Q. And then, on the 9 September, as you have already said, you left Athens and then what was your further assignment?
A. I was assigned two divisions which were there on the spot. I was assigned to them with my corps. To secure the coast in the area of Epirus against the partisan units there. This task went on until the evacuation of Greece.
Q. Witness, you said just now that you took over in Epirus, the capital of which is Joannina. Here you took over two divisions. Perhaps you could tell us the numbers of these divisions because they will crop up again quite frequently.
A. The divisions concerned were, in the northern part of my corps sphere, the 1st Mountain Division and in the southern part of my corps sphere, the 104th Rifle Division. Could you please give me the maps?
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, I now submit to the Tribunal and to the Prosecution a little map. During the course of the examination of the defendant Lanz a number of localities will be mentioned and, so that the Tribunal can get a better impression where these localities are, the names are set down on the map.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Witness, you have got the map. What did you want to say about the map at this moment?
A. I might point out to the Tribunal, and for their information to state, that the 1st Mountain Division was stationed in general in the area around Joannina, which lies north of the Gulf of Arta. The Gulf of Arta is near the town of Prevesa and on this Gulf of Arta the town of Axium lies, which is well known in history. The 104th Rifle Division was stationed in the Southern part of my sphere, mainly in the area around Agrinion. That is, it was stationed in Agrinion.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honors, Agrinion is rather in the southern part of the map around the road which runs from Joannina in the north via Arta to the south towards Messolonoion, and rather north of this is Agrinion in whose district this 2nd Division, which the defendant has mentioned, was stationed.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Is that correct, witness?
A. Yes; that is correct.
Q. And in addition to these two divisions were other German formations also subordinate to your command?
A. Subordinate to me during the course of the months were various battalions, so-called fortification batallions or security battalions; but I can't recount them all in detail now.
Q. And those troops were, as you said, already in Epirus when you arrived on the 9 September, 1943?
A. Yes; that is correct.
Q. And to whom, until that date, were the troops subordinated?
A. These troops were subordinated until then, to Army Group E but I don't know for certain whether they were directly subordinated or whether another staff, for instance, the commander of Salonika-Agean came in between.
Q. And when you arrived at that time at Joannina in Epirus who was the commander of Army Group E?
A. The staff of the Italian, I think 26th Army Corps was in Joannina but it could be the 24th. I am not quite certain, but it doesn't matter at any rate. In any case, an Italian Corps staff was stationed in Joannina. In addition there was an Italian Corps staff in Agrinion.
Q. In Agrinion.
A. That is, in my corps sphere at that time there were two Italian Corps staffs.
Q. Witness, I asked you previously, and I don't think you understood the question, who at that time, when you took over in Joannina, was commander of the German Army Group E, the name of this general.
A. The commander in chief of the German Army Group E was General Loehr. He was my immediate superior.
Q. Well then, how long did the German troops which you told us about before remain in Epirus under your command?
A. That varied. The 1st Mountain Division, as far as I know, on approximately 10 July 1943, went from Serbia to Epirus. That is about two months before I arrived there and it remained there until the beginning of November and at the beginning of November, as we say in military language, elements of it in turn were transferred again to Croatia. The 104th Rifle Division, which was also there when I arrived, remained the whole time in my sphere.
Q. You told us previously the main tasks you had to perform in Epirus. Now I would like you to state what authority, what powers, you had at that time and especially had you territorial authority or similar things? What can you tell us about that?
A. At that time I was an officer in charge of troops. This means I had authority of command over the troops subordinate to me.
Q. And during your activity in Epirus did you have any kind of territorial authority?
A. No.
Q. The so-called executive power - do you remember the expression which has been mentioned here very frequently?
A. No; I had no executive power.
Q. Well, who had the executive power in Epirus?
A. I can't tell you for certain.
Q. But at any rate you didn't have it?
A. No; I didn't have it.
Q. Then how long did you remain in Epirus, Witness?
A. I arrived on the 9th of September 1943, about 1500 hours and I left on the 13th of October, 1730 hours.
Q. Which year?
A. 1944.
Q. And then where did you go?
A. I received the commission in the area of Skoplje to repel the Bulgarian attacks against the rear roads. On these retreat roads from Salonika to Skoplje. At that time all the troops coming back from Greece were moving.
