A That is never done in the German army, never. Those are situations taken from civilian life, not from military life.
Q You just mean the German army now, don't you?
A Yes, of course, the German army; I can't talk about any other army.
Q When you talk about military life you talk about military life of the German army.
A Well, yes.
Q You said it was taken from the civilian sector and not from the military life.
A That expression was perhaps not quite correct.
Q Well, wasn't General Felmy the ranking office down there?
A I have already said that I believed -- but I cannot state with certainty -- that it was General Boehme.
Q So that, Field Marshal List, as to my question as to whether there was a state of anarchy in the 12th Army there between the 15th and the 27th of October, you answer this question to the effect that there was no supreme leader and everybody commanded for themselves.
A You can't say "everybody." The military commanders were independent during that period of time and General Foertsch, I believe, has testified to that effect -- namely, that in answer to an inquiry to the OKW he was given that information. The OKW said for that short period of time they didn't want to appoint an official deputy. The military commanders in their areas were independent. That is no state of anarchy. It is a very clear channel of command. All that happens is that the large area is subdivided into four areas which are now dependent on the OKW directly instead of just the one unit.
Q Would you call that a very customary routine, occurrence, which is nothing new to you after 45 years of military experience or would you say that it was something unusual, Field Marshal?
A I isn't an usual occurrence, and I gave you a similar case, namely, the one of Army Group A, which is even more unusual in this particular instance.
Q And it is even more unusual there because of the war with Russia at that time?
A The war in Russia -
Q I am talking about October 1941.
AAnd I was talking about 1942 when I was Commander-in-Chief of Army A. That is the parallel example that I gave you.
Q I am always discussing our case, the Southeast Case, and I say it is unusual because it was during wartime and it was at a time when the Russian campaign was already taking place, so that the OKW, under certain circumstances, in case of a danger, would have had to make certain preparations, or with the OKW, were the people in the OKW so sure of victory?
A Well, at any time a teletype would regulate matters, or, if the necessity occurred, if there was an emergency or dangers, then I would imagine that General Boehme would have taken that place.
Q What did General Foertsch do during that time? He must have been pleased. Did he have a lot to do? What happened?
A I don't know whether he was pleased. His activity, his official duties, just went on.
Q Who gave orders to him?
A Well, that was a regular official routine and the orders which he received, he received from the OKW, and concerning decisions which the Commander-in-Chief would have had to sign, he would have just put back -- deferred.
Q So that -
A Well, I don't know. I can tell what I did.
Q But you said that he probably received his order from the OKW?
A Yes, of course.
Q During that time, he was not subordinate to you or the General Kuntze but directly to the OKW, is that correct?
A Yes, the Staff of the 12th Army and the Staff of the Armed Forces Commander Southeast was directly subordinated to the OKW.
Q The Commander-in-Chief?
A The whole of the Staff, of course.
Q But only via the Commander-in Chief?
A Yes.
Q The former Colonel Serini, who is today General Serini, is still alive, isn't he?
A Yes, he is.
Q He is a British prisoner of war, isn't he?
A Yes.
MR. RAPP: I have no further questions, your Honor.
DR. LATERNSER: If your Honors please, I will be finished almost immediately. I have only got two or three questions.
EXAMINATION BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q Field Marshall, would you have been entitled to appoint your own deputy for the leadership of the 12th Army?
A No.
Q Who could do that?
A Only Hitler.
Q And one last question. Were you, after General Kuntze had been commissioned as deputy and as the leader of the 12th Army, were you his superior?
A No.
DR. LATERNSER: I have no further question.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, the last thing I would like to do during these proceedings is to read those parts of Exhibit 664 which the Prosecution has not read, and I quote from page 3. This is Document Exhibit 664.
It is a teletype which has the following text: "KR," followed by a few numbers, "19 October 1941, 1200 hours; to: Chief, General Staff Army. Same text to: Chief Commander -- Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Health of General List still satisfactory."
MR. RAPP: If your Honor please, we do not have more than this one photostatic copy. Merely on the basis of that, I presume -- I suggest that Dr. Laternser mark off the passages he would like to have read and give it to the Court Interpreter. Otherwise, I would have to stand up here and read down his neck and read it together with him, which I wouldn't like to do."
