Q This anti-strike decree was publicly proclaimed so that the population could know about it?
A Yes, it was.
Q During cross-examination, the prosecution has maintained the point of view that you had worked out certain directives according to which your deputy acted when you in 1944 during your illness could not look after the affairs in the Southeast and went to Germany on leave. Is it correct that you worked out such directives?
A No, I did not work out any directives for any specific cases nor did I leave any behind. It was not necessary to do either one. My deputy, if I remember correctly, had been for more than a year the chief commandant of the Sub-Area Headquarters Saloniki and knew all orders which were valid for the area so that it was not necessary to leave behind specific directives. It was a matter of course that he would act in accordance with those orders which were valid at the time.
Q What was the position of your deputy?
AAs I said, he was commandant of the chief administrative sub-area headquarters Saloniki, 395 in Saloniki. He was in turn commanding General Army Group E.
Q This man General Pflugradt who was your deputy, had he received the same orders that you had received?
A Yes. He had received them from me, because, as commandant of the chief administrative sub-area headquarters, he was subordinate to me.
Q Has he in his capacity as Commander Saloniki-Agean received any orders immediately from the Army Group?
A I couldn't tell you because I don't know which orders he received from the Army Group. In this particular case, that is of no specific importance.
Q Did you give any particular instructions to General Pflugradt before you left for Germany?
A No, I didn't do it personally. It was not necessary because my departure came about rather suddenly and it was not possible for me to inform my deputy before I left.
Q From certain entries in the War Diary, dating from the period of time when you were absent from Greece, I gather that your deputy ordered reprisal measures which were more severe than the two reprisal measures which you had ordered. Did you have any influence in any way on the measures taken by your deputy, either immediately or indirectly by instructions which you had given to your staff?
A No. As I said before, I left no instructions behind for my deputy because it was not necessary to do this. If he deemed it necessary to take such measures, I am in no position to voice an opinion because I don't know the situation at the time and the reasons or the motives which moved him. I did not know the military necessity inherent in that situation and therefore cannot judge it. At the best, those instances prove how restrained I was myself in carrying out these measures.
Q Did you feel responsible at any time for measures taken by your deputy or by a third person during a period of time when you were absent?
A No, that idea never entered my mind because if a deputy takes over my tasks, he also takes over the responsibility together with the task and I did not feel burdened at all with any responsibility covering that period of time.
DR. WEISSGERBER: Your Honor, I have no further questions to put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions on behalf of defense counsel? Any on behalf of the prosecution?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I have no re-direct, Your Honor - that is recross.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any members of the Tribunal who wish to ask any questions? Judge Carter?
JUDGE CARTER: Nothing.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Burke?
JUDGE BURKE: I have no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I have none. You may be excused, General Speidel.
DR. WEISGERBER: If it please the Tribunal, I am now going to present the balance of the documents which I have not so far offered during the examination of my client. That will be, first of all, from Document Book Speidel I, the affidavit by university professor Gamilschek, on page 21 and 22. That is Speidel Document Book I and this document will be offered as Speidel Exhibit 75 - I beg your pardon - it will be Speidel Exhibit 54, Your Honor. This is an affidavit by Dr. Ernst Gamilschek, Professor at the University of Tuebingen, and he is one of the best known European professors. I recommend this document to the notice of the Tribunal.
The next document, Document No. 13 in Document Book I, this is an excerpt from the Journal Colloquium which contains an article which contains part of a speech of the British Fieldmarshal Montgomery.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I object to the admission of this document in evidence. We don't know whether it is a correct excerpt from this journal; at best it is hearsay. Fieldmarshal Montgomery is not available to us for cross-examination to explain any of the circumstances surrounding his statement and in any event it is the kind of argument that could best be made in the form of a brief. I submit that it is improper to receive this as evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
DR. WEISGERBER: If it please the Tribunal, from Document Book Speidel II, I have no further document to offer but there are some to offer from Document Book Speidel III. I would like to offer Speidel Document No. 46 on page 29 of Speidel Document Book III and this will become Speidel Exhibit No. 54.