Q. And how long did you remain there?
A. About 4 weeks, until the middle of November.
Q. The middle of November 1944?
A. Yes.
Q. And then where did you go?
A. Then I was transferred to Hungary and took over a Corps sector south of the Platten See (Lake Balaton) against the Russian attacks which were taking place at that time.
Q. And where were you at the end of the war?
A. At the end of the war I was in charge of the security of the Alpine Passes from the Laeubern Pass near Klagenfurt to the Tauern Pass near Rastatt, near Salzburg.
Q. And when were you made a prisoner of war?
A. On the 9th of May 1945. I was captured with my troops by the Americans and made a prisoner of war after I had thought about it for some time whether I should surrender to the Americans or the Russians, and I decided to surrender to the Americans.
Q. And since then have you been the whole time in camps? That is, for about two and a half years?
A. Yes. I was in the PW Camp Kohlgrub in Upper Bavaria, and then I was in the Igling Camp near Landsberg, and then in Ulm, and then in Dachau, and then at Garmisch, and on the 17th of January this year I was transferred here to the jail.
Q. And, according to your views, did your treatment in the various camps correspond with international law -the provisions of international law which concerns you as a captive General?
A. No, one can not say that.
Q. How then?
A. For instance, in Ulm we were forbidden to wear our uniforms and insignia and it was forbidden under peril of punishment and our treatment as Generals did not correspond to what one ought to expect. In addition, the accommodation and the food and the welfare was not such as is laid down in the Geneva Convention.
Q. And was the treatment itself which you and your comrades, the other Generals, received such that, in your opinion, it was against the provisions of international law? I mean the actual treatment.
A. Well, in any case I was not beaten at all, but there were also cases of this.
Q. What do you mean? There were cases in which German Generals were beaten?
A. Yes.
Q. By whom?
A. By the Americans.
Q. By the guards?
A. I remember an experience, one incident, personally in Garmisch in 1946, and the commandant of the camp intervened -- I mean, the American camp commandant. But the general treatment was consciously undignified. One can't say otherwise. For instance, we used to clean the toilets and things like this, and raids were made of our rooms by the American troops, and when we got back to our rooms it looked as if vandalism had been going on.
Everything was turned upside down.
Q. And that time you were under arrest for about two and a half years continuously -- do you think that the arrest and through these experiences you capacity of defending yourself for this trial has been restricted in any way? Above all, your memory, your capacity for remembering things?
A. Well, I should try to defend myself, but it's clear that captivity for thirty months behind barbed wire doesn't help to aid one's nerves and one's health. It is a time of torture, not only for me but for my family, there is no doubt about this.
Q. And are you still a prisoner of war?
A. In my own eyes, yes, but officially, no.
Q. What does that mean, "officially, no"? Please, would you give the Tribunal more details about what you mean by this?
A. The beginning of April this year in the prison we were told that we were released from captivity as a prisoner of war and were now internees. We received this with silent protest, but we were powerless. What could we do?
A. General Lanz, you were told that you were released as a prisoner of war. Were you then actually released? I mean, in personal conditions was anything changed through this release? I mean, could you perhaps go home? Could you move about freely? Or, what actually changed by this release? Please tell us.
A. Well, there can't be any talk at all about release. It was just a form of speech, a formality. I wasn't released for one single minute, but, I express myself in this way, we were sort of written over.
We were written over from a prisoner of war to an internee. And it was done -- and there was also widely distributed amongst the Press so that the rights and the protection of the Geneva Convention should be taken away from us. That was the reason.
Q. Witness, and did you protest against this in any way? I mean, the protection of the Geneva Convention is hold by every prisoner of war, whether he is a General or an ordinary man -- you, too. Did you protest against this in any way or did you in any way express the fact that you were in agreement with your release as a prisoner of war?
A. No, I wasn't in agreement with it in any way at all. We weren't released. I protested against it, but, of course, this did not help any. I was given a release certificate: it was already signed by an American officer -- I think it was done in Dachau, but I don't remember exactly -- and I had to sign this certificate. I couldn't do anything else. I just had to sign it under protest and complaints. But even if I hadn't signed it, I am completely convinced that nothing in my situation would have changed at all.
