AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 4 November 1947)
TEE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW (For the defendant Felmy): May it please the Tribunal, would it be possible to excuse General Felmy from attending these session on Wednesday and Thursday so that he can prepare his defense?
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: It's agreeable to the Tribunal.
MR. MUELLER-TORGOW: Thank you, Your Honor.
DR. LATERNSER (For the defendant List): May it please Your Honors, may I ask whether there will be a session on Tuesday, November 11th of next week? I understand that it is Armistice Day.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: If it's agreeable, Dr. Laternser, the Court does not expect to be in session on Tuesday nor on Monday, but we do expect to work the following Saturday.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you very much, Your Honor. In other words, on Monday and Tuesday of next week there will be no sessions, but there will be a session on Saturday of that week. May it please the Court, do you expect to sit all day on that Saturday, or do you expect to sit only in the Morning?
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The present plan is to sit all day.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you, your Honor.
ULLRICH von VARNBUELER - Resumed RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. Witness, just before the recess we spoke of the two forms of power, the operational and the territorial one. Now, who had the operational power in the Balkans?
A. The operational power lay with the Commanders in Chief of the area concerned.
Q. You say areas. Doesn't the operational power concern subordinate units which happened to be stationed in a certain area?
A. Yes, it concerns those areas or units which happened to have been stationed in that area.
Q. In other words, operational troop units must be stationed somewhere, of course, but that does not mean that is the area of the Army?
A. No, it need not be so.
Q. You said that the Commanders in Chief were the holders of operational power. Who held territorial power?
A. The territorial power lay in the hands, in our case, of the Governments of Croatia or Albania.
Q. And who held it in Serbia?
A. I don't know the details there.
Q. Do you know whether there was an agency called "Military Commander Southeast" in the Balkans?
A. Yes, the agency existed.
Q. What sort of an agency was that, an operational one or a territorial one?
A. It was a territorial agency.
3. Now, who was responsible for law, order, and security -- the territorial, or the operational power?
A. It was the territorial power.
Q. In whose competence lay the reprisal measures?
A. Well, actually they should come under the territorial sector.
Q. Because they were to maintain law, order, and security I suppose?
A. Yes, quite.
Q. In other words, competence for reprisal measures was with whom?
A. It was really with the territorial power.
Q. Colonel, you were asked about destructions in Southern Hungary which, as you said, the Corps did not carry out. Was that destruction vitally necessary for the survival of the Corps? In other words, were they deemed by you as an absolute military necessity?
A. No, I was not quite clear on that point. Destruction of vital necessity for the Corps, for instance, of bridges etc., were of course carried out. When I answered that question what I meant to say was that these were purely destructions of a more general economic nature which had also been ordered and for which we could not say that direct military necessity existed, and, for those things, the modifications which I made apply.
Q. Thank you very much; I have no further questions.
DR. FRITSCH (For the Defendant Rendulic): May it please the Tribunal, I have no further questions from this witness.
MR. RAPP: Your honors, I have just a couple of questions I'd like to straighten out.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RAPP:
Q. Witness, regarding the weapons with which the partisans were reinforced -- I'm especially referring to the automatic weapons -- do you recollect, off hand, just how many automatic weapons, such as the Schmeisser machine pistols, were standard issue in the German Rifle Company?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you give us the figure?
A. A German Rifle Company had about 12 machine guns and a fairly large number of machine pistols, which fluctuated. I am inclined to put it that in one company this was between 20 and 50.
Q. And what was the so-called "Sollstand" of a company? That is, the Table of Organization?
A. When I was company commander, which goes back so long that I do not recollect these details very precisely for me to be able to make a statement on oath about it ...
Q. Well, you don't expect me to pin you down 10 men, more or less, but you certainly ought to be in a position, as an officer, to tell us whether a company had 200 men or a thousand men. I mean, just....
A. You mean how many men? I think the Translator did not make that quite clear. Certainly the strength of a company amounted to between 120 and 180 men.
Q. So, taking the most optimistic basis of the available Schmeisser machine pistols, you had about, to each six men, about one machine pistol. Is that right?
A. That might be roughly correct, yes.
Q. Witness, have you ever heard, prior to coming into this Courtroom today, about an expression called "Operative Gewalt," and, if so, will you tell us where?
