This affidavit again has been duly sworn to and properly certified. We now come to Document No. 61 on page 30 of Document Book Geitner No. 3 and it is offered as Exhibit No. 47. This affidavit has been given by Rudolf Hug who is now 62 years of age who in 1943 and 1944 was a Sector Commander in Serbia and who after the attempt on Hitler's life of 20th of July 1944 was dismissed from the Army, as he says, dismissed in fact under the order that he was not allowed to be employed in the Government, Party or Army in any sense.
On page 13 he speaks about the attitude which Geitner took as a matter of principle -- namely, that Geitner regarded the Serbs as the leading and finest people in the Balkans. I merely want to read briefly paragraphs "b," "c" and "d" ------"b" on page 31, and ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the balance of the document.
"Guard posts in my sector were often attacked by Partisans, causing German soldiers to be killed and wounded. Despite this there were no reprisals for these attacks because in Belgrade they tried to circumvent the reprisal measures ordered from above by reporting the German soldiers killed or wounded in such ambushes as "killed or wounded in battle."
"c) The Save boats, which primarily served civilian transportation were often shot upon by the insurgents. Many times this caused casualties among the civilians as well as the soldiers. There were on no occasion reprisals for this.
"d) One of the most active bandit leaders in my sector was the Cetnik leader Nesco Nedic. Herr v. Geitner telephoned me several times and ordered me to tell this man , through middlemen, that "he should cut out this nonsense (meaning the ambush attacks) "In time there followed a certain truce with the group of Nesco Nedic.
In a later personal conversation, Nedic admitted to me that he had called off the ambush attacks later on because he feared the threatened reprisal measures would be carried out."
I shall not read the balance of this document. They merely repeat what other affiants have said about Geitner's personal humane attitude towards the Serbs and particularly towards partisans who had been taken prisoner.
This brings/us to Document No. 62 in Geitner Document Book No. 3 on page 64. This Document 62 is offered as Exhibit 48, Geitner No. 48. This affidavit comes from one Georg Nawrath who was in the Military Area Headquarters at Breslau and served there from 1940 to 1941. This document is offered because it shows that Herr von Geitner did what he could for racially persecuted persons; in other words, in one important point he took up opposition to the National Socialist Ideology thereby endangering his own position.
The affidavit has been properly sworn to and certified. I shall not read it and recommend it to the Judicial notice of the Tribunal.
This is followed by Document 63 on page 36 of the document book, Geitner No. III, which I shall give Exhibit Number 49. This has been given by Prinz Holstein who has also supplied affidavits about other matters. The Prinz, as is well known, was in 1942-1943 an officer on the staff of the Commanding General Serbia and as such well acquainted with conditions in the Balkans. The document furnishes a contribution about the methods chosen by the partisans in their warfare. From paragraph 1 on page 36 I shall read the following:
"In September 1941, shortly after my transfer to the staff of the Commander for Serbia, an order issued by the insurgents fell into the Army's hands. This order commanded that the Germans be fought with every possible means, that they were not to shrink back from murder nor from terrorist measures, etc. at the order of the Commander at that time General of the Air Corps Danckelmann, copies were made of this order, the copy certified by me, and they were distributed down to the companies, in part by dropping them from airplanes."
Then I shall read from paragraph 2 of this affidavit, where the witness from his own observation speaks about how commando troops were being dealt with in direct contrast in what is known as the Commando Order which in many cases was only a scrap of paper. About this point the affiant says as follows in paragraphs 2 and 3. This is on page 37:
"In the witner of 1941/42 (I can no longer give the exact time) a British intelligence and sabotage team was captured which had landed by parachute in the Sarajevo area. Strength: 1 major (whose name I have forgotten) with 3 men. Although all had civilian clothes with them and by their own admission intended to disguise themselves, they were , after being interrogated by myself and the SD, to whom the persons concerned had to be referred for interrogation according to orders, shipped to Germany as prisoners of war and not treated as spies or franctireurs. The major went to the air force camp in Oberursel. Later after the German surrender he was questioned as a witness about the treatment of prisoners of war in Oberursel."