Q. And now, General -- are you now being treated as a prisoner of war? Or, I mean ---
A. I am not treated as a prisoner of war, but I am treated as a kind of convict. There can be no mention at all of a prisoner of war.
Q. Well, Witness, we will not go over to another subject. Were you a member of the National Socialist Party?
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute. General, when you say you were forced to sign something, would you care to elaborate on that?
THE WITNESS: Well, "forced" isn't perhaps the right expression. This paper was placed in front of me and I was told I had to sign it and when I objected to this, then they just smiled at me and said, "Well, that is the only thing you can do. Sign it." All my comrades had to sign it, too, or had already signed it. Well, then, of course, I just signed it, too, and hoped for the best. There was nothing left to do. What could I do?
THE PRESIDENT: Was there any statement written on this paper that you signed that it was signed under protest?
THE WITNESS: By me?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: No, I did not express my protest in writing. I just wrote my name on this piece of paper.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any reporter, or, transcript of the proceedings at that time? Was any reporter present?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know who the officer -- who the American officer was or who was present at that time?
THE WITNESS: It wasn't an officer. There were various people from the prison office who were just sort of standing around and walking around and there was no official notice taken of it at all.
THE PRESIDENT: What Germans were present? That you know?
THE WITNESS: We were taken to this place separately from our cells.
THE PRESIDENT: There were no Germans present?
THE WITNESS: Well, I can't remember that any of my comrades were there. I think there was a representative of a German bank there, but I don't know his name.
THE PRESIDENT: What was he doing there?
THE WITNESS: He had something to do with the fees which had to be paid to us after our releases.
THE PRESIDENT: You may continue, Dr. Sauter.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Witness, following on the last question, one more question ---
THE PRESIDENT: I forgot about our recess. Perhaps we ought to take a recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Witness, I asked you before the recess whether you were a member of the National Socialist Party?
A No.
Q Were you a member of the formations of the Party, that is, for instance the SS or the SA?
A No.
Q Were you present at any of the official training courses of the Party or anything like that?
A No.
Q Did you receive from Hitler or the Party any special gifts, presents, contributions of any types?
A No.
Q You did not. Witness, can you explain why, in view of the qualifications General Loehr gave you which have been described as an NS character and NS character means National Socialist leader type. This description, if the Tribunal please, is contained in document NOKW 1780 which is Exhibit 444 contained in Prosecution Document Book 19 on page 7 of the German and 11 of the English copy. Witness, can you answer that question?
A No, I have no explanation at all. As I remember it and as I see it I gave no reason to General Loehr to arrive at a description of that sort. The only explanation I can think of is that General Loehr had to write some sort of a description of my character and that he believed the circumstances of the day that he would do me a favor by making a remark of that sort in this judgment of my personality. He did that perhaps because it was necessary to write down a remark of that sort in order to establish me more firmly in the position that I held at the time. As far as any definite reason was concerned connected with my activities or attitude, a remark I might have made, or anything of that sort, nothing of that sort applied.
DR. SAUTER: If the Tribunal please, about that point mainly General Loehr, we cannot have him as a witness because he is deceased but his ADC has given us an affidavit and I have submitted it to the Court as part of my document book 1, the document number is No. 4. It is contained on page 14 of that volume and this affidavit will become exhibit Lanz No. 1. This affidavit was duly sworn to and certified by the Buergermeister concerned. The affiant is Alfred Grampe who was born on 17 April 1897 the affiant says from January 1943 to April 1944 he was a colonel and adjutant with the High Command of Army Group F, that is to say, he was an adjutant of General Loehr's. His affidavit concerns the efficiency rating by General Loehr and his qualifications for passing judgment on General Lanz as an NS leader and the date of that judgment was 1 March 1944. I would like to draw the court's attention to the fact that the judgment of General Lanz' character was given on 1 April 1944, that is to say, at a period of time when the affiant, Alfred Grampe, was General Loehr's Adjutant and on this matter the affiant testifies as follows on page 14 of Document Book I:
To the above mentioned efficiency rating of General Lanz, in which he is described by Gen. Loehr as a person possessing the qualities expected gtom a N.S. Leader, I as the latter's Adjutant, have to add the following comments:
As far as I can remember, an efficiency rating of General Lanz had been requested from the highest quarters, in order to decide whether or not he was suitable for the next higher position. As he had already commanded an Army Group in the East on a difficult sector of the front, but had subsequently again been given a corps in the Balkans (a secondary theatre of war) much depended for General Lanz on the requested efficiency rating. In order to give further weight the favorable efficiency rating General Loehr described General Lanz as a person possessing the qualities expected in a National Socialist Leader.