A. I heard that term frequently throughout my military career.
Q. And what was meant by it?
A. "Operational power" was that power or authority which was concerned purely military and operational masters.
Q. Is it the some as executive power?
A. No, the executive power is something else.
Q. How will you tell us, witness, whether anybody who has territorial powers couldn't also have at the same time operational powers?
A. That is possible in theory. As far as I can judge it, that state of affairs prevailed at first for instance in the part of Germany which the Allied troops had occupied.
Q. Now you were asked witness whether or not only those who had territorial powers could order executive measures and you answered that in the affirmative, isn't that right?
A. It is not quite true in this exclusive sense, I said that it was up to the territorial commanders.
Q. Do you want to say by that statement witness that that does not exclude the fact that other people, who did not have this territorial power, could also order reprisal measures?
A. As a rule this would be excluded, but I can imagine that in areas where the territorial competence is not sufficient other people would carry out such measures.
Q. Did the 2nd Panzer Army have territorial powers in those areas which it occupied?
A. No, they did not.
Q. Did you have it in any parts or in none?
A. After much effort on our part, we obtained it in a certain sector of the coastal area but only, if I remember it rightly, in about May of 1944.
Q. Now witness, any execution of reprisal measures or as a result of reprisal measures, which were carried out by order of the 2nd Panzer Army and within the area of the 2nd Panzer Army took place despite the fact that the 2nd Panzer Army did not have territorial powers; isn't that right?
A. I did not quite understand the question. I think there was some interruption on the sound system or something.
Q. We will repeat it. You said that the 2nd Panzer Army did not have any territorial powers anywhere?
A. Yes.
Q. We know and you know that reprisal measures were carried out within the territory of the 2nd Panzer Army by order of troop commanders under the jurisdiction of the 2nd Fanzer Army; now isn't it a fact then that these executions took place despite the fact that the 2nd Panzer Army did not have territorial powers?
A. Yes.
DR. LATERNSER: May it please the Court, about the last point I would like to put a question. Colonel, as far the measures to which Mr. Rapp has wade reference just now, where those reprisals ordered in cooperation with the territorial agencies?
THE WITNESS: Yes, of course.
DR. LATERNSER: And a final question, did you and I at any tine discuss the joints which I have asked you about outside this courtroom?
THE WITNESS: No.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you very much, no further questions.
JUDGE CARTER: Are there any further questions by the prosecution or by the Tribunal?
The witness will be excused.
(The witness is excused.)
DR. FRITSCH: If it is agreeable to the Tribunal I should like first to continue briefly with the submission or documents and I wish to submit those documents which are available to me at the moment, which refer to the southeastern Balkans.
I offer first document Rendulic No. 7 A in Volume I. The Tribunal will recall that this is a picture which unfortunately was not included in the English version of that document book. I have meanwhile received more copies of it. I have shown it to the prosecutor. I do not know whether meanwhile it has reached the Court, if not I could hand it over now.
JUDGE CARTER: I don't think they have been presented here.
DR. FRITSCH: For this document I have reserved exhibit No. 6. May I say briefly what this picture is about. Is is a snapshot from the Time Magazine. In my opening statement I pointed out that I shall endeavor, as far as present-day conditions in the Balkans arc concerned and which are typical for that part of the world, to submit material about them.
At present all I have in that respect is this photograph. It comes as I said from the "Time" periodical. It shows a photograph where two men of the Government troops are identifying their comrades of whom they have only their cut-off heads.
MR. RAPP: Your donor, I object to the introduction of this particular document on the basis of rumor or hear-say evidence.
DR. FRITSCH: If the Tribunal please, may I point out that hearsay evidence surely is something else. This is a pictorial report from an official American newspaper, which in my opinion as far as actual conditions are concerned, should be of probative value.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I did not know that Time is an official American newspaper. I know it is a newspaper, but I don't know where Time is gathering its information. This picture could be taken in India or any other place. I don't recognize those people as being members of the Greek national army.
JUDGE CARTER: It appears that the incident occurred at a time other than we have under discussion hero. While I doubt if it has much probative value, we will let it in for what it is worth.
MR. RAPP: Very well, your Honor.
DR. FRITSCH: If the Tribunal please, this brings me now to document 126 in volume 1. That document is unfortunately not complete and I shall not offer it as an exhibit at the present time. As no agreement has been reached as yet about identification numbers, I should be grateful if the Secretary General would reserve for this document No. 36.