DR. LATERNSER: I agree to both these suggestions.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well. "To err is human; to forgive, divine."
DR. LATERNSER: I beg your pardon, your Honor, I had to mark the passages so that we can start now.
"Headquarters, the 18th of October 1941 --"
INTERPRETER: I beg your pardon. I am going to start with the same document that Dr. Laternser started with.
"NOKW-2870, Exh. 664.
Page 3: Teletype. Date 19 Oct. 1941.
Text: "Kr -- Same text to Chief, OKW State of health Field Marshal List further satisfactory.
Expected to be unfit for service for two months, Chief (of Staff), Headquarters 12th Army."
DR. LATERNSER: I beg your pardon. I am just being told that the German text is not to be read.
Page 6: Daily Order Nr. 77 1. Deputy General of the Engineers Kuntze, Commanding General of the XXXXII.
Corps, appointed by the OKH as Acting Commander in Chief of the 12.
Army, is now being commissioned as deputy for Field Marshal List, who is sick, in the latter's capacity as Armed Forces Commander South East.
The Chief of the OKW.
************ Page 8: "Heading:
Armed Forces Commander South East (HZ 12. Army, Dept. Ia)" "Stamp:
Top Secret" Date:
"HZ, 31 Oct. 1941."
"Activity Report for the period from 1 Oct to 31 Oct. 1941."
Page 9----
18 Oct. The Armed Forces Commander South East intended to issue a decree which was to deal with the business channels in the area of jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Commander South East. The issuance has to be despensed with because of the sudden sickness of the Commander in Chief. The Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces Commander in Chief. The Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces Commander South East therefore informed the Chief of Staffs of the XVIII. Corps, of the Commander in Serbia, Saloniki-Aegean, Southern Greece, the LXV. Corps, the General of the Army in Bulgaria, the German General in Zagreb and the Admiral Aegean of the contents of the intended decree.
1. Cases are occurring increasingly, in which official channels are not adhered to. Reports, messages or requests are in many instances sent to the Armed Forces Commander South East under circumvention of the superior agency.
There are also frequent instances in which communications are being sent directly to the Supreme Command Agencies of branches of the Armed Forces under circumvention of the office of the Armed Forces Commander South East, concerning matters which are not of a general military nature.
2. In many cases reports are being sent simultaneously to two agencies which are in a relation of sub-ordination. In this manner, the superior agency is being deprived of the possibility of a comment.
3. Reports or message are being sent to superior agencies "for information" together with a direct communication to a co-ordinated agency. There are to be no communications "for information" to superior agencies, only messages, submissions and reports. For details of this official communications, see appendix 93.
****************** Page 10:
22. Oct: Conference of Chiefs (of Staffs). Subject of the conference: organization of the fortress division Crete and the relief of the 5th Mountain Division. Chief (of Staff) passes on information: General of the Engineer Kuntze was appointed deputy for Field Marshall List, who fell sick, in the latter's capacity as Armed Forces Commander South East and Commander in Chief of the 12th Army.
Page 11: 26 Oct.: Commanding General of the XXXXII. Corps, General of the Engineers, Kuntze, appointed deputy for Field Marshal List, who was taken ill, in the latter's capacity as Armed Forces Commander South East and Commander-in-Chief of the 12. Army, arrived on the air field Tatoi in the afternoon of 26 Oct.
********************** Page 12:
Heading: Armed Forces Commander South East HQ 12th Army, Dept. IIz) Date:
H.Q. 17 Jan. 1942.
Activity Report of Dept. IIa for the period from 1 July to 21 Dec. 1941.
********************* Page 13:
October 17 Oct.
General Field Marshal List taken ill (Sysmanoglion) 27 Oct.
General of the Engineers, Kuntze, Commanding General XXXXII. Corps taken over the affairs as deputy of the Commander-in-Chief.
************************* Page 15:
December.
6 Dec. General Field Marshal List discharged from the military hospital of Sysmanoglion."
If your Honors please, I apologize to the Tribunal that the course of events wasn't quite what I imagined it to be. I just now like to read those texts very quickly in the German language for the record, and that would bring me to the end of that particular subject. Otherwise, the German text would not appear in the German record.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
DR. LATERNSER: I further ask to have pages 17 and 18 of this order included in their record. That is all, if Your Honors please.
