The next document is Document No. 93, which will become Exhibit No, 78. It is on Page 27. The entry of the 18th of May 1943 is of special significance, especially under Nos. 1 and 3. It says: "Military Commander: Discussion with Chief of Staff, Standartenfuehrer Dr. Schaefer and Special Mission Officer of the Strategic and Tactical Planning General Staff (0 1) about new rulings concerning the execution of reprisal measures: 1. To retain present quota, in case of lack of hostages, central execution by Security Service (SD). (Fictitious shootings (Schattenerschiessungen)." And, then, No. 3 says: "Taking away of cattle because of economic considerations only in exceptional cases."
The Defendant Geitner points out that hare documentary evidence has been presented not only for the fact that an 0 1 -- that is a Radical Planning General Staff --was competent to deal with such measures, but that actually it attempted to carry out fictitious shootings or mock executions in order to be able to evade reprisal measures. This matter was discussed in detail when the Defendant Geitner was examined in the witness-stand. I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention to this. This excerpt which has just been mentioned states under Figure 3 the care he took for the maintenance of the Serbian stock.
The next document is Document No. 94, on Page 28, which will receive Exhibit No. 79. I do not want to read the first few entries. They show the measures taken by the Defendant Geitner and his Commander in Chief against ill conditions, especially at OT (Organization Todt). That was the organization which also had to deal with mines and such conditions. The entry under the 23rd of June 1943 says:
"Gruppenfuehrer Meyszner because of reprisal measures in Krusevac, Military Commander demands District Commander to be consulted for the selection of the hostages."
Here we see on the one side the exaggerated activity of the Gruppenfuehrer Meyszner, who could hardly be satisfied, and on the other side the activity of the Military Commander Serbia in an attempt to prevent measures taken by Gruppenfuehrer Meyszner, as far as possible.
The next entry of the 24th of June 1943, again, shows the attempts of the Commander in Chief Serbia and his Staff to fortify the German unit in Serbia so much that no reprisal measures would be carried out or at least an effort to reduce them to a large division. A German division is asked for in the Army unit, but I think, without avail.
To Document No. 95, on the next page. Your Honors -- Page 30 -I shall give Exhibit No. 80. From this document we see, first of all, from the entry of the 2nd of July 1943, the special care of the generals in Serbia for the population, especially in the interest cf Serbian agriculture and in the interest of food supply for the civilian population, which had to be safely secured. The entry of the 22nd of July 1943 again makes it quite evident that the legal attitude and the legal behavior of the rioters, who attacked German medical trucks. The entry on Page 31 again shows the care the Defendant took to support the population. Measures were discussed, it says under the 24th of July 1943, "concerning food supplies for the towns of Belgrade and Nisch, as far as consumers are concerned who do not provide their own supplies."And in the same discussion you see under the term "Chief", that is, Geitner, a new proof for the resistance of the Defendant Geitner as to the exaggerated measures imposed by the Four-Year Plan. As it says here, and I quote: "He stated to the administrative chief, without the slightest doubt, that before anyone would send any food supplies to the Reich enough supplies would he kept in order to prevent riots." You see the attempts of Geitner to maintain peace and order and to supply food and bread for the population, because then it is well know that people would be quiet under those circumstances. The further entries show Meyszer again as exaggerated agitator.
On the 27th of July 1943, for instance, he asks for the arrest of the families of the rioters -- something that had been refused by the Commander in Chief and his Chief of Staff on an earlier occasion. Under the 30th of July 1943, which is also on Page 31, I may again draw the attention of the Tribunal to the passage, and I quote: "Special Mission Staff Officer calls to inquire about reprisal measures."
You will remember that in another document, which has been submitted by me today, that this 0 1 is already mentioned as a special departmental expert, and here you see a very clear entry from which it becomes evident that 0 1, not the Defendant Geitner, was responsible for and dealt with reprisal measures to be carried out and that he has to report to the Commander in Chief about reprisal measures. The entry of the 30th of July 1943 again shows a case in which a Captain of the Serbian Volunteer Corps and 18 men were killed in an ambush by partisans.