He thereby meant to express that the General possessed the qualities of a military Leader in the National Socialist State. That description does not call for another interpretation; General Lanz being a professional soldier, could not be a Party member, nor was he ever active on behalf of National Socialism.
The above named and similar descriptions were frequently used in the efficiency ratings of military leaders by request of the ChiefAdjutant.
Oestrich, 24 Sept. 1947.
Signed: Alfred GRAMPE.
Q Witness, having thus explained your personal background I shall now deal with the indictment itself. The indictment alleges that you were a party to and had knowledge of a plan of terrorizing the Balkans, is that correct?
AAny such plan as the indictment mentions came to my knowledge for the first time in my life from the indictment. Throughout that period of time when I was serving in the Balkans it never occurred to me that any such order existed nor did I ever hear anything about it, not even privately. I assume that this alleged plan is either an error or an anachronism on the part of the prosecution.
Q Witness, the indictment submitted by the Prosecution on 10 May 1947, charged under numeral Arabic 12-b, you as well as the other defendants with having passed on and carried out what is known as the Commissar Order. You know, witness, from this trial, that this order is contained in the Document NOKW 484, in Document Book I, on page 33-A and page 48-A in the English Book and the other document relevant here is 1076, which is Exhibit 14 also contained in Document Book I, page 34 of the German and page 49 of the English. What could you tell us about that?
A The Commissar Order, as I remember it today, is roughly still known to me, having perused the document submitted to us here my memory has been refreshed, of course. This whole affair goes back more than 6 years. For that reason - I need hardly express that I have no precise memory on what I did about it at the time, but as far as I can recollect those things, this is how the matter went as far as I was concerned. A few days before the opening of the Russian campaign I was informed by the Corps, which was my superior, about this Commissar Order, as it was called. I think this was done orally, but I am not absolutely certain. And just before the attack began, that is to say perhaps on the 19th or 20th of June 1941, I told my commanding officers, that is to say the regimental and other independent officers, inasmuch as they were subordinate to me themselves, about the Commissar Order again orally.
But I couldn't say today whether I told then verbatim or whether I merely interpreted the order to them, but once the order had been announced I told these gentlemen that needless to say Commissars were to be shot only in combat. I want to express particularly, only in combat. That condition I expressly passed on to my commanding officers.
Q Witness, why did you accept this order at all since you made this qualification anyway?
A Well, conditions at that period of time were very different from what they are today. At that time, in the summer of 1941, I regarded it as my natural duty as a soldier to pass on to my units an order which came from my highest superior officer. That was quite beyond any doubt as far as I was concerned.
Q If you had not done that in 1941, what consequences would you have conjured up for yourself -- supposing you would simply have suppressed the order?
A Well, that is a question which you raised once before. It is always the same pet question to ask a man today what would have happened then. I can't say; I can't tell you because it didn't happen. Perhaps nothing would have happened -- perhaps I would have been hanged. I can't tell you. This is purely an academic question which I can't answer. The fact of the matter is, I passed the order on with the qualification I have mentioned now, and I did this for the reason because on the one hand I considered it my duty to pass on an order which came from my highest commander in chief. I remember we are now talking about the summer of 1941. But on the other hand I had misgivings about the order. I had misgivings, it seemed to me too severe. It was too extreme, I am inclined to put it, and I also had misgivings as to the fact that this order would offend against the inner attitude of my troops, it would make them more extreme and radical, so to speak, which is the thing I wanted to avoid, because we as soldiers did not feel that way.