And in paragraph 3 the witness says:
"3. The order for the annihilation of enemy sabotage and commando units was passed down in writing from above to the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia during the year 1942. This was also announced at the same time on the German radio. I do not recall that the staff of the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia passed the order on to the subordinate units and offices. At all events, I know of no case in the Serbian area until January 1943 where Allied liaison units attached to the insurgents were "annihilated" in accordance with this order. (I was charged with compiling the daily reports.) The Chief (v. Geitner) flatly rejected any such method of fighting as used against Allied soldiers. In his opinion, if they were seized in civilian clothes they should be brought before a court martial. He was accustomed to expressing these military views of his to young officers, both officially and unofficially, particularly because he had learned things this way during the first world war in the old Bavarian army."
The affidavit of Prinz Holstein has been duly sworn to and properly certified.
This brings us to Document 64 in Document Book Geitner No. III on page 39 of this volume and it is offered as Exhibit 50. The affidavit has been given by Hugo Schroeder, a Bavarian Colonel of 50 years of age. This Colonel for almost two years served from July 1943 to March 1945 in Geitner's immediate neighborhood. He was a liason officer with the Russian Corps in Serbia. Under paragraph I of his affidavit the affiant speaks about the fact that daily he attended Staff conferences with Herr von Geitner which is how he became so closely acquainted with Herr von Geitner's attitude. These statements are really quite interesting but in order to save time I merely ask the Court to take judicial notice of them without my reading it.
MR. RAPP: If your Honors please , I notice in this affidavit that the affiant on nine, possibly ten, occasions, at the very last part of the affidavit , makes reference to his own letters he wrote to his relatives from the front and he excerpts quotations of these letters in here. I would like Dr. Sauter, if he intends to submit such parts, to attach these letters as a record to the affidavit.
DR. SAUTER: I shall come back to this point immediately. I shall read first from figure II on page 40 of this affidavit concerning the experiences made by this Bavarian Colonel Schroeder with Herr von Geitner and the attitude which Herr von Geitner took. Under II this is what the witness says on page 40:
"General von Geitner, like myself, comes from the old Bavarian army. For this reason alone I felt drawn to him from the beginning. With respect to his political attitude, and naturally also with respect to his attitude toward Hitler's war which is necessarily connected with this, he belonged to the large number of old Bavarian officers who were opposed to National Socialism and thereby to the war. After a very . short time I noticed from his speeches and orders that he did not want to have anything to do with the opinions and intrigues which were ordered from higher quarters. Naturally, he was somewhat reticent before me as his subordinate,primarily in all questions concerning politics and the war; however, since I regularly expressed my opinions to him quite openly, after some time he became steadily less reserved and allowed his innermost opinions to become more and more apparent. Since I was still being stigmatized by the Nazis from my service on the Eastern Front as a pessimist and defeatist; I was shortly after the introduction of the National Socialist Educational Officers (NSFO) in the spring of 1944, denounced three times between May and July 1944 to the National Socialist Educational Officer of the Military Commander for the Southeast by the officer assigned to this position on my staff for statements "endangering the State."
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE:Dr. Sauter, Mr. Rapp desires to make an objection, I take it.
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, I object to having any part of this affidavit read into the record before Dr. Sauter answers to my objection I have made. I repeat that this affidavit should not be admitted into evidence until such time that Dr. Sauter had produced the letters the affiant has reference to. I don't see any reason why Dr. Sauter continues to read some parts into the record.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Does the objection you have made go to the portions of the document he is reading?
MR. RAPP: It pertains to the entire document, Your Honor, and Dr. Sauter has already read part of the document into the record.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: What specifically then is your objection?
MR. RAPP: The specific objection, your Honors, is that the affiant makes excerpts of letters which he wrote which may be so or may not be so. In order to save time and not put the witness on the stand for cross examination, I am merely suggesting that the letters which the witness has reference to be produced in full as part of this affidavit , or in lieu of these letters , if these letters are not forthcoming, that part of the affidavit be stricken.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Wouldn't that be the appropriate time to make your objection, when Dr. Sauter offers to make use of the letters or any portions of than?
MR. RAPP: These letters are part of the affidavit that he is already reading. These excerpts I am having reference to are covered in this particular affidavit.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Docs your objection extend to the personal observations of the dependent or does it extend merely to the letters which are referred to therein?