THE PRESIDENT: This exhibit should be Exhibit 55, should it not?
DR. WEISGERBER: Yes, that is correct, Your Honor - 55.
This is a communication originating with the Commander of Southern Greece, dated 11 January 1943. In paragraph 2, this document shows that the Railway Security Staff Larissa had been organized and that this Railway Security Staff which was mentioned yesterday by my client was subordinated to the Commander-in-Chief Southeast for operational purposes and territorially subordinated to the Commander Saloniki-Agean. In order to prove this fact, I an offering this exhibit.
The next document to offer will be Speidel Document No. 52 in Speidel Document Book III, page 50. This document will receive Exhibit No. 56. It is a report of the Military Commander Greece and I am having reference to paragraph 3 of this report which states the following, and I quote:
"As naturally the troop is better informed of the enemy position than the various commands, the latter are if possible to receive all incoming information on the enemy from the troop every day and to obtain the data necessary as the basis for their actions as well as for the Ic reports."
This is submitted in connection with the statements made by my client concerning the channels of reporting, and finally I am offering from Speidel Document Book III, Document No. 61 on page 95 of Speidel Document Book III which is an excerpt from the Military Penal Code and it deals with Article 47 of the Military Penal Code. This document will be offered under Exhibit No. 57 and it is the well known commentary by the university professor Dr. Erich Schwinger. I recommend this document to the judicial notice of the Tribunal. I do not intend to read it.
I am also offering Document Speidel 52 as Speidel Exhibit 58. This is on page 104 of Speidel Document Book III and it is an excerpt from the commentary of Dr. Rittau concerning the Military Penal Code and this excerpt also deals with Article 47 of the Military Penal Code and it contains the commentary by Dr. Rittau on this particular article.
I don't intend to read this document either, but I recommend it to the judicial notice of the Tribunal.
If it please the Tribunal, this brings me to the end of my presentation of evidence in the case for my client General Speidel. As already mentioned during the course of the examination, I see myself forced to present a number of documents at a later date. It is not possible for me to present them at this time because these documents are still expected to arrive from abroad and have not been received yet. I would like to reserve for myself the right to present these documents at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT: That privilege will be given you.
DR. WEISGERBER: If it please the Tribunal, through the objections of the prosecution concerning the documents which I wanted to present in connection with the hostage shootings in Reutlingen, I see myself forced to bring evidence for this incident by calling witnesses concerning this incident to the witness stand here. I could not possibly anticipate that I would be forced to do this because it only arose from objections by the Prosecution. These are witnesses Frauelein Mathilde Eglob, and the witness Carl Neher. I have made a motion in writing to be permitted to call these two witnesses, and I would like to ask the Tribunal to grant this motion when it has been received.
And finally, I would like to announce the following, if it please the Tribunal. I had intended to call university professor Karl Schmidt from Tuebingen as an expert for questions of law; for some time I have been in touch with Professor Schmidt but besides holding his position as professor for international law at the University of Tuebingen he is a very busy man. Therefore, he has up to this date not been able to tell me whether he will have the time to appear before this Tribunal in this court.
According to the last communication which I received yesterday, he has agreed to this. I have made a motion in writing for permission to call this witness and I would like to ask the Tribunal to grant this application as soon as the communication concerning it has been received.
This brings me to the end of the presentation of evidence in the case of General Speidel.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
THE PRESIDENT: The matters to which you make reference, Dr. Weissgerber, will receive the attention and consideration of the Tribunal when they are received. I take it then that subject to the matters, which you have brought to the attention of the Tribunal, that you are now closing your case with the reservations you have made.
DR. WEISSGERBER: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to proceed now with the presentation of the evidence on behalf of the defendant Dehner?