Document No. 96. on Page 32, will become Exhibit No. 81. First, a few brief reports about bandits, where you will see, under the entry of 12th of August 1943, which refers accidentally to a count in the Indictment, regarding the location Arilje, which under the Figure "d" (small "d" for David), has been dealt with in the Indictment. I want to refer to and to limit myself to this count in the Indictment. I only want to draw your attention to the same page, to the entry under the 13th of August 1943, which, again, refers to the same operation near Arilje. The Commander of the unit concerned was summoned for the reporting, as becomes evident from this entry. And that report that this Commander made was mentioned under the 14th of August 1943. From this you can see that the Commander in Chief Serbia and his Chief of Staff tried to investigate such matters. The entry of the 13th of August 1943, still on Page 32, shows you the report of the Chief of Staff, a Lieut. Colonel von Dauberschmitt, who reports that the enemy has been destroyed in three groups near Arilje. Here it becomes quite evident that it was a purely military operation. The entry of the same day concerning a General Osterkamp shows that Geitner demanded to keep the meat supplies for the Serbian civilian population in the country, and that he refused to distribute it to the Army Administration Office because he said this supply would not be possible.
From the next entry you see that there is another contribution for the maintenance of order required in the country, a decree which was to be proclaimed at the time "concerning the prohibition of the vendetta in Serbia," from this you can see what considerations and what attitudes one took in order to obtain order and quiet. Also, of great importance is the entry of the 20th of August 1943 on the next page. It's Page 33, where it says: "Chief Brigadier General Fischer 'Military Administration Headquarters Vraacka Banja) reports on the advances of the Bulgarians in the Guca area and on their demands for additional reprisal measures. The General rejects them."
Here, again you have an example in which the Defendant Geitner is able to report that the army or some other unit asked for reprisal measures to be carried out, but that his Commander in Chief refused such reprisal measures to be carried out. For this reason this document is submitted, and Your Honors are asked to pay attention to the significance of these documents.
The next document No. 97, on Page 34, which will receive Exhibit No. 82. It is the entry of the 29th of August 1943 which is especially interesting because here we see the date of the relief of General Bader by General Felber who arrived at Belgrade on the 29th of August. The date, therefore, is absolutely certain. Then, the entry of the 1st of September 1943 contains a contribution for the showing of the cunningness and maliciousness of the Serbian Volunteer Corps. I am not going to read the entry which in itself, of course, is very interesting. It merely repeats something that has been confirmed here on numerous, previous occasions. In the same entry there is a remark of General Meyszner, the Higher SS and Police Leader, who demands intensification of reprisal measures, but nothing is mentioned about the approval of such action. Instead you find a reference concerning the care that was taken for the population, Page 34, at the bottom. On the 3rd of September 1943, on Page 35 measures are mentioned against certain ill conditions on the part of the German administration. And, then, there is an entry on the 9th of September 1943, which is again on Page 35. I quote: "The Supreme Commander, after a discussion with the Higher SS and Police Chief, decides, on the basis of the new political directives for Serbia, not to carry out two ordered major reprisal measures in the districts of Kragujevac and Leskovac in order to ease the situation for the Nedic Government." Here, again, you see a contribution concerning the claim of the Prosecution that the German generals in Serbia had lined nothing better than to order reprisal measures to be carried out. Here, there are two extensive reprisal measures which were not carried out, which were withdrawn. And I draw your attention to the fact that this happened eight days after the new Commander in Chief Serbia, General Felber, had arrived in Belgrade.