MR. RAPP: The latter part, your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Well, until such time as Dr. Sauter decides to offer any portion that bears on the letters, wouldn't that be the proper time to make your objection?
MR. RAPP: All right, your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed.
DR. SAUTER: I continue on the bottom of page 40, where the witness says: "It was only thanks to General von Geitner's intervention that no difficulties arose for me from this business . If General von Geitner had been a Nazi and an intriguer he certainly would have acted quite differently. General von Geitner always kept within his authority; I am convinced that he neither exceeded his powers nor abused his position.
Because of his human willingness to compromise at all times, which was apparent under all conditions, he enjoyed a high reputation among all the members of his staff, and was generally popular not only with the officers, but also with the non-commissioned officers and enlisted men. " In Paragraph III, the witness continues oh von Geitner's attitude on the basis of his own observations.
I shall continue to read this paragraph, by the way, because it seems to be, to me, particularly important --- on page 41 of his affidavit:
"His attitude to, and his relations with, the Serbs were entirely correct. He saw in them the conquered foe and considered it beneath his dignity as an officer to proceed against defenseless people. He often had to deal with members of the Serbian government, or even with members of the resistance movement of Draga Mihailovic --- the Cetniks. Insofar as possible he met them half way on these occasions and shewed the greatest possible understanding for their often very extravagant wishes. Quite often he was subsequently cheated by his partners in the agreement, in that the latter simply did not adhere to the terms which had been agreed upon. However, he never lost patience with them and only interferred when very important interests cf the German Wehrmacht , or even of the Serbian people , were endangered. Many times I myself have been surprised at his forbearance, particularly towards the Cetniks.
It was General von Geitner's constant endeavor to maintain order and tranquility in Serbia with the use of as little force as possible. I have never noticed even a trace of hatred in him for the Serbs; on the contrary I had the feeling that deep in his heart he had respect for their brave and stubborn resistance and in a certain sense sympathized with them as a soldier. Expressions such as "waging ruthless warfare", "annihilation of the Serbs", and the like I have never once heard pass his lips.
General von Geitner was an outspoken foe of the so-called reprisal measures. He often expressed himself to this effect in the daily staff conferences and also condemned them in personal conversations with myself. I know definitely that he suffered grievously from them in his mind and can still remember well one discussion around the spring of '44 when he remarked that "thank God" under the new policy of Ambassador Neubacher the reprisal measures would now cause."
Particularly instructive is what he says under paragraph 4 concerning various troops and organizations which existed in the Balkans and which fought each other at the point of a knife. However, although they are interesting, I shall not read these statements verbatim in order to save time.
On page 43 to 45 the affiant describes the various organizations and units which faced each other in the Serbian area as enemies. These statements are of assistance if one wants to study conditions in that area at the time. I recommend it to the attention of the Court and I shall then read from page 45 from paragraph V concerning individual cases which he himself experienced. He describes the way in which the partisan units fought so that the Court may form an opinion whether this was a regular army in the sense of the Hague Rules for Land Warfare.
Paragraph V on page 45:
"In general, I want to state that in the Balkan theatre, murder of the civilian population or of prisoners, attacks, distractions, blowing up of (military) objects, atrocities and horrors of all kind, committed by partisans or the civilian population against the occupation power and against their own fellow-countrymen as well as against foreign people, were so much an everyday occurrence that after a short stay in that district, one had to put up with them as a foregone conclusion without further ado.
If I had recorded them, I should be able to cite at least a hundred examples. I have forgotten most of them in the whirl of events during the last years, thus I can only give a few examples which I remember still exactly, either because I experienced than myself or because they came to my knowledge through dispatches of the Russian units to the corps headquarters staff:
"In July 1943 near Veliki Zvornik on the river Drina the Ustascha. drove about 1500 Serbs domiciled in Bosnia, among them about 400 wounded persons , to the western bank of the river Drina in order to drown them in the river, after having entirely destroyed their villages. The units of the 1st Russian regiment, stationed there, ran to the Serbs' assistance from the Eastern bank, freeing them from the hands of the Ustascha, and took them to the Eastern bank. At that time, about 800 persons were given medical care at the first aid station of that regiment.