We weren't accustomed to these things, and that is the reason why I made this actually qualification, so that this order might become legal, if I can put it in a lawyer's language. I wanted to put it on a correct soldierly footing. That is what I wanted to do. That is simply an emergency measure. That is all I could have done.
DR. SAUTER: About this matter. Your Honors, please, I ask to offer in evidence a few affidavits contained in Document Book Lanz II. The first one is an affidavit given by one Ludwig v. Eimmansberger on page 2 of the Document Book. He was born in Przemsl, Poland, and is now a resident of Innsbruck, Austria. He is an Austrian national, and the affiant says: I shall read from page one. This document will become Exhibit Lanz 2, and the affiant says:
"From May 1940 till April 1942 I was Second General Staff Officer of the First Mountain Division, The former General of the Mountain Troops, Hubert Lanz, in his capacity as Division Commander, was my immediate superior beginning October 1940.
"I can make the following statement under oath with regard to the so-called "Commissar Order" decreed in 1941: I personally have never seen this order in writing. One or two days prior to the 22nd of June this order, on the occasion of a meeting of the commanders, was read to the commanders by General Lanz - I do not know whether the entire contents were read since I was not familiar with the criminal. General Lanz added a personal comment which clearly indicated his point of view that Commissars should only be shot in combat if at all. Actually not a single case has come to my attention that a Commissar had been shot in the area of the First Mountain Division, although in my position I probably would have been informed about it.
"By way of supplementation I like to add that, as one of the closest assistants of the former General Lanz at that time, I also had the opportunity to become more closely acquainted with him from the human side. Again and again I convinced myself of his deep religious conception of life which, as far as possible greatly influenced all his deeds. I can ascertain under oath that General Lanz endeavoured, to an extent which by far exceeded the usual practice, to ease the hardships resulting from the war, not only for his own troops, but also for the captured enemy and the affected civilian population. Innsbruck 18 September 1947".
And the affidavit has been duly sworn to, which can be seen from the introductory paragraphs, and it has also been properly identified.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I don't wish to make any actual objection to the admissibility of this document, but I would like the record to show that it does not comply with Rule 21 Sub-Para. 5 of the Uniform Rules of Procedure.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire for purposes of later study as to what that particular section is, and to what you are directing the, well, as least the suggestion that is not an objection?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, subject to Para. 5, Rule 21, which states: "That the statement in lieu of an oath shall contain a preamble which shall state "I (name and address of the witness) after having first been warned that I will be liable for punishment for making a false statement in lieu of an oath, state and declare that my statement is true in lieu of an oath, and that my statement is made for submission as evidence before Military Tribunal ____, Palace of Justice, Nurnberg, Germany, the following:"
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't that what it says in substance in paragraph I?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: The first paragraph, if your Honor please, does not state that the statement he proposes to give is true. It maybe assumed. On the other hand there are several other affidavits in these books which comply precisely with Paragraph 5. For that reason I have no objection to the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you.
DR. SAUTER: Reading the first paragraph of this affidavit of 18 September 1947, I cannot find that an affidavit could be more clearly formulated than is done in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, there has been no objection made, and I think you may proceed.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
The next document I beg to offer in evidence is an affidavit about the same subject matter. This is Document Lanz 27, contained in Document Book II for Lanz. It begins on Page 3. This document will become Exhibit 3. It is an affidavit given by Dr. Hans Otto Hofmann, who was born in 1893 in Bruecks, not of course a relative of General Lanz, or a relative of his family. He says:
"I have known Herr Hubert Lanz since the fall of 1940 when he took over command of the First Mountain Division, General Lanz was my immediate superior till the end of 1942. I was with the First Mountain Division from September 1939 till the end of 1942 and during this period I was in command of the supply troops of this Mountain Division as a unit leader (at first as a Captain of the Reserve, then Major of the Reserve, and eventually, as Lieutenant Colonel of the Reserve.) At the end of 1942 I separated from the division because of serious physical disability. I can make the following sworn statement with regard to the so-called "Commissar Order" decreed in 1941:
1.) Two days prior to the start of the war with Soviet Russia, in the late afternoon of Friday 20 June 1941, a discussion of the commanders took place at the division command post which the individual regimental and independent unit commanders were ordered to attend. I personally participated in this discussion. The place, time and more detailed circumstances are still clear in my memory. Subjects of the discussion were: The situation and the latest orders. At this time report was also made of the so-called "Commissar Order", given by Hitler. The result was that all persons present spontaneously expressed their horror by shaking their heads in disagreement and General Lanz added his own words in a restrictive sense that Commissars obviously were to be shot only in combat, by putting the stress on the word "only". General Lanz, therewith, expressed his absolutely disagreeing attitude in regard to this order, a fact which could not be doubted by anyone participating in the discussion. We did not receive any written material pertaining Court No. 7, Case No. VII.