Date: "HZ, 18 Oct. 1941."
"To: The Chief of Staffs, etc. of the XVIII. Corps Commander in Serbia Commander Saloniki-Agean Commander Southern Greece
LXV. Corps General of the Army in Bulgaria Admiral Aegean.
The Armed Forces Commander South East, General Field Marshal List, intended to issue a decree which was to deal with the official business channels in the command area of the Armed Forces Commander South East. On account of sudden illness this decree could not be issued. I cite below the contents of the intended decree with the request that this be reported to the Commanding Generals, Commanders, etc.:
1. Cases are occurring increasingly, in which official channels are not adhered to. Reports, messages or requests are in many instances sent to the Armed Forces Commander South East under circumvention of the superior agency. There are also frequent instances in which communications are being sent directly to the Supreme Command Agencies of the branches of the Armed Forces under circumvention of the office of the Armed Forces Commander South East, concerning matters which are not of a general military nature. It is wrong, for instance, to request an allocation of gasoline and fuel directly from the Commander in Chief of the Air Corps.
".. In many cases reports are being sent simultaneously to two agencies which are in a relation of sub-ordination; for instance, the Commandant of the Fortress Crete reports simultaneously to the Commander in Southern Greece and to the Armed Forces Commander South East. In this manner, the superior agency is being deprived of the possibility of a comment.
3. Reports or messages are being sent (Page 18 of the document) to superior agencies "for information" together with a direct communication to a co-ordinated agency.
There are to be no communications "for information" to superior agencies, only messages, submissions and reports.
I know that such occurrences are in most cases the result of ignorance of the relations of sub-ordination or negligence, also that in most of the cases particularly concerning unsigned teletypes, the mistake lies with the individuals working the subject, without the chiefs (of staffs) being informed. However, I herewith request the chiefs (of staffs) to increase their attention to this part of their official agency, for which they are the responsible men in charge, to give detailed instructions to their expert department chiefs and to supervise them. Offenses such as the ones mentioned above increase the difficulties in the official exchange of communications, which, is in any case, a difficult one in the vast area of the Armed Forces Commander South East, they necessitate enquiries, cause trouble and reprimands and delay a factual dealing with the matters at hand.
There is a discipline also in the official exchange of communications, and it is necessary and for all concerned useful to adhere to same.
(Signed): FOERTSCH Col.
, General (Staff) After dispatch COPIES TO ALL DEPARTMENTS of the staff of the Armed Forces Commander South East.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me. I think we ought to take our morning recess at this time, and the recess will only be for 10 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please take their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. FRITSCH: Fritsch for General Rendulic. Your Honor, first of all, I would like to state that with regard to the evidence which I have to bring in surrebuttal, as far as I am concerned, I will need about 20 to 30 minutes. I have already during the submission of Exhibit 673 and 674--I pointed out that I will very soon be able to bring surrebuttal evidence here and I would also like to be allowed to correct a mistake in Document 655 and in this connection I would like to make a short statement.
First of all, I would like to refer to Document 673. This is Document NOKW-069. The prosecution has referred to page 5429 of the English record, and stated, in general, also with regard to this document that it was to be proof of the fact that General Rendulic knew of violations and actions contrary to international law.
I have already pointed out that of course with regard to the Brandenburg Division, also with regard to the subordination relations, this division was under the Second Panzer Army, and also the knowledge of exactly this very document by General Rendulic would enter into the question, and in my opinion, the prosecution should have produced necessary evidence for this, and luckily I am today in a position to bring rebuttal evidence against mere assertions.
Now I would like to offer, and I would ask that this rebuttal evidence be admitted for the subordination relations, an affidavit by Horst Freiherr Reusch von Buttlar-Brandensels, which is Rendulic Document I, being number 31, and is included in my document book.
This document I gave the identification number of 32-A (exhibit no.). And now I would like to ask that this document be introduced as surrebuttal.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I object. I do not believe this is proper surrebuttal. That again forces us to do one of two things: if the affidavit is to be admitted we then will have to get the affiant back here for cross-examination; or if the affiant happened to be in Nurnberg then Dr. Fritsch ought to produce him in lieu of the affidavit.