"2. Also in July 1943, the mounted platoon of the 2nd Russian regiment came to a village in the Homolje-Mountains (North East Serbia) in order to pick up some hay which the Serbian farmers had put at the disposal of the troops by order of their own government. After they had been moved, red partisans attacked the village and burned down the two farms where the hay had been held at the disposal of the troops.
"3. When in December 1943 I was with the Bulgarians, at Uzize, I saw at Rogatica on the river Drin that all places on the Western bank of the river where places on the Western bank of the river were destroyed down to the foundation-walls. To my question referring to this, they told me that this had been done by the Ustascha who had killed all Serbs on the Bosnian bank and had destroyed their villages."
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Sauter , we will take our morning recess at this time.
THE MARSHAL: The Court is in recess until eleven-fifteen.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You nay proceed, Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: On Page 46 of the original, Document Book Geitner III, Document No. 64, I read from paragraph 3:
"When in December 1943, I was with the Bulgarians at Uzize, I saw at Rogatica on the river Drina that all places on the Western bank of the river were destroyed down to the foundation-walls. To my question referring to this, they told me that this had been done by the Ustascha who had killed all Serbs on the Bosnian bonk and had destroyed their villages.
4.) In February 1944, in a village on the rive Save in the North of O b r e n o v a t z, the Serbian maidservant of an officer of the 2nd company in the 5th Russian regiment was forced by threats to quit their service. As she did not respond to that, her husband was kidnapped and has disappeared since that time without leaving any trace.
3.) When, in March 1944, I was the leader of a combat element of about the strength of a division, composed of Russians, Serbs, Bulgarians auxiliary police, Serbian State Guard and Cetniks, the Cetniks simply killed some Tito partisans who had come across the river Ibar North of Raschka, without wasting time in taking them prisoners. To my objection that this was unlawful, they answered with a pitying smile and made me understand that I had no idea about the methods of fighting in the Balkans, and that the same would happen to them if they would fall into the hands of the Reds.
6.) At the beginning of May 1944, some Titopartisans took possession of a proletarian brigade of the village of M r a v i n c i (between V a l j e v e and U z i z e, in the West of Serbia), On that occasion, the first aid station of the 1st Battalion in the 5th Russian regiment fell into their hands. When the village was taken again by the Battalion, all the wounded soldiers, among them one sergeant called S e r e b r a j k o w, had been killed by the partisans. The partisans had written on the wall with the blood of the murdered soldiers:
"Shivio Tito" ( Long live Tito.)
7.) In July 1944, in a village on the rive Save, between U m k a and B e l g r a d e, the mother (a Russian emigrant) of a soldier of the 5th Russian regiment, was killed shortly after the troops had left the place, because her son served in the German Wehrmacht.
8.) In July or August 1944, in the district of Z v o n i k on the rive Drina, about 1000 Serbian children who had fled from the Croatian Ustascha after the latter had murdered the children's parents, were taken over by the 1st Russian regiment to the Eastern bank.
9.) In the middle of October 1944, the (etniks at P o z e g a (in the West of Serbia) asked for support by the German Wehrmacht, from the field-commander at T s c h a t s c h a k, Against the Tito-Brigades which advanced from the South. The IInd Battalion of the 3rd Russian regiment was entrusted with this task, and the German Liaison Officer of the Battalion, Captain F u c h s j a e g er, as well as the Russian adjutant of the Battalion, Lieutenant Dumsky, went to P o z e g a, in order to come to an agreement about further details with the Cetniks, During the negotiations, the two officers were murdered by the Cetniks.
10. ) In December 1944, near T r a v n i k i n Bosnia, a soldier of a Turkomaniac Volunteer battalion (not belonging to the Russian Corps) reported back from captivity at a Russian Battalion. After his seizure, had been compelled under threats of death, to continue fighting on the side of partisans. When he refused to do so, they kept him starving until he succeeded in escaping.
11. ) In January 1943, in the district of T r a v n i k, a boy was seized by a Russian Battalion who pretended to be a refugee, but in reality was charged by the partisans to reconnoitre the position of the Battalion.