to this so called "Commissar Order".
2.) Following the discussion of the commanders I had to discuss a few official matters in the Divisional Staff Headquarters with my unit physician, Dr. Rolf Maeusel. After this was completed we happened to meet General Lanz by chance. As usual he addressed us in a friendly manner and we accompanied him to his car. On the way he briefly spoke about the preparations made hitherto and about the things to come. Referring to the so-called "Commissar Order" he made a negative gesture with his hand and his only remark was: "madness". This event can also be substantiated by Dr. Maeusel.
3.) The troops of my unit were never given an order to shoot captured Commissars and no Commissar has ever been shot in my unit. These facts can be confirmed by Dr. Rolf Maeusel who was my unit physician at that time, since unfortunately both of my Adjutants Staffler and Daeuwel (1941 and 1942) were killed in action. However, I am in a position at any time to nominate further witnesses for this purpose.
4.) I have never heard or received information that the troops of other units in the First Mountain Division were ordered to shoot captured Commissars and I have never heard or learned that captured Commissars were killed in the area of the First Mountain Division." And the affidavit has been duly sworn to and properly certified.
The next document I would like to offer will be Exhibit 4. This is an affidavit by affiant Rudolf Lang. It is contained as Document 28 in Document Book Lang 2 on page 6 of the English. This is offered as Lang Exhibit 4. The affiant Rudolf Lang was born in 1898 in Neustadt in the Danube. He says:
"As far as I remember on the day before the attack on Russia, that is on the 21 June 1941, perhaps even on 20 June, General Lanz informed the subordinate independent Commanders of the First Division of whom I was one, being Commander of the Mountain Armored Infantry Battalion 44, that a Fuehrer order deals with the shooting of Russian commissars. The text of the order was not read out. I still remember distinctly Court No. V, Case No. VII.
that General Lanz said the Commissars are to be shot only in combat. Whether this was already expressed in the Fueher Order or whether it was an attentuating addition of the Generals, I do not know. From my knowledge of General Lanz I am certain that the limitation was ordered by him.
Signed: Rudolf Lang."
And again this affidavit has been duly sworn to and properly certified by the American Adjutant of the camp.
And the next exhibit which I beg the Court to receive in evidence is Document 29, contained in Document Book Lanz II on page 7 of the English and the German Book, and it is offered as Exhibit 5. This is an affidavit by Max Winkler. About himself, the affiant says:
"In 1941 I was Commander of the Mountain Artillery Regiment 79 in the 1 Mountain Division. As far as I remember, Brigadier-General Lanz who was then Commander of the 1 Mountain Division announced the so-called "Commissar - Order" at a conference of Commanders one day before the German march into Russia. He added that Commissars were to be shot only in combat. I remember that the fact that the Division-Commander, by this addition, deprived the order of its atrocity element and this eased my mind. Nor did it even come to my knowledge that a Commissar had been shot by any unit whatsoever of the 1 Mountain Division."
The affidavit has been duly sworn to and properly certified.
The next document which will become Lanz Exhibit 6 I offer as Document 30, contained in Document Book Lanz II on page 8. This is given by Brigadier General Steets, and he says on oath:
"The 1 Mountain Division received the Commissar Order in writing from the 49 Mountain Army Corps. This order was not passed on to the troops. It was destroyed.
"The former Division Commander Lanz announced the order orally in a conference with the Regiment - and independent Commanders on 20 or 21 June 1941 in the sense that Commissars were to be shot only in combat signed:
Hans S t e e t s Brigadier General" Court No. V, Case No. VII.