken the view that the affiant quotes this announcement from hearsay only, but I said that the affiant has read tho poster himself and therefore knows this poster from his own personal observation and not from hearsay, and therefore included it in his affidavit.
Nothing else can be construed from this affidavit to tho effect that the affiant knows the announcement only from hearsay. I should like to ask the Court whether perhaps was misunderstood just before the Court's ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think you were misunderstood. This is not the best evidence of what this proclamation, what it may be. This ruling of the Tribunal will be followed.
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q General, I shall now come to another question which has played a not unimportant part in this trial. In this trial the term of military obedience has played a part or rather question whether there are limits of military obedience and where these lines of debarkation start and where do they end. What is your own opinion particularly in regard to O.K.W. orders for the southeast?
A With regard to tho problem of obeying an order I should like to state that every army is based on obedience, every army without exception. Orders and obedience to these orders is the basic condition for discipline and leadership. If you doubt your leaders, if you refuse to follow orders, if you criticize measures taken by higher quarters, thus create a criterion for discipline. In any army there will be doubts, which will be voiced from lower down to higher up, but where does the line begin, or to express it more concretely, where does the duty begin to oppose orders? Let us take a British or an American regimental commander who in war time refuses to obey because he disagrees with an order which came down from his divisional commander.
Can anyone higher up do the same? Because if a higher officer is disobedient that entails that the lower officers are also disobedient. In wartime to refuse orders is a crime against your own troops.
Q Did your not have the possibility to evade the carrying out of orders which you thought went too far, by the manner in which you had them carried out?
A What one could do was to interpret orders according to their meaning and apply them as such. That is to say one could modify them where it was possible, or adjust them to the actual conditions. But there one came across a limit. Tho line was where disobedience became the end of discipline -- if an order was extended not because of consequences to ones own person, but for reasons of discipline.
Q Apart from military deliberations were there any legal possibilities for disobeying orders?
A What you call legal discipline is feasible and justified on the basis of paragraph 47 of the German Military Penal Code, which has been mentioned here before. This legal disobedience, as I am inclined to call it, however, presupposes the realization that the order intends a crime, that realization I never had nor do I believe that anybody else did. Even if that realization had materialized, legal disobedience would lead to the elimination of the General concerned, but it would not have eliminated the order given. That was a consequence of dictatorship.
Q These deliberations of your show me that a military leader in the southeastern area, and not only there but all over the Third Reich, had no alternative but to obey the orders.
A I would say that time and again it is the tragedy of a German general that he faces this dilemma in his mind. If he disobeys the order, then he faces his own court martial, if he obeys the order then he is sitting in Nurnberg today, what he did it was wrong because in the final analysis we were not concerned with confidence or mistrust in the highest leadership, we were concerned with the survival of the German people.
We did not wage this war for Herr Hitler, we waged it for the nation, to resuce it from a situation, which we soldiers of all people certainly did not wish.
Q This obedience towards orders from higher quarters led to those measures, which are at the bottom of the indictment. In this case was obedience a problem in itself or were any other ethical motives connected with it?
A What I have to say about this could perhaps be understood only by a soldier. To obey all orders, and in this specific here, to obey reprisal orders did not have a negative purpose, that is to say the purpose of extinguishing the population of the occupied areas, it had the only purpose of protecting our own soldiers. It is every military leaders most noble duty to do everything in his power for his soldiers, that was the motive behind our actions. Our soldiers were loyal behind us and we generals protected them, that was our moral duty, and also our fate.
Q If the Tribunal please, this brings me to the end of the direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other defense counsel who wish to interrogate the defendant?
We will take up the cross-examination then in the morning. The Tribunal will be in recess at this time.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 16 December, 1947.)
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Wilhelm List, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 16 December 1947, 0930, Justice Burke, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal V. Military Tribunal V is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you will ascertain if all the defendants are present in the Courtroom.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present in the Courtroom with the exception of Defendant von Weichs who is in the hospital.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Burke will preside at this day's session.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may cross-examine, Mr. Fenstermacher.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Thank you, Your Honor.
WILHELM SPEIDEL - Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q General Speidel, during your period in Greece you were a Lieutenant General?
A When I went to Greece, I was a General of the Air Force.
Q In the American Army I believe that corresponds to a threestar General?
A Yes.
Q That is to say, there were only two ranks above you--the rank of "Generaleberst" which General Rendulic held, and then the rank of "Field Marshal?"
A Yes.
Q I would like, first, to discuss with you the period during which you were Commanding General of Southern Greece-that is to say, Court No. V, Case No. VII.
during the period of September 1942 until August or the beginning of September 1943. Would you look, first, at Document Book IX, at Page 81 in the German and Page 74 in the English? That is a report written by General Foertsch on the 15th of December 1942; and at the end, in Paragraph "g" he talks about the employment of the civilian population. In the preceding Paragraph "f" he talked about the employment of the civilian population for the security and patrolling of railroad tracks.