12. ) At the beginning of March 1943, the village S e n i z a (at the railroad S a r a j e v o -B r o d) was taken by surprise by the partisans and then conquered back by the Russians.
All wounded soldiers who had stayed behind, among them a sergeant (Med. Corps) were found murdered; the partisans had out their throats.
Your Honors, under Figures 1 through 9, Pages 48 to 50, the affiant talks about excerpts from various letters which he wrote.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: At this point I think.....
DR. SAUTER: I am not offering these statements as evidence.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
DR. SAUTER: And I thus deal with the objection of the Prosecution. I do not attach any importance to these statements. I shall therefore omit Pages 10, 11, and 12 until we reach Roman numeral VI, which is on Page 30 of the original.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: This then obviates the necessity of a rule upon your objection by this withdrawal of counsel for the defense.
MR. RAPP: That's right, Your Honor. I withdraw my objection.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
DR. SAUTER: Under Roman numeral VI, Page 50 of the original; we deal with something entirely different. We deal with the achievement of the German Wehrmacht during the occupation period, and I ask the Court to take judicial notice of this paragraph. I shall then turn to Document No, 65 on Page 51 of the original. It is contained in Geitner Document Book III. This document I shall offer under the Exhibit No. 51. This is an affidavit by the officer Prinz Schleswig-Holstein. He has already been mentioned on previous occasions. This affidavit concerns a specific point. It deals with the collection camps. The Witness Prinz Schleswig-Holstein was, according to his statement, assistant officer in the Strategic and Tactic Planning Division and later on officer for Organization problems in the Strategic and Tactic Planning Division. These service--ranks were held during the period from 12 July 1942 until January 1943. Under passage 1 on Page 51 of the original he says the following:
The so-called reprisals prisoners were kept in camps by the SS. I cannot now state, where the individual camps were situated. I remember that such camps had been established at the individual field-headquarters in the Serbian area. In these camps, such persons were assembled (therefore the term assembly--camp was also usual) who had put themselves beyond martial law, in virtue of orders given by superior offices, because they had been found as guerillas with weapons in their hands after the armistice in Jugoslavia, had been convicted of being active assistants of the armed guerrillas, had voluntarily given shelter to these before--mentioned two groups or had committed sabotage, or assisted in it respectively.
These assembly-camps were no concentration-camps in the ill-famed sense in which they had become known after the German capitulation in 1943.
2. It is known to me that outside Serbia there was such an assembly-camp at S e m l i n. There, the bulk of the hostages were kept as prisoners.
The purpose of this camp was to gather prisoners for reprisal purposes and to concentrate these persons in order to transport them to German camps.
Also this camp was merely an assembly-camp and no concentrationcamp in the present meaning.
3.) The Croatian Government had made certain promises as to the transport and catering for the camp Semlin, in summer 1942. For reasons unknown to me the promises made were not kept according to plan.
4.) The camp Semlin was under the command of the higher SS and Police-Leader.
5.) Hygienic conditions were temporarily bad in the camp Semlin, Therefore, General B a d e r had some sharp discussions with the Higher SSand Police-Leader MEYSZNER. In spite of the objections of MEYSENER, the camp was inspected by organs of the medical service of the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia, at the suggestion of v. GEITHER, and relief was afforded.
Later on, this was prevented by MEYSZNER.
6.) I myself had repeatedly tried to visit the camp, but did not succeed, therefore I am hot able to make any statements as to its condition.
This affidavit, given by Prinz Schleswig-Holstein on the 19th of September 1947, has been duly sworn to and certified.
DR. SAUTER? The next document should be Document No. 66 on page 54 of Document Book III von Geitner. It is an affidavit give by Dr. Heinrich Bub who has already been examined here as a witness on the witness stand and for this reason I shall withdraw this affidavit, Document No. 66, and I shall not read it.
I shall now turn to Document 67 which is contained on page 56 of Document Book III von Geitner, and I shall give this document the Exhibit No. 52. This affidavit was made by the affiant Theodor Ingensisp. He is 55 years of age, is a German national. During the occupation period, he acted in Belgrade as IIb, IIa and later as Adjutant during the period between March 1942 and August 1944. He carried out these activities for almost two-and-a-half years. The affiant during these two-and-a half years; as can be seen from his statements, was a member of the staff of the Commander for Serbia. He worked in close connection with Herr von Geitner and confirms his welfare activities and also activities in the medical sphere for the civilian population, and he also confirms adi given to the population on all other sphares, such as for the maintenance of cultural monuments and art in Serbia, etc.