This is the same General Felber who, in a former stage of the trial, was summoned as a witness upon request of the Prosecution. It is a strange feature that immediately on the next page there is another entry in which again reprisal measures are being refused by this new Commander in Chief. It is Page 36, Document No. 97, where it says, under the 15th of September 1943, "Rejection of reprisal measures in the area of the Field Kommandanture 809." That is in the first half of September the new Commander in Chief, as the Defendant maintains, under his influences, refused two or three extensive reprisal measures--at least he rescinded them. Under the 16th of September 1943 there is an entry, and I quote: "SS Gruppenfuehrer Meyszer sees the High Commander. Discussion about reprisal shootings." I attach particular value to this quotation because it becomes evident from this that SS Gruppenfuehrer Meyszner did not discuss matters concerning reprisal measures with the Defendant Geitner but with the Commander in Chief personally. That, in this case, is the just newly arrived General Felber. This is again a contribution for the investigation for the claim of Geitner that he was not competent to deal with or discuss reprisal measures.
The entry at the end of this page on the 30th of September 1943, shows that this SS Gruppenfuehrer Meyssner got entangled in all matters. It says here SS Gruppenfuehrer Meyssner opposed the fact that the Serbian state guard is to be subordinated to the Commander of Nedic -- that is the Serbian Minister. He discloses that he is ordered to report to the SS Reichsfuehrer. Here you see another example how this SS Gruppenfuehrer Meyssner tried to exercise the pressure on the newly appointed Commander-in-Chief Felber and on the defendant Geitner, in which he is threatening with the denunciation at the Reichsfuehrer SS.
The next document 98 on page 38 receives Exhibit No. 83. I draw your attention -- on page 39, your Honors, from the 15th of October 1943 the second paragraph, you see there the remark "Field Kommandantur 816 is informed that reprisal measures for casualties suffered by the Reserve Grenadier Regt. 17 during the relief operation against Ljubovija, are out of question."
I would like to remind the Tribunal of the fact that a few minutes ago on the occasion of the entry of the 13th September 1943, I read an entry "Refusal of Reprisal Measures by the Field Kommandantur 809." Here on page 39 under the entry of 15 October 1943, you see a similar entry concerning other field headquarters. In this case, it is 816 who evidently had ordered or asked for reprisal measures to be carried out, but the new General, the Commander-in-Chief Felber under the influence of Chief-of-Staff Geitner refused such reprisal measures. I do not want to read the other entries. I would like the Tribunal to take note of the next document No. 99 on page 41 which will receive the Exhibit No. 84. I shall read the paragraph under the 1st of November, 1943:
"Discussions with Ambassador Neubacher at HighCommand Headquarters.....
"Reprisal measures for offenses committed by the national insurgents are to be considerably reduced."
Here again is proof that the generals in Serbia evidently kept on investigating how far they would get and how far they would have to carry out reprisal measures and that they tried to reduce them when they were in the belief that they could be avoided.
On the next page 42, it is interesting to see the entry of 23 November 1943 here. General von Geitner asks the OKW, the administrative Department, the High Command of the Army, also to appoint Constabulary for the Croatian territory. It is the 19th of November. You see the attempts of the defendant Geitner to receive the means and the possibility to establish and maintain order and peace in the country. I should now like to read on page 42 the entry of the 26th of November. In the English version, if you happen to have that.
"Reprisal measures to be taken for the two air corps men, found shot and mutilated in the area of Bur. It will be temporarily refrained from on the initiative of ambassador Neubacher......"
Resulting from a mistake of the English translation, it is under the 28th of November, 1943. It is therefore on page 42 in the center. I should like the date 28 November 1943 to be changed to 26 November 1943. That is what it should read.
This entry therefore reads: -- I shall re-read it because it deals with reprisal measures -- it says:
"Reprisal measures to be taken for the two air corps men, found shot and mutilated in the area of Bor; will be temporarily refrained from on the initiative of Ambassador Neubacher.......
A new regulation in regard to reprisal measures, in connection with the suggestion of Ambassador Neubacher, is taken into consideration. Reprisal measures taken so far are based on orders which up till now had been given by higher authority with regard to the kind of reprisal measures to be applied.
As a result of another request by the Draha Mihailovic partisan leader, Kalabic who is staying in the area MladenovacMilanovac and in the district north of Uzice, a mutual non aggression agreement is concluded with the latter for the purpose of fighting the Communists.....