Was that done during the time you were Commanding General of Southern Greece, in the area under your command?
A Yes, that happened during the time when I was Commander Southern Greece, but I have explained here for what territory in Southern Greece I was responsible. The territory of Gorgopotamus bridge does not fall into this territory.
Q Well, I'm wondering whether you used civilians to patrol railroad lines in the area under your command.
A Pardon, I didn't quite get the transmission.
Q Did you use civilians to patrol the railroad lines which were under your control?
A In that connection I can only say that I had nothing to do with the repair of any of the railroad tracks on that bridge, and I was really not concerned with the securing of railroad tracks at all.
Q My question is a little broader than this report. This report speaks of the railroad lines near the Gorgopotamus bridge, but I'm wondering whether you used civilians to patrol the railroad lines which were under your area of command, as Commander of Southern Greece.
A I cannot remember that civilians were employed for the patrolling of the railroads in Southern Greece. The guarding of the railroad system in Southern Greece was a matter of the Italians at the time.
Q How about the railroad lines in and about Piraeus, the Port of Athens? Did you use civilians to guard those tracks?
A I really cannot recall that the line Athens-Piraeus was guarded at all. I cannot remember that the civilians were employed Court No. V, Case No. VII.
for that purpose.
Q If they had been employed would you have remembered that?
A I really cannot say. That is a conditional question, and I really can't answer it.
Q Now, would you look at your own Document Book No. III, at Page 58? This is your report, as Commander of Southern Greece, dated the 10th of January 1943. You referred at some length to this during your direct-examination because, as appears on Page 61, you yourself ordered the execution of fifteen hostages in Athens and three further hostages on the Island of Salamis in reprisal for attempts at sabotage. Isn't it true, General Speidel that in spite of the four or five attempts at sabotage, in reprisal for which you ordered the execution of these eighteen hostages, no damage whatever was done as a result of those attacks?
A There is mention made here of quite a number of sabotage acts, and I don't know to which you are referring.
Q Well, let's go over each one of them, beginning on Page 58. On the 30th of December 1942 there was an attack, and as appears from the fifth line, no damage was done. Under Paragraph 2 there was an attack on the night of the 30-31 of December 1942; the attempt failed. The next page, there was an attack on the 31st of December; an attempt to sabotage, the attackers fled. There is no report there of any damage having been done. Under Paragraph 4 there was an attack on the 4th of January; no damage was done. On the 6th of January there was another attack; no damage was done. Under Paragraph 6 an attack on 3 January-rather a magnetic mine discovered on 3 January. If the mine had been discovered I take it no damage was done. Under Paragraph 7 there was a leak in a ship, and the perpetrators had not been caught. I take it there might have been some damage done. As a matter of fact there probably was some damage done, but that particular attack had nothing to do with the attack on the search light, for which the hostages were executed, did it? In all the mention made here of the attack upon the Court No. V, Case No. VII.
light house at Salamis, in reprisal for which the 18 hostages were executed, there appears to have been no damage accomplished.
A First of all, you cannot take these individual acts here separately, but you have to consider them as an entity--as a general plan. I have already said that during my direct-examination. As to Salamis itself from these individual notes it does not become apparent that damage was done; however, I have already said that this only constituted the continuation of preceding sabotage acts, during which sentries were shot at. In other words, these were a number of sabotage acts committed for a certain purpose, and they were in an inner connection with these sabotages on sea. The reason why sabotage on sea was particularly dangerous I have already explained in detail during my direct-examination.
Q If these attempts at sabotage were all part of a general plan, why didn't you mention that fact in your report?
A Why, at that time, in this report, I did not make mention of that fact, I cannot say today. In this report I did not make any judgment on the situation, but I merely reported on the facts.
Q It would have been a rather important fact for your superior officer to know, would it not, if such had been the case?
A I really did not have to report these matters to my superior agency as something new. The situation at that time was such that every attack on navy bases had to be considered as being in connection with English operations. All these symptoms were, at that time, within the framework of our judgment on the situation. It constituted nothing new at all.
Q If you wanted to protect the light house on the Island of Salamis from attack and damage why didn't you use more guards instead of executing hostages?
A We were not concerned with a light house, but we were concerned with search lights of the troops. The troops were attacked, their equipment and their defense installations. The occupation of the Island of Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Salamis was quite sufficient for guarding it. But even if it was sufficiently protected cunning sabotage units would always undertake surprise raids, be it with or without success.
Q For all you knew, these raids were carried out by British Commando units in full uniform and entitled to make any attacks whatever upon your troops. Isn't that so?
A No, these raids were made by Greek citizens. This becomes apparent from one entry where one of the attackers was injured and died. This was the boatsman. The boatsman in that case could hardly have been a member of the English Commando unit.
Q Well, I think you're referring there to the attack mentioned on Page 59 in Paragraph 5.
A Yes.
Q That doesn't say what nationality the boatsman had, does it?