I would ask the Tribunal to read these statements so that they may form an opinion on the charge which was made to Geitner that he participated in any plan concerning the enslavement and extermination of the Serbian people or the destruction of Serbian economy and culture. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of these statements.
The next affidavit was given by the affiant Prinz Schleswig/Holstein, whom I have previously mentioned on several occasions. We find it on page 59 of Document Book III von Geitner and I shall offer it Under Exhibit No. 52. This affidavit -
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: It is Exhibit 53, Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: I beg your pardon--53. The number of the document is 68 and the Exhibit Number is 53. This affidavit deals with one specific case and this concerns the two reprisal orders of the fifth and sixth of January, 1943, which were signed by General von Geitner by order of the Deputy Commanding General, Major General Juppe, because at that time the Commander Bader was not presort and Major General Juppe was his deputy.
These are the same orders where, obviously, the date was copied wrongly because in the copy it said not January 1943, as it should have read, but November 1943. I had hoped to be able to submit a photostatic copy of those two orders today but I have not been able as yet to get the photo static copy from the photostat department.
Concerning these reprisal orders which we have repeatedly dealt with, the affiant, Priez Holstein, says the following in his affidavit of the 19th of September, 1947. I shall read from page 59 under passage one.
l)On 5 January 1943 and 6 January 1943 each, an order was signed by the Chief of the General Staff with the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia, the then Colonel in the General Staff Ritter v. Geitner that the reprisal measures which had been decreed by order of the Deputy Commanding General, Major General Juppe,should be carried out. Juppe had returned from leave on 4 January 1943 and acted as a deputy for General Bader, who was on leave. As far as I remember, Major General Phleps acted as a deputy until 13 December 1942, and from 1 January 1943 to 4 January 1943,Brigadier General Lontschar. In order to give more effect to the reprisal measures, General Bader endeavoured to have them carried out in each case immediately after the assassination of a German. resp. after the act of sabotage that had occurred.
On 4 January 1943 Major General Juppe was present at the staff at Belgrade. I cannot say whether the order for the reprisal measures was given on. this day. But what I know, is, that on 5 January 1943, the day of the dispatch of the order Ia No. 19/43 (doc. NOKW 973, Exh. 246, the instruction to that effect was given on the telephone by Major General Juppe to v. Geitner. V. Geitnar had entrusted me with the office details in regard to that order. If that instruction had not been issued, those two orders would never have been dispatched in the form that it was expressly stated that Major General Juppe had given the order for the reprisal measures. The orders would not have been countersigned by me and Colonel Schall (Ia), nor would they have been signed by v. Geitner, if the direction to carry out the reprisal measures had not been present.
The chief and Colonel Schall were strictly correct in every respect.
Then under figure 2, the affiant gives examples for Geitner's rejecting attitude towards reprisal measures and I shall road what he says under figure 2.
The 704th division proposed on 23 November 1942 to take harsher measures in the fight against the insurgents. Now we will read the Order No. Ia No. 1218/42 Secret and Ia No. 1222/42 Secret, which is doc. No. NOKW 969, Exh. 237, The chief, v. Geitner, declared himself towards me, and in my presence towards General Bader, strongly against this proposal, as soon as he was informed of that order, since, according to his attitude, he condemned measures of that kind.
And the affidavit is signed by Prinz Schleswig-Holstein. Tho affidavit has been sworn to and certified.
The next document is Document No. 69. It is contained on page 62 of the original. I shall not offer that document. It was given by the witness Gerhard Wollny who was examined here on the witness stand, and thus his affidavit has become immaterial.