Aside from the fact that at this time, I don't believe the entire issue is proper surrebuttal, but if the Court rules that it is admissible then we have to back-track over the whole thing again.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, might I make a short statement in this connection? The Tribunal will remember that when I objected to this document 623, and offered already at that time surrebuttal evidence, the same statements were made by the prosecution then. At that time, I was told - and the prosecution also agreed--that the witness was in the neighborhood of Neustadt.
In the meantime, I have found out that this witness is here in Nurmberg at the disposal of the prosecution and has been here since about two weeks, and has been interrogated by the prosecution and I would like to state, of course, that I don't know whether he is being interrogated for this trial. I have only found out that the interrogations are being carried out by Mr. Fred Kaufman was here in the Courtroom and could certainly tell us where the witness is.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, as far as the last statement of Dr. Fritsch is concerned, of course we have no objection to that; just to keep the record straight, the affiant is a very wise man indeed and a very handy man. We have used him repeatedly. He had no connection with this case; he is being interrogated about another case which has nothing to do with this Tribunal whatsoever. Mr. Kaufman also works on about eight other cases; but the problem is whether or not this is proper surrebuttal.
Now the defendant Rendulic has said one thing on the stand. We have confronted him in our rebuttal with the document which we believe speaks for itself. The document was addressed to the Second Panzer Army. Whether he was, whether the Brandenburg Division was in the Second Panzer Army or not, I don't think is at the present time of material issue. The fact is that the defendant Rendulic knew that this particular action was to be planned.
Now if Dr. Fritsch is merely to produce the affiant ButtlarBrandenfels to tell us that the Brandenburg Division was not in the Second Panzer Army, that does not rebut the fact that General Rendulic did have knowledge of what the Brandenburg Division planned and that is the reason we put this document in.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, and I would certainly be in agreement with this statement of the prosecution, and then I would say since the prosecution is talking about this knowledge and thinks this is important and maintains that the defendant Rendulic knew about this letter, this document, then I would ask that I be allowed to call the defendant just for a few minutes into the witness stand in order to put five or six questions to him.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Would that obviate the necessity of the use of the affidavit that you have in mind?
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, from the statement of the prosecution, I gathered that the prosecution, too, no longer asserts the subordination relation. If therefore I work on this assumption, then the only important thing would be the knowledge of this document and then I would not necessarily have to submit the affidavit.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: He may take the stand.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, if I may say something please, we are perfectly willing to stipulate with the defense right now here and then that the defendant Rendulic on the stand will deny it and we can just save that time. In other words, the defendant Rendulic is only going to repeat that to the Tribunal which he already has stated during his direct and cross-examination, and for that point of view we stipulate. We know that he is going to state the same thing, he is going to deny it; and for that reason I don't think anything will be gained.
DR. FRITSCH: Of course, I don't know where Mr. Rapp gets his knowledge about this from, but if he proceeds on this assumptions, then I in his place I would certainly not have submitted this document. In my opinion, the prosecution asserts from this document a knowledge and, therefor, in my position I must be able to introduce surrebuttal evidence. I do not think it is in accordance with the regulations of these Tribunals to accept such statements on the part of the prosecution without proof.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: We have already consumed more time than probably will be required for the witness to give the testimony. It has been the policy of this Tribunal to give each defendant a full opportunity on any matter that he or his counsel deems important in his defense to take the stand and express himself fully. The witness Rendulic will take the stand.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I have one request. It would save a lot of time if I quite briefly touched at once on Document Exhibit 674, because under certain circumstances there too, one or two questions might be necessary for the defendant -- to be put to the defendant in the witness stand.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
DR. FRITSCH: Exhibit 673 - excuse me. 674, this document was also presented by the prosecution for the same reasons as 673. This is Document NOKW-1045. It is a teletype to the 15th Mountain Army from the Second Panzer Army.
This teletype bears the date 1st of January 1944, and as the date of receipt the 2nd of January 1944. Since the prosecution here too asserts a knowledge by the defendant of excesses, I am here in a position immediately to present surrebuttal evidence.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The Tribunal has the document. It is before us. It is unnecessary for you to go into the detail and if you will call the defendant Rendulic, I think it will expedite matters.