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for the defendant General Dehner): If it please the Tribunal, I would like to start the presentation of evidence for the case of General Dehner with the examination of General Dehner as a witness on his own behalf. With the permission of the Tribunal I call General Dehner to the witness stand.
ERNST FRIEDRICH DEHNER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will kindly 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.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Will you please state your full name?
A Ernst Friedrich Dehner.
Q When and where were you born?
A On 5 March 1889 in Hersbruck, I spell it H-e-r-s-b-r-u-c-k.
Q What was your last military rank?
A General of the Infantry.
Q Will you please give us briefly the most important data in your life?
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
AAfter visiting the elementary school for four years in Hersbruck and Ansbach, I attended for nine years the Humanitarian High School in Ansbach and Nurnberg and in this city I passed my matriculation examination in 1908.
Q Will you please give us your military assignments until September, 1939, General?
A On 1 October 1908 I entered the army in order to fulfill my military service there. After two reserve maneuvers in 1908 and 1909, I was transferred into the active officers career. I attended from 1909 until 1921 the Bavarian Military Academy in Munich. After having finished that course, I became a lieutenant in the XIV Bavarian Infantry Regiment in Munich. As a lieutenant I started in World War No. 1, I was wounded and during the war I was promoted to first lieutenant.
After the first World War in 1919, I was promoted to Captain and at that time I was company leader in the Munich Garrison and was later transferred to Regensburg. There I was company leader and regimental adjutant. During this time in November of 1923 my company was committed to defeat the Hitler putsch in Munich.
In 1931 I was promted to Major. At that time I was in the Garrison Muenster in Westphalia and I was a referent in the staff of the Military District six in Muenster in Westphalia.
In 1934 I was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel, I was battalion commander in Muenster Westphalia in Regiment 78 and subsequently for a short period battalion commander in a regiment in Aix-la-Chapelle. On 1 October 1936 I was finally promoted to full Colonel and I was appointed regimental commander of Regiment 87 in Wiesbaden. With this regiment I started World War II.
Q Can you give us details of your commitment for the defeat of the Hitler putsch on 9 November 1923? 4
A I was assigned with my company to clean up the square before the University in Munich and I cleared this square with my company.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Q What were your military assignments during the war from 1939 until 1945?
A With my regiment I started out in World War II and first of all participated in the campaign against France, then I fought with my regiment in Luxembourg, Southern Belgium near Verdun and then returned to Germany.
In 1940 I was promoted Brigadier General and in December of 1940 I was appointed commander of the 10th Infantry division. On 1 October 1942 I was promoted Major General and on 1 November 1942 I was commissioned with the command of the 82nd Corps and one month later I was promoted to General of the Infantry, equivalent to Lieutenant General and was made Commanding General of the 82nd Corps.
In summer of 1942 I arrived in the Balkans and was made commander of the 69th Reserve Division. After that, for several months, I was transferred to the Officers' Reserve. Then I became commander of the military area of Southern France; that appointment I received in summer of 1944.
A few months after I had been in the Officers' Reserve, I became commander of the Replacement staff of Army Group Center. Then I was again transferred to the Officers' Reserve and on 3 May 1945 I was taken prisoner by the American troops.
Q Were you a member of the National Socialist Party?
A No.
Q Were you a member of one of its affiliated organizations?
A No.
Q What was the relation between you and the Party during the time up to 1939?
AAt that time I was no member of any Party, as an active officer I was not allowed to be a member of any Party.
Q What was your relationship to the N.S.D.A.P.?
A My relationship to the National Socialist Party could not always be called a good one. There were a number of differences of Court No. V, case No. VII.
opinion, frictions, difficulties and struggles. I was particularlyopposed to it at the beginning of 1933 and during the period of time when I was Regimental commander.
Q Were you at any time a member of the General Staff?
A No.
Q Did you visit any military academies?
A No.
Q What is your religion?
A I am a Protestant.