The background of these statements is very evident here. Geitner maintains that he used the appearance of a new Commander-in-Chief, in this case General Felber, in order to influence the new Commander-in-Chief in good manner. The new Commander-in-Chief therefore tried to have reprisal measures. He began with his new regulation by refusing to have carried out two reprisal measures in two comparatively significant cases.
The next entry of 29 of November 1943 says that - I quote:
"As a result of another request by the Draha Mihailovic partisan leader, Kalabic who is staying in the area Mladenevac-Milanovac and in the district north of Uzice, a mutual non-aggression agreement is concluded with the latter for the purpose of fighting the Communists."
The defendant Geitner attaches value to the fact that it becomes evident from this report that every means was used in order to avoid bloodshed and to avoid combat between population and the partisans.
The next document is Document 100; it will receive Exhibit No. 85, and it is on page 44 of Geitner Document Book Geitner IV. The entry of the 3rd of December is an interesting contribution to the cunning of the armed bands of the Cetniks and also the next but one entry of the 8th of December 1943 in which an obvious is named in order to avoid laws.
The next document 101 will receive Exhibit No. 86; it is on page 46. The entry of the 9th of January 1944 points out the special care which was taken concerning the civilian population. The entry of the 16th of January, 1944, also on page 46 shows that the new Commander-in-Chief Felber and his Chief-of-Staff Geitner attempted to avoid the quick drawing out of the 173rd Reserve Division without suitable replacement. The word for the population is mentioned by the entry of the 27th of January 1944 and the 30th of January 1944 where the defendant von Geitner complains about the dishonest attitude of the DM leaders -- that is Draja Mihailovic, the Mihailovic people who used conclusions of agreements only as means for the purpose of avoiding difficulties, and then later on were surprised when Germans drew the consequences of this, their attitude.
Document 102 on page 87 will receive Exhibit No. 87. I repeat -Document 102 on page -- I am sorry, I made a mistake there. It is on page 48 of the original and it will receive the Exhibit Number 87. The first entry again -
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I think before you read from that exhibit, we will take our noon recess.
(A recess was taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You may proceed.
DR. SAUTER: We had last discussed before the recess Document No. 102 on page 4 of the Geitner Document Book IV which was offered under Exhibit No. 87. In this document, there is of importance the entry under 10 February 1944. That is on page 48 of Geitner Document Book IV and the excerpt reads: "Attacks by partisans on an ambulance train carried out under violation of international law regulations. Consultation with the deputy chief of staff for the improvement of the situation of civilian population that is under the 11th of February 1944."
The balance of the contents is concerned with difficulties which existed concerning the Bulgarians and fierce ethnic fights between the Bulgarian inhabitants. I don't want to read all that in detail; I will instead turn to Document No. 103 Geitner 103 that is on page 51 of Geitner Document Book IV and it will be offered under Geitner Exhibit No. 88.
Under the date 13 March 1944 we have an example for conferences concerning provisions for the civilian population, the putting at the disposal of the population of vehicles for this purpose. Under the date of the 17th of March, we hear about conferences concerning the relations with the Highest SS and Police Leader in Albania, and it is said that this relationship was intolerable.
Now I would like to deal with Document 104; that is on page 53 of Geitner Document Book IV and it will be offered under Geitner Exhibit No. 89. This dates from April 1944 and here again we have entries dealing with the welfare measures for the population. I would like to stress that these are documents which we received from Washington. That is, they are not documents which were produced now for this trial.
Now I would like to turn to Document 105 which will become Geitner Exhibit 90. It is on page 55 of Geitner Document Book IV. Here again we have entries which show the welfare measures taken for the population. One can be seen from the entry dated 16 May 1944. It is further mentioned that care is taken for the maintenance of the food level for the civilian population for the disposal of transport space for this purpose. This is stated under the date of 19 May 1944. The entry of 25 May 1944 on page 56 of Geitner Document Book IV shows the anti-Serbian attitude of Hitler. This made it very hard for the German generals to cope with the situation in the Balkans. These then are the excerpts from the War Diary and they were contained in Documents 82 through 105 in Geitner Document Book IV.