JUDGE CARTER: What document do you refer to, Dr. Fritsch?
DR. FRITSCH: Document No. 126 for Rendulic, it is in supplement 1. Now this brings me to supplement 2. I offer Rendulic document No. 60 in volume 1, supplement 2 as exhibit No. 37. I beg your pardon, may I ask whether the Court has supplement 2 in its hands?
JUDGE CARTER: Supplement 2 has not been delivered to the Tribunal, possible this is it.
DR. FRITSCH: I beg your pardon, Your Honors, I was told yesterday that it had reached the Court. Mr. Rapp tells me that he has not obtained a copy yesterday, but only received it from me this morning, but he is kind enough not to object to the document from the point of view of observing the time limit. I am not talking about document No. 60, supplement 2, which is offered as exhibit 37. This is an affidavit by Horst Grunwald, a police officer who as a company leader of a rifle company in the Mountain Rifle Regiment 13 served in the Balkans from September, 1942 to October, 1944. I shall read paragraph I of that affidavit. This is what the affiant says:
"On 9 February 1943 I with my company, which was then going into action for the first time and was stationed in this area, went into combat against superior partisan units at Srdici-Kovacevici. I saw I saw with my own eyes how my reconnaissance troop was shot up from a group of houses at close range and how the wounded were killed by partisans in civilian clothes who immediately rushed to the spot and stabbed them several times with daggers and bayonets."
And I shall read the next paragraph:
"When we launched the attack again after about 10 days and went across the old battle field, my men found those who fell on 9 February 1943 in the following way: stripped completely naked and unburied, faces trampled in, eyes gouged out, in some cases the sexual organs cut off and the bodies perforated with holes from bayonet stabs."
And the I shall read No. 11.
"On 23 July 1944 one company of my combat unit was attacked suddenly from the flank in the course of an enterprise South of the Nevesinje Stolac road and had to yield groud temporarily. In the course of this incident the medical officer of the company and three stretcher bearers who wanted to carry the wounded back, were mown down by machine gun guards, although they were clearly wearing Red Cross armlets. Except for the medical officer who was lying seriously wounded, they were all killed. When we found him after a few hours he was dead too. Inhabitants of the house standing close by recounted that his moaning and groaning had drawn the partisan's attention to him arid they had killed him slowly and with torture."
Now 111.
"In August 1943 a company of the 7th Armoured Rifle Division which had been commissioned to cover the road at KISELJAK was warned towards evening by a German-speaking woman that a large unit of partisans was alleged to be at HAN P10CA drinking, and could easily be captured. The company went lightly armed into the village which lay in a basin-shaped valley and was wiped out by shots from all sides except for a remainder of about 10 men who were able to save themselves by means of a brook* On the next day the village was taken by a motorized rifle platoon* On this occasion.
Lieutenant KRAUSE of Danzig was found lying in a maize field having been seriously wounded by a shot in the spine, and he was taken to a hospital in SARAJEVO. There he was interrogated about his observations on the day described above. I was present myself at this interrogation and can therefore testify from what I heard myself that KRAUSE gave the following particulars on the behaviour of the partisans after the company had been wiped out:
When sudden fire was opened on them KRAUSE was near the Maize field in which he was found and could therefore crawl into the filed inspite of his severe wound so that he was not discovered. He could observe what was going on about him and ascertain the following:
1. All the wounded still living and lying near were killed by the partisans by stabbing or shooting in the neck.
2. The company commander lying near him who was already dead, was first of all stripped of all clothes and his shoes and then dismembered with a carpenter's tool.
3. The N.C.O.s of the company were laid out on the road in a row with their heads in the earth and their identification discs laid on their backs."
I shall not read paragraph IV. This is the question of uniforms. The affiant says that as a rule the partisans did not have nay uniforms.
This brings me to paragraph V:
"The partisans were never mobilised in large self-contained units after the manner of a combat troop. They rather appeared in very small formations and groups (TROIKA--three men), inorder to surprise--attack and cut down small units or individual objects such as motor vehicles of all sorts. As far as I know prisoners were never taken by them, according to what I saw, the wounded were killed on principle. But I know from stories tole me that higher German unit commanders in individual cases were spared by the partisans in order to get a greater number of partisans in exchange for them, each according to rank.