Q What was your relation to the Church?
A I was brought up in the Protestant religion and I adhered to this faith in spite of endeavors in officers' circles to convert me to the contrary and I always instructed my subordinates in conformity with this attitude of mine.
Q What was your attitude to the Nurnberg laws?
A I rejected the Nurnberg laws and I stated that frankly and openly. In my opinion these laws were unjust and they contradicted general conceptions of humanity.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Q If it please the Tribunal, in this connection to prove General Dehner's character, as well as his political and religious attitude, I shall present first of all from my document book 1, document Dehner No. 3 and this will become Dehner exhibit No. 1. I repeat, Dehner book 1, page 5 and 6 of both the German and the English text. This is an affidavit of the former General Franz Halder, dated 28 July 1947. If it please the Tribunal, I would like to draw attention first of all to paragraph 2 where it says:
"In the years 1931 - 1934 I was Chief of Staff of Military Area H.O. (Wehrkreiskommando) in Muenster in Westphalia. During this time I became more closely acquainted with the then Major Ernst DEHNER, who belonged to this staff as 2nd Adjutant (IIb). This acquaintance was not only limited to official contacts in the form of a qualifying superior to his subordinate, but was also of a personal nature, which amongst fellow-countrymen - we are both Bavarians - was naturally closer than that entertained by many other members of the staff."
The affiant goes on to say in paragraph 3:
"DEHNER is the type of a good German field officer. Also in staff-duty his interest was exclusively devoted to the troops, care of their correct training, and the preservation of a good soldierly spirit. As long as I was in the position to observe him, DEHNER was a perfect example of someone fulfilling his duty with minute meticulousness, an absolutely reliable, indefatigably industrious colleague, who keenly endeavored to fulfill the duties of his office to the best of his ability, and to lend effective support to his superiors. DEHNER is not a type who searches for and follows up independent lines of action in a self-willed way. He rather bowed willingly to the authority of his superior, without foregoing, however, the right and duty of expressing his own emphatic points of view."
In the next paragraph Halder mentioned General Dehner's religious and political attitude and in the second sentence of paragraph four he says:
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
"His reserved deeply religious austerely self-disciplined character was in innate antithesis to the lack of restraint and the blustering brutal measures, which became more and more extensive through the NSDAP in political life during these years. Although he himself, as a soldier of the Seeckt school, was absolutely unpolitical, DEHNER chose this way in ever increasing contrast to that of the Party. Many times he expressed this contrast to me in a very blunt manner, thereby pointing out the dangers for the education of the rising German youth and also for the spirit of the Wehrmacht which would spring from this attitude of mind. I recall amongst other things his official report on the National Socialist intrigues of a few company commanders of the Muenster garrison, who wanted to introduce the "Horst-Wessel-song" as a soldier's song for the troops, and on the efforts of a few young officers, who in order to go over to the Party for training wanted to have leave from the unit. The officer otherwise so calm and balanced, fell into a violent rage about these traces of National Socialist spirit amongst the troops, and himself proposed immediate drastic counter-measures.
"The impression I gained during the period of close collaboration of this upright thinking officer who was conscious of duty and honor does not allow room for the notion that in later years he could have acted from criminal motives or have become a representative of the spirit of the lack of restraint which he had formerly fought against with his very being."
I further offer in this connection document Dehner No. 4. This will become Dehner exhibit 2. It is contained in Dehner document book 1 on pages 7 to 9 of both the German and the English version.
This is an affidavit of the former General Franz Freiherr von Kress, dated 21 July 1947. The former General von Kress was formerly a superior of General Dehner and this affidavit is also submitted as evidence for the political and religious attitude shown by General Dehner. It says in the second paragraph of this affidavit:
"The former General Ernst DEHNER was regimental commander of Court No. V, Case No. VII.
the Infantry Regiment 87 in Wiesbaden from 1936 - 39 and was subordinated to my command as commanding general and commander of Army District XII."