The following documents 106, 107 and 108, on page 57 through 59 also came from Washington. They show -- and that is why the defendant von Geitner is submitting them -- that the Commanders in Serbia carefully examined every incident that might give cause for a reprisal measure and by no means saw in every such incident an occasion to order reprisal measures.
Document Geitner 106 on page 57 on Geitner Document Book IV will be offered under Geitner Exhibit No. 91. This document indicates the following. Here it says "with the reprisal action of 20 August 1943, the attack has been expiated. The shooting of further 50 Communist hostages is refused."
It is signed:
"The Military Commander Serbia" and the signature is "Ia" which was not the defendant von Geitner. Then we have initial "B", handwritten, and below that "G", also handwritten. From other documents, we know that the initial "B" apparently means First Lieutenant Bode who is the one who was responsible for this and the initial "G" is the initial of the defendant who had to initial all these documents. This is a reprisal order which was given on order by General Longschar.
Geitner Document 107, on page 58 of Document Book IV, will be offered under Exhibit Number 92. This moves along similar lines. Here we have an order by General Felber, who was the second commander of the defendant von Geitner, and it says in the document that "Threats of reprisals and retaliation measures for the members of the SS.-Pol. Panzer Inf. Rgt. 2 who disappeared during action against the village Grnajka are out of the question according to..." and then follow some figures. The order is signed by Felber, and then we find the initial "G", which is the defendant Geitner's initial. This again is an order which shows that the second commander also did not see in every incident an occasion to issue reprisal measures.
The next document, which is Geitner Document No. 108, on page 59 of Geitner Document Book IV, will be offered under Exhibit Number 93. The contents of this document is of no great importance. It deals with the compensation for damages occurred through bombing.
This brings me to Geitner Document Number 109, on page 60 of Geitner Document Book IV, and the following pages. This document Till be offered as Geitner Exhibit 94. During the examination of the defendant von Geitner I have announced that the defendant had the desire to make some comments on a number of documents about which I could ask him during his examination. These are documents which, in my opinion, have no particular importance, but in the list of documents the Prosecution has charged the defendant von Geitner with a certain responsibility concerning these documents without, however, indicating of what this responsibility consisted in detail and from what facts it was supposed to be deducted. In the interests of preserving time and in order not to deal for a whole day on things which are of no particular importance, I have included General von Geitner's statements concerning these matters in the affidavit which I am offering as Geitner Document Number 109, Geitner Exhibit 94, on page 60 of Geitner Document Book IV. The document covers pages 60 through 71.
And there will be also Document Number 110, which I shall offer under Exhibit Number 95. In this document the defendant Geitner makes statements in a similar manner concerning the excerpts from the War Diaries which have been submitted. In this affidavit the defendant von Geitner deals with the individual documents.
MR. FULKERSON: If your Honors please, I object to the presentation of this document. The defendant was on the stand and he had an opportunity to ask him about all these matters. There appears to be nothing mentioned in this affidavit which was not known to the defendant at the time that he was on the stand. If, as Dr. Sauter has indicated, he didn't ask the defendant questions about these matters because he considered they were of not sufficient importance to be gone into then, it seems to me to be pointless to go into it if it has no probative value and is of no value. If, on the other hand, it does, then Prosecution should certainly have an opportunity to cross-examine the defendant about these matters.
DR. SAUTER: If your Honors please, as defense counsel in such a case one always seems to be in a predicament. The Prosecution had at the time presented long lists where on the right side it was stated which defendant was in detail allegedly charged with what particular document. That is what happened to the defendant von Geitner also. He was, for instance, charged with all individual reports which came to the Commander of Serbia or were sent out from the command of Serbia to higher agencies. All those reports were used as incriminating material against the defendant von Geitner. It is my own personal opinion that one can hardly think it possible that the defendant von Geitner can be responsible for every detail that the reports contain from his agency or directed to his agency. This is why I myself did not deem it necessary to ask the defendant von Geitner when he was on the witness stand questions about six, twelve, or 50 documents, but I can quite understand that defendant von Geitner feels that he wants to make comments about every one of these documents since the Prosecution has assorted, without giving any detailed reason, that these documents contain an incrimination for the defendant von Geitner.