The document No. 70, which is contained on page 65 of the original of Document Book III von Geitner,I shall offer under Exhibit No. 54. This is a short affidavit. The affiant is General Gullmann. He was German Plenipotentiary General in Albania during the period from 1 June 1944 to 28 August 1944. The affidavit is to prove that the Higher SS and Police. Leader in Albania was not subordinate to the Armed Forces out to the Reich Leader SS and that the Higher SS and Police Leader in Albania did not receive his directives from the Commanding General but instead from the Reich Leader SS. The affidavit by General Gullmann I recommend to judicial notice of the Tribunal. This document is being submitted with reference to a document which was produced by the prosecution and in accordance with which 300 Jews were deported from Albania.
This action had nothing to do with the Armed Forces but only with one SS Division, the Division "Skanderbeg," and this is the reason for which I offer the affidavit of General Gullmann.
The next document is No. 71, Document No. 71. It is on page 66 of the original of Gaitner Document Book III and I offer it under Exhibit No. 55. The affiant who gave this affidavit is a Colonel Brudermeuller, Hermann Brudermueller. He was a member of the Operations Department of the Armed Forces Operational Staff. He worked as an expert in this department and according to his statements his sphere of work was the Southeast. He walks about the difficult questions of subordination of the Military Commander of Serbia in relation to the Commander-in-Chief Southeast and I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this affidavit.
I shall then turn to Document No. 72 which is on page 62.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: On page 67, not 62.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, Document 72 on page 67.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: That is correct.
DR. SAUTER: And I shall offer this document under Exhibit No. 36. This is an affidavit by the affiant Egon Boenner. This witness, according to his statements, was the Chief of the Military Government Department with the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia during the period from December 1942 to December 1943. As such, he was successor of the frequently mentioned state councillor Thurner. In his affidavit, the affiant Boenner relates some facts concerning the Serbian labor service which was at that time designated as the Serbian Reconstruction Service. The witness states in detail that this Serbian Reconstruction Service was a purely Serbian installation and that Herr von Geitner had no connection with it whatsoever. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this affidavit which is given in great detail.
The very same witness Egon Boenner has given a further affidavit which can be found under No. 38 -- I beg your pardon, under No. 73, -on page 71 of the original, of the Document Book III von Geitner. I shall offer this document under Exhibit No. 37. The affiant Boenner was, as has been mentioned, Chief of the Military Government Department with the Commanding General and Commander of Serbia from December 1942 to December 1943. He describes in this affidavit the organization of the German agencies in Belgrade and he gives a picture of the competencies of the individual agencies. It is of special importance that this man who was an expert concerning the conditions there states concerning other agencies which existed independent of the Commanding General in Belgrade.
On page 72 of the original, the witness makes some statements regarding the Higher SS and Police Leader. He makes further statements concerning the General Plenipotentiary for Economics, abbreviated GBW, and he also makes comments on the Plenipotentiary of the Foreign Office, and also concerning the propaganda department for the Southeast, and on page 72, towards the bottom of the page, he says immediately after figure e:"Due to this decentralization of the administration a uniform administration was impossible.
The Commander was actually only in charge of the most unimportant administrative branches. Above all, he had no influence on police measures, the feeding of the population and on labor allocation."
Added to this were the following facts:
"To a constantly increasing extent the insurgents blew up railway lines and destroyed lines of communications. Serbian officials were killed, kidnapped or threatened by them. They forbade the population to turn in their wheat and the like to the Serbian government. They stole foodstuffs prepared for delivery. Many cases are known to me where German soldiers were shot from ambush. I remember one attack on a unit of the Organization Todt. The Commander of this unit then burned down houses or a village in the vicinity. General Bader thereupon instituted courtmartial proceedings against this officer."
I don't want to read the last sentence; I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this and I wish to stress that this affidavit also has been duly sworn to and certified. A further affidavit, which is Document 74 on page 74 of Document Book Geitner III, I shall offer under Exhibit No. 58. In this affidavit the same affiant Boenner, Chief of the Department Military Administration, with the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia, deals specifically with the activities of the defendant von Geitner which he observed from own experiences. I shall skip the first two sentences under paragraph a and I shall then start to read the following:
"The Commander had above all no influence on police measures, feeding and provisioning of the population and the labor allocation, v. Geitner has criticized these evils most severely. I can testify that he reported them to the Commander and also demanded from the superior offices in severe reports and telegrams to change these conditions.