The affiant goes on to say about General Dehner that:
"He enjoyed the education and training of the old German Officers' Corps to which he remained absolutely faithful even in the period of National Socialism, as I was repeatedly able to convince myself on this score from occasional conversations with him, and which I could observe at any time from his entire behavior. The spirit of decency with which he was blest, his high conception of honor and duty, his excellent education and training received at home make a low, unworthy or indecent attitude of mind, or action on his part seem impossible."
I will skip the next sentence and shall read from the next paragraph:
"I consider it absolutely impossible for him to commit a crime against humanity."
In the next paragraph General von Kress says about himself:
"I myself was discharged on 4 February 1938, since I was not in favor of National Socialism, and did not participate in the intrigues of this party."
I will skip two sentences again and he then says:
"DEHNER never gave the Party his sympathy, and in all essential questions remained steadfastly at my side. He never curried favor with the Party in order to gain any privileges, but strictly followed the path of decency, justice and faithful fulfilment of his duty. His rise is not due to the fact that he made himself popular with the Party or that he was a special protegee of HITLER, it is entirely due to his diligence in his military profession. The fact that he became a highranking general is therefore not a sign that he held the same views as HITLER, but is his just merit."
I will read now from the next paragraph:
"From his religious attitude it is obvious that DEHNER was not Court No. V, Case No. VII.
susceptible to National Socialist enticements. In every respect National Socialism endeavoured to place difficulties in the way of the practice of religion. The work of the Military Area H.O. chaplain was sabotaged in every possible way, propaganda for the so-called German Christians assumed intolerable limits, the faithful adherents of the old Christian Church were ill-famed as followers of the Confessional religion, all possible sects sprang up to split up the Christian Church.
"As Commanding General I severely opposed these intrigues. As regimental commander DEHNER actively supported me in this matter, no doubt entirely from inner conviction, although however, he knew exactly that in doing so he made himself unpopular with the leading authorities, not only with HITLER, but also with the Reich Defense Ministry, which, at that time avoided all friction with the Party, and laid himself open to the reproach that he was making difficulties for National Socialism. As to how important these religious matters were regarded by the Party is seen by the fact that my discharge was chiefly caused by my opposition in the religious sphere. Nevertheless DEHNER like I took the risk upon himself and remained faithful to his convictions.
"It should be clearly seen from the foregoing that DEHNER is an upright soldier, who always acted according to the principles of honor and decency, without any consideration for personal advantage, I cannot imagine according to my personal impressions of this steadfast personality that such a man became a criminal under the HITLER regime."
If it please the Tribunal, I shall further submit one document in this connection, which is contained in document book VI, but has not yet been translated. I would therefore ask for permission to present this document at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT: That privilege will be given you.
Q. What were the conditions in your family, General?
A. Since 1918 I was married. I have two sons. They are 19 and 24 years old.
Q. What were your assignments during the First World War?
A. I was platoon leader, company leader and battalion adjutant.
Q. What decorations did you receive during the First World War?
A. During the First World War I received the Iron Cross, first and second class. The Bavarian Order of Merit and the decorations given for wounds.
Q. That brings us to the next chapter of our discussion. Did you e concern yourself with questions of International Law?
A. No.
Q. Did you at any time during your period of service receive any instructions or training concerning International Law or did you hear any lectures concerning International Law?
A. No, never at no time.
Q. On what was your knowledge of International Law based?
A. On the scarce notes about it which were contained in some of the orders of procedure. I remember, for instance, that in the old order of military procedure 1908 there is a chapter concerning the Geneva Conventions and, furthermore, any knowledge concerning International Law is based on the reading of newspapers and periodicals -- I mean of periodicals in the military sphere and, finally, based on my knowledge of military history.
Q. What was the general opinion held in the German army concerning hostages?
A. Hostages were an admissible reprisal measure which had been applied in former wars.
Q. Concerning the international law concept regarding hostage reprisals carried out by the German army, was there any clarity?