My suggestion to accept one or two affidavits which contain comments which in my opinion are not of particular importance was merely made in the interest of preservation of time. If I was to ask the defendant von Geitner on the stand about those matters that would take one full day. I am ready to do that, if the Prosecution wishes it to be handled that way -- we can do that -- but I don't think that it is correct that we waste time in this way.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARGER: The Tribunal will receive the exhibit with the understanding that the defendant can be cross examined on any points therein raised that seem important to the Prosecution.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you, your Honor.
From these two documents, Geitner 109 and 110, which are Geitner Exhibits 94 and 95, I shall not read anything in detail. There are in these affidavits comments about every document which we did not discuss on the direct examination. If the court, during their preparation of their judgment, should encounter any document in connection with which the court wishes any comments of the defendant von Geitner, they will find such statements in these two affidavits. These two affidavits were duly sworn to and properly certified. That was the last document contained in Geitner Document Book IV.
This brings me to Geitner Document Book V. This Document Book contains Geitner Documents 111 through 144. These documents consist in a number of affidavits concerning the method of warfare of the Partisans and concerning the question whether or not the Partisans are to be regarded a regular belligerent army. A number of the documents contained in this Document Book deals with Geitner's service in this territory and describes the difficulties which he encountered there. These affidavits also relate the attitude which von Geitner showed as a German general towards the civilian population.
If your Honors please, concerning all these subjects with which these affidavits deal, we have had a number of documents at various times. If we were to read everything contained in this Document Book we would repeat a great many things, and that is why I- shall be comparatively brief when reading from these documents, but I would be obliged if the Tribunal takes judicial notice of the contents of the whole of the Document Book, even where it is not read.
The first three documents, Numbers 111, 112, and 113, have been mentioned at an earlier date and have been presented to the court at an earlier time and have been accepted at such time. Those are Documents Geitner 111, which was given Geitner Exhibit Number 28, Document 112, which was given Geitner Exhibit Number 29, and Document 113, which was given Geitner Exhibit Number 30. These are three documents which merely contain the formula of oath for throe affidavits submitted earlier. Your Honors will recall that some time ago I presented three affidavits where through an error the formula of oath was missing; so that these affidavits have the properly required form, we have now added the formulas of oath as separate documents and presented at the time when we dealt with the affidavits proper.
I shall now turn to the next document in this Document Book, which is Document Geitner 114, contained in Geitner Document Book V, contained on page 4 of this Document Book, and this will be offered under Geitner Exhibit Number 96.
This is an affidavit executed by one Werner Welsch who states that he was ADC with the Commander-in-Chief Southeast, which is the High Command of Army Group F, during the period from 1 August 1944 to 1 March 1945. That is the agency which was the superior agency of the Military Commander for Serbia. In this affidavit the affiant relates a particularly striking occurrence which violated the regulations of international law. It was a cunning attack by partisans directed against a motor column of the German Ambassador and his staff. This is a flagrant violation of international law and the extraterritorial status of the Ambassador. I recommend the contents of this document to the judicial notice of the Tribunal. I shall merely read from page 5 a sentence which is underlined towards the end of figure b). That is page 5, the last sentence of paragraph b):
"Since 15 October in the morning bandit formations and insurgents, partly in German Army and Police uniforms, above all in the northern part of the city, joined in the battle, red flags hoisted at various points."
From paragraph c) we can read that:
"According to information received up till now our own losses in the battle for Knin are 4,488 men, of which, 1,058 are wounded and safe, 700 wounded captured by the enemy. 2,730 are dead or missing."
Then we find the statement that of the 700 wounded many were found slain or shot dead by the bandits. Some of them were mutilated as to not be recognizable anymore and were later found dead. This statement is duly sworn to and properly certified. This affidavit is a contribution to the chapter of band warfare.