Such cases occurred rarely as I know from what other related but not from my own observation. If the Germans took measures against the partisan units by hemming them in, the latter broke up and scattered as civilian population. " The affiant in the next paragraph under VI describes an experience concerning their conduct in battle.
I shall read it:
"On the 23 December 1943 towards 14.30 hours my company on the march through a high wood in the region of CLOVO, stopped when it just reached an elevation. The platoon commander of the front platoon called me and I noticed that about 200 meters below the elevation a column, of women and children with pack animals was moving across in the direction of our march. Partisans who were armed with rifles and tommy guns joined this line of women and children. By getting into touch with the leaders of the units situated sideways from me I ascertained that it was a matter of a very big partisan unit, together and near of which were camouflaged by a procession of women and children."
Concerning their recruiting and the effect that it had on the civilian population, this is what he said:
"From the repeated descriptions of the Moslem country priests (HODSCHAS) I know the following about the recruiting methods of the partisans:
If Moslems called up by the partisans to enter their unit, refused to obey this call up, the partisans repeatedly acted according to the following customs:
1. Either the adults were immediately dragged along by force, in so far as it was possible for the partisans to do this.
2. If it was not possible to do this, they took the children of the people in question to carry food or ammunition until in this way the parents were forced to come with the partisans themselves because then the children would be liberated. This method was generally propagated particularly from the autumn of 1943 onward."
This affidavit was given in Regensburg on August 1, 1947. It has been sworn, to and duly certified.
The next document is Rendulic No. 61 of the same supplement book, which will be exhibit 38. This is an extract from the War Diary of General Kommando XV, Army Corps. It is a report of 8 April 1944. This is what the report says:
"Army orders that in the evacuation of the population in the island and coastal area, the purely human interests of the population of the friendly state of Croatia, should be taken into consideration in every respect and unnecessary hardships should be avoided."
A further document offered by me will be Rendulica No. 62, which is offered as Exhibit 39. May I draw the Court's attention to the Prosecution exhibit 338-A, This is the well known affair concerning the consolidation of the Croatian Armed Forces. The affidavit now submitted by me was given by the aide de camp of General Rendulic, Karl Luz Markus. The affidavit states that at the moment when this letter was sent out, No. 338-A, prosecution exhibit, the defendant General Rendulic was not present at headquarters. The affiant says the following about that:
"I can testify with certainty that General Rendulic was not in the Headquarters of the 2nd Armored Army in Vranja Banja in the time from the morning of September 16, 1932 until the afternoon of 20 September 1943."
The letter which I mentioned and has been submitted by the prosecution is dated 17 September 1943. The affiant then states and gives details as to why he remembers this so precisely, namely the absence of General Redulac from headquarters. The affidavit was sworn, to on 24 October 1947 in front of me here in Nurnberg.
The next document is Rendulac document 63, which will become exhibit 40, another affidavit by the aforementioned affiant Karl Luz Markus, Markus points out first in his affidavit that since August 1943 until the end of the war he was General Redulac's personal A.d.C. and as such was always in his immediate vicinity and he was therefore familiar with all these things.
I shall read the second, paragraph:
"So I was also present when General Rendulac spoke at conferences at Headquarters and when visiting the troops. On such occasions General Rendulac always pointed out that all hardships which were not essentially necessary in the battle against the partisans should be avoided.
"Within the closest circle he unmistakably expressed to the older commanders that he expected moderation from them with regard to the use of reprisal measures in spite of possible orders to the contrary."
This affidavit was sworn to on 21 October 1947 before me here in Nurnberg.
Then there are a few documents which are connected with the Southern Balkans and Norway. All I need to give there is simply an idea of their contents. It is the question of Bendulic's attitude towards excesses by the Party. I next offer Rendulic Document No. 64 as Exhibit 41, another affidavit by the aforementioned Karl-Luz Markus, the A.D.C. The witness states her the detail that General Bendulic took a strong attitude against the excesses by the Party, that he expressed strong criticism and that he did not hesitate to do so towards anybody. He finally points out that as far as Gauleiters were concerned this attitude was taken inasmuch as they interfered with Wehrmacht affairs.