A. I believe this is being disputed even today.
Q. During the war would it have been possible for you to gain the necessary clairyt about these concept, prerequisites and questions of admissibility?
A. I believe that in the urgency of war and in the quick actions which are being taken in wartime there is no time to do this. Furthermore, every commander and every officer had to assume that all orders coming from higher agencies and especially from the highest level had been examined with respect to their admissibility under international law very clearly and quickly and that this admissability had been thoroughly considered and weighed One had to also assume that the legal experts which were attached to the high agencies for this purpose had been consulted about what was the general opinion held about the killing of hostages, and the admissibility under international law to kill hostages. The American "rules of land warfare" also discusses this subject.
Q. Was it customary in the army to check every order coming from higher agencies before it was passed on concerned its admissibility under International Law?
A. No, it was not customary to do that and this for the reason which I gave before. As I know from military literature and from military history all armies in this world follow the same custom. There is simply not enough time to check every order regarding its legal aspects. It is impossible, see from a tactical point of view, and would furthermore impair the confidence in the leadership. It would also curtail the discipline and the fighting strength and spirit of the troops.
Q. When you obeyed or passed or issued orders, did you ever have the feeling that you were committing any act which was contradictory to International Law?
A. No.
Q. That brings me to another chapter of this general examination, and where was the corps headquarters of the 69th Reserve Corps organized.
A. The corps headquarters of the 69th Reserve Corps was established the months of July and August 1943 in Vienna.
Q. Did the corps headquarters of the 69th Reserve Corps, when it was organized in Vienna, have any orders about the arrest and treatment of hostage about the carrying out of reprisal measures, et cetera?
A. I cannot recall that the corps headquarters had any orders to the effect. I think that is out of the question.
Q. When was the corps headquarters transferred to Croatia?
A. The corps headquarters was transferred to Croatia in August 1943.
Q. When was the Croatian state created?
A. The Croatian state was created at the beginning of April 1941: to the best of my knowledge, on the 15th of April 1941 it was recognized by Germany and two months later it joined the so-called anti-Comintern Pact and in December 1941 Croatia declared war on the Allies.
Q. What do you know of the recognition of the Croatian state by other states?
A. The Croatian state was recognized by the Axis powers and also by the neutral states. These had their representatives with the seat of the government in Zagreb. Croatia concluded trade agreements with neutral state to the best of my knowledge.
Q. How large was the area of the Croatian state?
A. The area of the Croatian state was 115,000 square kilometers, to the best of my knowledge. On the map it is the area encircled by the red line
Q. How many inhabitants did Croatia have?
A. Croatia had 7 million inhabitants.
Q. Which was the area under the commander of the 69th Corps?
A. The 69th Crops covered about a third of a fourth of this area and I am pointing that out here very roughly. This was the area under the jurisdiction of the Corps in the north of Croatia.
Q. Who was the state authority in Croatia?
A. The power of the state was held by the Croatian government and the head of this government was Ante Pavelic who was called the Poglavnik -- I spell that P o g l a v n i k.
Q. What was the general constellation of the Croatian government?
A. All ministries were represented in the Croatian government as is the general custom. There was the Ministry of the Foreign Office, the Ministry of the Interior, the War Ministry, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Finance, et cetera.
DR. GAWLIK: If it please the Tribunal, in this connection and to co*** the statements made by the witness, I should like to offer from Dehner Document Book I, Document Dehner No. 6. This will become Dehner Exhibit 3. It is on pages 11 to 13 of this document book which is Dehner Document Book 1. It is an excerpt from the "Voelkischer Beobachter" dated 16 April 1941. The headline is: "Independent Croatia Recognized by the Axis Powers."