MR. FULKERSON: May I ask Dr. Sauter from what documents these two extracts were taken? We have two quotations here which purport to be from the Daily Report of the Supreme Commander Southeast.
Where are those documents that those two extracts are taken from?
DR. SAUTER: One moment. The answer can be found towards the beginning of paragraph b) on the bottom of page 4. It says there: "The following is a verbatim extract from the Daily Report of the Commander-in-Chief Southeast to the OKW operational department." It is dated 15 October 1944, and then we find the report which I read in excerpt just now. The reports themselves, if the Prosecution are interested in this, can be found among the documents which we received from Washington. They can be found among the war diaries for the Commander-in-Chief Southeast. We studied these war diaries and checked up on the correctness of these statements.
MR. FULKERSON: Very sell; I have no objection.
DR. SAUTER: This brings me to the next document which is offered as Geitner Exhibit No. 97. It is an affidavit executed by one Karl Gierhardt. The affiant describes in paragraph a) an attack of partisans committed against an anti-tank company during which the company commander and one officer as well as forty men were killed. In paragraph b) the affiant describes the appearance of Serbian partisans in Italian uniforms, so that the German troops could not recognize whether they were confronted by foe or friend. This is clearly a violation of international law. In paragraph c) the affiant again relates an attack which contradicted the provisions of international law during which the German soldiers were captured by the partisans, disappeared and were never seen again. They never returned to their troop unit and were never seen or heard of again. Obviously they were murdered during captivity. In paragraph d) the affiant relates an incident concerning a German noncommissioned officer whom he found lying in the road with his throat cut.
He was lying in a pool of blood. This again constitutes a conduct which is in flagrant violation of all regulations of international law.
In paragraph III on the bottom of the page the affiant describes in several examples how fanatic and fierce the Ethnic struggle was. He reminds how local residents told that the destructions connected with atrocities of all kinds were the result of the fights between Moslems and Chetniks on the one hand and both of these groups against the partisans on the other hand.
In paragraph b) the affiant talks about plundering, looting, arrests, deportations carried out by the partisans against each other. In paragraph c) the affiant talks of villages which the partisans had looted of all their livestock and food supplies. In paragraph d) we have a description of the way in which the Serbs confronted those Croats who were not Catholic on the Save Bridge either to convert their faith or be thrown into the river -- where many drowned. I don't want to deal with details here because it would only be a repetition of what we have heard from many witnesses before. I would merely like to stress that the affiant Gierhardt makes these statements from his own observations because he was active down there. In the Balkans he was the commander of an artillery detachment from May, 1943, up to the end of the War. This he states in the introductory notes of his affidavit.
In document -- just a minute. I shall not offer Document 116. It is not material for this case, but Document 117 which is on page 11 of Geitner Document Book No. 5 will be offered under Geitner Exhibit No. 98. This affidavit describes from the lips of an affiant, Hans Knorr, who was 1st Lieutenant and chief of an air force signal construction company from 1943 to 1944 -- and in Serbia in this capacity-
his observations of partisan surprise attacks. He describes the cruelty of the partisans, the mutilated corpses of Serbian inhabitants, the use of German airforce uniforms by Serbian partisans, etc. All these are matters which are in defendant von Geitner's opinion in no way related to international law, and, therefore, which put these partisans beyond the provisions and regulations of international law.
In Document 118 on page 19 which is Exhibit 99 we find an affidavit executed by one Karl Scherbauer in Bad Reichenhall who was a telephone operator with the Radio Communications Regiment Southeast from 1 October 1941 to 31 August 1944. That is for three years. I don't want to read this affidavit because it deals mainly with the situation in Greece. There is only one point which might be of interest. He towards the end relates an instance where a group of women, several hundred, attacked a German motor column and slaughtered the crew of the motor column cruelly. The affiant relates this on page 14 towards the end of paragraph d). The affiant says, if I may read just one sentence: "The corpses showed gruesome mutilations, for instance both eyes gouged."