The next document is Rendulic Document No. 65 which will become Exhibit 42. This is an affidavit by a former officer on the General Staff with the High Command of the Army Group Center which was later on renamed Army Group North. This affiant makes statements about the relations between Redulic and Party Bosses. In this case we are concerned with the relations to Gauleiter Koch about which the defendant himself made several statements on the witness stand. These statements are borne out here by this affiant. The affidavit has been sworn to on the 24th of September 1947 before a notary.
This brings us to the last document in this collection which is Rendulic Document No. 66 which will become Exhibit 43, an affidavit by Heinz Gyldedfeldt. Here again the same question is dealt with; namely, steps taken against Gauleiters. In this we are concerned with the period of time when Upper and Lower Austria were included in General Rendulic's area of command. On direct examination, these things were mentioned as far as the Gauleiter Eigruber and Uberleiter were concerned.
DR. FRITSCH: If the Tribunal please, may I ask the Tribunal whether Document Book II has reached the Tribunal yet in translation? It deals with Norway?
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I think not.
DR. FRITSCH: I was assured yesterday that it would be available. Then perhaps I could interrogate a witness meanwhile and I hope that I will have the document book soon.
If it is agreeable to the Court, I shall now call the witness, General Herman Hoelter.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The Marshal will call the witness.
Hermann Hoelter, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The witness will raise his right hand and be sworn:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You may be seated.
HERMANN HOELTER DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. FRITSCH (Counsel for defendant Rendulic):
Q Witness, will you please give us your full name?
A My name is Hermann Hoelter
Q Would you spell your last name?
A H o e l t e r.
Q When and where were you born?
A On the 31st of January 1900.
Q What is your profession?
A I am an active officer.
Q What was your last rank?
A Lieutenant General.(General Lieutenant)
Q General Hoelter, were you ever a member of the NSDAP?
A No.
Q Will you please briefly describe to us your military career?
A In 1917 as a cadet I joined the Infantry Regiment 180 and after the war I belonged to the Transitional Army was then taken over into the Reich Army into the Infantry Regiment 13 in Wuerttemberg where I remained until 1928. I was then transferred to the Army Sports School, first as a teacher and then as Adjutant and in the Spring of 1931 I made the Wehrkieis examination which I passed and I was then for three years in the training school for officers.
In the Spring of 1934 I was ordered to join the General Staff of the Army and in the Spring of 1935 I was transferred there. I belonged to the Army General Staff until the Autumn of 1937. I became then Company Commander in the Infantry. Regiment 45 in East Prussia and in the summer of 1937 I became Ia of the 34th Division to which I belonged until the Autumn of 1940. I went into the war with that division and then, as an instructor in tactics, I joined the War Military academy in Roumania where I remained until the Spring of 1941. I went there as Chief of the General Staff to the German High Command with the Finnish Armed Forces.
In the Autumn of 1941 I became Chief of Corps at the front in Lapland and in the Autumn of 1943 I stayed at the Arctic front. In March of 1944 I was the Chief of the Army in Northern Finland and Norway of the 20th Mountain Army.
Q Within what period of time, witness, and in what position were you with the 20th Mountain Army?
A From Autumn 1941 until the Spring of 1945 I was with the 20th Mountain Army.
Q Were you throughout that period of time, when General Rendulic was in command, Chief of Staff of the 20th Mountain Army?
A Yes.
Q When did Rendulic take over the command of the 20th?
A Rendulic took over the command by the end of June or July or 1944.
Q General, will you please wait until the question has been translated lest there be complications?
You spoke now of the period of time June-July 1944. In what area was the 20th Mountain Army located at the time?
A The 20th Mountain Army was then stationed in Northern Finland between Polujoki a river which flows into the Finnish Gulf and the Fisher Peninsula.
Q May I ask you, General, to tell us whether the proportion of forces which prevailed in the previous years was maintained in the summer of 1944 or whether it was changed?
A No, the proportion of forces was changed to our disadvantage. From Spring of 1944 onwards, the Russians were reinforced so that we were faced by a three-fold superiority on the part of the Russians.
Q In this tribunal we have frequently discussed the moment when the Finns left the war. My question to you, General is this: what was the position after the Fins left the war in which the 20th Mountain Army found itself?
A In the event of Finland leaving the war a disengaging movement had been prepared and worked out, the aim of which was to have the 20th Mounts in Army transferred to the most Northern part of Lapland to form a new front up there which would go from the place where the three countries met, namely Finland, Norway and Sweden, up to the Fisher Peninsula with the proviso to have in that front the nickel mines of Kolosjoki included and to have it guaranteed and guarded at all costs.