(The defendant Rendulic took the witness stand.)
EXAMINATION BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q. General, you know that you are still under oath?
A. Yes.
Q. I now show you Exhibit No. 673.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Fritsch, if you will confine yourself to matters which are purely on surrebuttal?
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, might I ask -- I think that the submission -- might I assume, Your Honor, that the submission of this exhibit to the witness seems to be necessary in order to make things clear for the record?
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
EXAMINATION BY DR. FRITSCH: (Continued)
Q. General, you are in possession of Exhibit No. 673. Please state quite briefly what it concerns.
A. Exhibit 636 is a report of the Brandenburg Division to the Second Panzer Army about one operation planned against Tito.
Q. When did you see this document for the first time?
A. I saw this document for the first time in November 1946 when it was shown to me during an interrogation.
Q. Did you have any knowledge of the contents of this document before this period?
A. No, at that time I stated the following. When I came to a situation conference, the Ic reported that the Division Brandenburg which was obviously not under my command at that time, had planned an operation against Tito. He did not mention details. Further, he stated that the Brandenburg Division wanted to fit this operation into a larger operation which the army had planned against Tito's headquarters. When he saw my rather surprised face, not very pleasantly surprised face, he added that the affair actually had no prospects, whereupon I asked him why. At that time I had already declared all this, and then he answered to me "Because the man who is supposed to carry it out is unsuitable."
Upon my further question as to why, he said to me "Because he is always drunk." Thereupon I told him whether he know any other weak points about this man and whether he could find out anything more about him so that we could get rid of this man, because I couldn't give this man any orders because he wasn't subordinate to me. I couldn't turn him out. After about 24 or 48 hours, he reported to me that a large amount of material was in existence against this man for suspicion of fraud, etc. And then I told the Division Brandenburg to release this man at once and get rid of him because -- and all the material which I had against him I had transferred to the proper quarters.
The division could act no other way than to recall this man and this brought the whole matter to a close. This operation was ordered by Hitler. This paper bears the signature of General von Pfualstein and it is in handwriting as I saw on the original copy which was shown to me in November, 1946. General von Pfualstein was also in Nurnberg. Since 1943 I haven't spoken to him. If he had said anything different than what I state here, then that discrepancy would certainly have been noted here. This document was not submitted to me.
The Ic presumably handled this just so casually that this original copy didn't even bear the initials of my chief of staff, not to speak of mine.
And as regards the subordination relation, the Division Brandenburg was set up for those kinds of operations. The divisional staff was in Berlin and was directly subordinate to the OKW. The troops of the division were in Russia in the Balkans and in Italy. They were tactically subordinate but nevertheless not in such a Brandenburg operation. These operations were ordered by the Division and it cannot be assumed that the Army was to act on the orders of a division, and I would like to come back again to the fact that if I had known this document, it would have been no surrebuttal against the assertion which I maintain, that I know of no action contrary to international law carried out by my troops. The Division Brandenburg did not belong to my troops.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Q And now just one concluding question in this case. Did the operation actually take place?
A No, the operation was not carried out.
Q General, I now show you Exhibit No. 674; did you ever see this teletype?
A No, I neither saw this teletype nor did I obtain any knowledge of it. This teletype, as has already been mentioned, arrived exactly in the middle of my 22 days' leave, and it was sent during this period. This provision comes within the framework of a larger operation which is set down in full in the original. The Commanding General of the 5th SS Corps was appointed my deputy during my leave.
It would have been incompatible with the whole line which I always followed in my command, for me to order an excess of this kind, or would have approved an order of this kind.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, please allow me, in order to support this statement, and especially with regard to the period of leave, to read the paybook of the defendant, in so far as it concerns the assertion that the defendant was absent from a period from about the 19th of December, 1943, until approximately the 13th of January, 1944, and that he was recuperating in Vienna, and therefore, he could not possibly have gained any knowledge of this teletype.