"Berlin 15 April. The newly formed Croatian National Government in Zagreb, through a telegram from its Chief Dr. Pavelic and General Kvaternik has informed the Fuehrer of the proclamation of the independent State of Croatia and requested recognition of independent Croatia by the German Reich I shall skip the next paragraph but in the next afternoon it is shown that Croatia was recognized by the German Reich.
It is further shown on the following page on page 12 that Croatia was also recognized by Italy. It say "I am happy to announce to you the recognition of the independent Croatian State by the Fascist Government which, in a free interchange of opinion will be pleased to come to an agreement with the National Croatian Government concerning the boundaries of the new State, to which the Italian people extend the best of luck."
The next paragraph on the bottom of page 12 shows that Slovakia also recognized the independent state of Croatia.
I further submit in this connection Document Dehner No. 7, also con tained in Document Book Dehner I and this will become Exhibit 4, page 14 -this is Dehner Document Book I. This document, which is also an excerpt from the "Voelkischer Beobachter" shows that Croatia had its own armed forces and its own commander in chief of the Croatian armed forces.
I am further submitting Dehner Document No. VIII, which will become Dehner Exhibit No. 5. This is contained in Document Book I for Dehner on page 15. This also is an excerpt from the "Voelkischer Beobachter" which I am submitting as evidence of the independence of the Croatian state. From this document it becomes apparent that Croatia had an ambassador in Berlin, that, therefore, Croatia had international connections with other states.
I further submit from Dehner Document Book I Dehner Document 9 which will become Dehner Exhibit No. 6. This is on page 16 of Dehner Document I and is also an excerpt from the "Voelkischer Beobachter" dated 10 May 1941. From this document can be seen how the government of the Croatian state was organized. The document shows the inner and foreign political sovereign of the state.
I further submit in this connection Document Dehner 15 which will become Dehner Exhibit 7. This is also contained in Dehner Document Book I on page 17 and it is also an excerpt from the "Voelkischer Beobachter" where the German Croatian frontier is described. From this document can be seen that this newly created state had taken up international relations with other states.
The last document which I want to present in this connection will be document Dehner No. 11 which will become Dehner Exhibit No. 8. It is contained in Dehner Document Book I on page 18 and 19. This is likewise an excerpt from the "Voelkischer Beobachter" and confirms that Croatia was an independent state. This document shows the constitution of the state and in the second paragraph it states:
"It has not been determined whether or not the representative body of the people will be formed on a corporative or some other basis."
Which shows that all prerequisites were fulfilled which have to be gi** for a country to be a state -- that is, state area and state constitution.
From page 19 it can be seen that the Italian troops which were in the Croatian state as occupation troops were retired to the new borderline. It shows that the executive power was from then on invested in the Croatian authorities.
Q. General, is it correct to designate the Croatian government as a puppet government?
A. No. I don't believe one can say that. The Croatian government was very seriously concerned with the rights which it defended against the Wehrmacht. At times we had considerable difficulties in our operations because we always had to consider the Croatian state. In many cases, it was very inexpedient but we had to get the agreement of the Croatian state for our actions.
DR. GAWLIK: If it please the Tribunal, in this connection I shall submit a document which is contained in Dehner Document Book V which I cannot present at this moment because this document book Dehner V has not been translated. This is an excerpt from the war diary of the 69th Reserve Corps The presentation of this document I would like to reserve for a later date but at this point I would like to express my gratitude to the Tribunal for supporting me in obtaining this war diary from Washington.
Q. General, what German agencies were there in Croatia?
A. There were agencies of the army, the navy, police, the German legation and agencies of the various Reich officers which I cannot enumerate at the moment.
Q. Were the Croatian agencies subordinate to the German agencies?
A. No, they were not.
Q. What were the reasons for the presence of German agencies in Croatia?
A. I have to assume that this fact was based on the agreement and express consent of the Croatian state and the Croatian government.
Q. Who was primarily responsible for public safety and order in Croatia?
A. The Croatian government which held executive powers and exercise them.