Q On that map which unfortunately is the only one I have at my disposal and it possibly is not adequate, could you nevertheless show us very briefly what areas these are?
A The 20th Mountain Army was stationed here. Its southern flank cannot be shown on this map. It is roughly between here and up there near the Fisher Peninsula. The northern frontier ran through Northern Kuen which is this peninsula there and they were joined by the command of the Norwegian Army which was based on Oslo. The threecountry corner which I mentioned just now is there with the result that the new front which the army was to take up was to reach from here and go in a large curve up to here to the Fisher Peninsula. In that region there is the nickel mine of Kolosjoki. I believe that is the most important part.
Q Thank you very much. General, what were the results which arose from these things as far as the two corps in the south were concerned?
A Both the two Southernmost corps, the 18th Mountain Corps and the 36th Mountain Corps had first to disengage themselves from the enemy. Then they had to disengage themselves, then go via the Rovanjevi area in order from there to make a turn to the north. Most of them along the Arctic road, a smaller part, a third perhaps, were to march along the Swedish frontier. During that movement the Southern flank of the army was exposed as the Finns had deserted us which constituted the danger of Russians moving across Finland exploiting the good road network and exploiting also the railway network. They would thus contact our southern flank in order to take from us the important road junction of Rovanjevi or perhaps even to overtake us in their pursuit along the Swedish frontier towards the direction of Luenfjoerd. What the Finns would do was unknown to us at that time.
Q Do you know, General, what terms were contained in the armistice concluded between Finland and Russia concerning the German forces in Finland?
A We were to leave Finland before the 14th of September. If not, the Finnis were under the obligation to interne us.
Q You refer to the 14th of September. Will you give us the date of the armistice agreement?
A. The armistice was concluded on the 2nd of September in the evening.
MR. RAPP: May I inquire whether or not the witness is reading his testimony from pretyped sheets or whether he is giving his testimony without this aid?
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I think that is something you can interrogate him about from cross examination. If you care to -- if he is -I think you can ask him that if you want to.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, are you using any aid in your testimony: Are you looking at notes?
A Yes, I am.
Q What is the nature of these notes?
A. These are notes connected with this interrogation.
Q You made them all yourself?
A But certainly.
Q Does it contain the questions and the answers?
A In the form of notes, yes.
Q How could you make them yourself if you would know ahead of time what the questions are going to be?
DR. FRITSCH: If the Tribunal please, I object to this manner of interrogation of this witness at this point. The prosecution may certainly discuss these things on cross examination and may also cross examine him as far as his reliability of memory is concerned but I believe that a witness is at liberty to make notes which he needs to support his memory. I do not hesitate to state that, of course, I discussed things with the witness beforehand. The prosecution is aware of that.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: There is no question of your right to interview the witness ahead of time. We will permit you to proceed and the prosecution can in cross examination make investigation of the notes and source of his knowledge as they care to make.
Q General, we were speaking about the armistice and I had asked you to tell me when the armistice agreement between Russia and Finland was concluded after you had said before that you had a time of grace to evacuate Finland before the 14th of September. Would you please give us the date of the armistice?
A The date of the armistice agreement was the 2nd of September.
Q Now, I want to speak about the clause in the armistice concerning the evacuation. What was the effect which this clause of the agreement had in relations between the German and Finnish troops? Were there any clashes which were of decisive influence on the measures taken later on?
AAfter the armistice there had to be fighting between the Germans and Finns which in fact occured roughly as September changed into October. This fighting found its climax in the extremely bloody battle of Keni or Tonio. We had to improvise and take all sorts of measures in order to intercept the surprise blow of the Finns into our back. We succeeded in this and finally we could disentangle ourselves from the Finns without there having been any serious danger of a large scale operations on the part of the Finns.
Q Why was the original intention not pursued; namely, to have the 20th Mountain Army stationed in Northern Lapland to protect the nickel mine of Kolosjoki?
A We of 20th Mountain Army were motivated by two reasons here: (1) the numerical superiority of the Russians. The Russians alson the Arctic front opposed us with enormous superiority, were highly agile in difficult terraine. After the Finnish front had collapsed, they could oppose us with any number of units they wished to and additionally they had also the Finns who had joined our enemies.