MR. RAPP: This is not proper sur-rebuttal. The defendant had an opportunity to testify this in his first case. We are merely in rebuttal now. Dr. Fritsch at that time should have put it in his direct case.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection will be sustained.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I would just like to make a short statement of two sentences for the record. A presentation of evidence in this respect was not made. I certainly could not know then that the most important period at issue would be the leave period from the 19th of December, 1943, until the 13th of January, 1944, and Court No. V, Case No. VII.
therefore I am only now in a position to refute these statements in sur rebuttal.
I would ask that I might be allowed to put one more question to the defendant.
Q General, I submit you your paybook, -
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I object to this on the same grounds. It is materially no different, how it is being presented to the Tribunal. Dr. Fritsch is putting something into evidence now which he could not get in before. I do not consider that proper sur rebuttal.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I think there is a difference as to whether I submit this pay book as a document, or whether I question the defendant about a document in the witness stand.
MR. RAPP: On the procedural view, I agree with Dr. Fritsch from a probative point of view of the general issues involved, I object.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection will be sustained. It is mere matter of circumlocution to secure the testimony in this fashion, but go ahead.
DR. FRITSCH: Then, of course, I will not read the entry in the pay book, but I would like to put the question to the witness, where did you spend your leave around the turn of the year 19431944?
A I was on leave from the 21st of December, 1943, until the 11th of January, 1944. In addition there were two days taken up for the journey, so then I must also add another two days. I was back again with the Army on the 13th of January.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Was this matter not covered in the direct case; was this not all covered in your direct case?
DR. FRITSCH: Not in direct examination, no. I cannot remember this question. I could not possible concern myself with this at that time, because it was not brought up by the Prosecution.
Therefore, Your Honor, I have no further questions of the Court No. V, Case No. VII.
witness.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
MR. RAPP: With your permission, I would like to ask a very few questions of the witness.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
CROSS EXAMINATION DEFENDANT RENDULIC BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, you mentioned that you wanted to make a very definite point here about the fact that the Brandenburg Division was not subordinate to you, and I would like to ask you why.
A Firstly, in order to have no responsibility here for this action, and, secondly, because I, in my testimony about actions contrary to international law, only talked about my own troops.
Q Witness, the defendant Leyser, when in the witness stand, stated rather on these lines, that parts of the Brandenburg Division, - if I remember correctly, the 1st Regiment, -- was subordinate to him as Commander of the 15th Corps, for tactical purposes, occasionally, and during that period the 15th Corps was always subordinate to you. Is that correct?
A Yes, General Leyser testified absolutely correctly; part of the Brandenburg Division was tactically subordinate, as for instance the IInd Regiment, Brandenburg, for purely tactical assignments, but not for the assignment Brandenburg here.
Q We will come back to this in a minute, General. We are splitting hairs here, isn't that right?
A No.
Q The matter of this information comes from the Brandenburg Division which was the Headquarters office of this unit which is composed of various regiments. One of these regiments was occasionally subordinate to you or to the 15th Corps for tactical purposes. Is that correct?
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
A Yes, that is correct, but the Division which gave this order, or this information here, was in Berlin and had nothing at all to do with me, and could give no orders or nothing at all.
Q General, I realize the fact that you are anticipating what I am trying to say, but for the record, at least, you must give me the opportunity to put the question before you answer it.
Now in this letter there is no mention at all of the fact that this action was planned to be carried out at the strength of a division. The letter merely talks about an action, about an operation. These people, for instance, could also come from that regiment which was subordinate to Mr. Leyser; is that correct? And please only answer this question.
A Well, if I answer this question with "Yes", or "No", then it is wrongly answered. As I have already stated, the operation was certainly not carried out by the strength of a division, but if the operation was even only carried out by two people, then it was an operation of the division, and even if these people came from the regiment, which was subordinate to me, then the regiment was still subordinate to the Division, and therefore the Division would have to take these people from the regiment, and the regiment was acting on orders of the Division.
Q Now why did the Division apply to you and not to somebody else? Why did you receive the letter?
A Well, first of all, the Division knew that if it made such an operation in my area, then, of course, I had to be informed of it, and then the Division needed also various things, and the Army had to help them in this respect, not for the operation, but for other things. There was, namely with the 15th Corps, an instruction course for combatting the bands. Some people of the Brandenburg Division was detached to conduct this course.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I have just been told that the translation was not quite correct. The witness talked about a "few Court No. V, Case No. VII.