This brings me to the next document 119, which will become Geitner exhibit 100. This is on page 16 of Geitner document book 5. It is an affidavit executed by one Bernhard Gruber, who according to his statements was squadron leader of the 2nd Reconnaissance detachment 116 during the period from 1 May 1943 to 1 September 1944. In his affidavit he makes reference to the Kalavrita incident, which is an incident that has been discussed frequently in a different context. His detachment took part in this incident. On page 16 toward the last third of this page, he says:
"Upon further search for the prisoners, they were finally found as corpses by the Battalion under our Command. The prisoners had been driven into the Chelmos up to a ravine, about 30 meters deep which extended at that point in to a small basin. This spot is located about 8 km southeast of the village Masi, close below the tree boundary. Here the prisoners were chained together by ten and placed upon a rock near the ravine. Then they were shot at and thrown down the rock. Only one escaped and was found by our detachment with a shot - wound and broken arms and ribs."
I don't have to read the balance of this document, the affiant merely states that he saw on the spot either 78 or 76 dead personally and he himself interrogated the one soldier who escaped.
This affidavit also has been duly sworn to and the signature is properly certified.
This brings me to the next document, which is Geitner document No. 120, on pages 18 to 20 and which will be offered under Geitner exhibit 101. It is an affidavit executed by a battalion commander Hermann Wissmann. He was a battalion commander during the period from March, 1944 until spring, 1945. I don't want to read this statement in detail. In paragraph 1 on pages 18 and 19 the affiant describes the cunning and deceptive method of warfare used by the partisans and the terror acts committed against the railway lines.
In paragraph 11 on page 19 the affiant describes sabotage acts committed against railway lines. He mentions for instance on page 19 that the insurgents during one night alone had blown up the railway line at 52 places between Sunja and Kostajniza. That is not only on one isolated spot, but on 52 different places.
In paragraph 111 on page 20 it is stated that civilians also participated in the fighting of the partisans against the German troops. The affiant goes on to say that the civilians threw away their arms just before they were captured so that they appeared as harmless peasants or shepherds.
In paragraph IV on page 20 the affiant relates a particularly flagrant incident and he says on page 20, paragraph IV:
"I was encircled together with other units in Zajecar (Serbia) from 3 to 7 October 1944. In the morning of the 8 October I made a sortie westward. Thereby more than 300 severely wounded men were placed on 20 trucks, These left the town behind the attack group. I myself took over the rear cover and followed behind the seriously wounded men. By heavy enemy fire on the point where the sortie was made several trucks were hit and blocked the road forming an obstacle for the following trucks. These met with a hard fate; because a gap opened behind the advance party which the enemy immediately broke into. The fog concealed these occurrences, Until I came to the spot half an hour later, the enemy had acted cruelly towards the seriously wounded men. One German soldier for instance lay in a truck, stripped naked and withhis hands fastened with nails to the planks on the bottom of the truck. He had already been severely wounded and probably died in consequence of this ill-treatment.
In consequence of the battle I could not state further details. However, several soldiers reported to me that day similar cruelties." Thus for my quotation from paragraph IV, which proves the atrocious manner in which individual partisan groups behaved toward severely wounded men.
In paragraph V the affiant relates welfare measures taken for the population and he does the same in paragraphs VI and VII. I recommend these paragraphs to the judicial notice of the Tribunal.
The next affidavit, which is document No. 121, which is in Geitner document book 4 will be offered as exhibit 102. This is an affidavit of Otto Lips, who according to his statements, at the end of his affidavit was a non-commissioned officer in Serbia. He describes in paragraph 1 an incident where his agency was attacked and one man only succeeded in escaping. Later on, on the spot where the surprise attack had taken place were found four German soldiers whose throats were cut and there eyes were put out. Other soldiers were missing and never returned. This seems again to be a case where they were murdered.
In paragraph 11 the affiant goes on to relate a surprise attack, which he observed as an eye witness. During this surprise attack were found 20 corpses of German soldiers near Belgrade, who were lying side by side in one line alongside the road, completely stripped, without identification tags and they had obviously been slain from the front. Skulls and faces were smashed. The corpses could not be identified. The affiant goes on to say toward the and of paragraph 11 on page 23, toward the end of the page:
"Nearly all atrocities by partisans, of whom there existed different groups, were committed by partisans who wore the Soviet Star and who wrote upon the wall of all houses and ruins in Jugoslavia "Zivio drug Tito -- Zivio drug Stalina."
This affidavit executed by the non-commissioned officer Lips has been duly sworn to and properly certified.
Let me now turn to Geitner document No. 122, which will be offered as Geitner exhibit 103. This is on page 25 of Geitner document book 5. That is exhibit No. 103 and it is an affidavit executed by one Dr. Heinz Reuter.
He was a doctor and a member of the Board of Health. He was an army physician and as such acted in Serbia during the war. His affidavit deals mainly with the constant attacks from the partisans and directed against the Red Cross, which was ignored regularly. These attacks were directed against transports of wounded, first aid stations and hospitals. The affiant says for instance on page 25 in paragraph 1:
"Horrors and outrages were part of the picture of war in the Balkans. No attention was paid to the sign of the Red Cross on the part of the Communists, namely."
That is the end of my quotation and then the affiant goes on to cite a number of individual instances. He describes for instance toward the end of Paragraph 1 that the partisans fired upon funerals of German soldiers on the way from the village to the nearby grave yard. He mentions in paragraph II that the hospital trains were regularly fired on. Then in paragraph 11 on page 2, he says:
"Our ambulance trains were regularly fired on. Then there were the outrages on railways as a result of mines which were now the order of the day and which endangered civilian travel to a great extent."
In paragraph 3, the affiant goes on to relate a flagrant individual incident, and in paragraph 5 on page 27 he describes the cruelties of the individual partisan groups shown against each other, and he says that they were just as cruel against each other as they behaved against the German troops, that is, whenever they got hold of the German troops.
In paragraph 8 on page 29, the affiant relates some atrocious cruelties committed by the Ustascha. He reports that most corpses were thrown into the River Drina by the perpetrators immediately after they had been murdered. The affiant who was a doctor, as he relates on page 29, was shown a place where the ground was absolutely saturated with blood. There were corpses of people who had been killed by the partisans. He goes on to describe a number of details which I don't want to mention here because they only repeat and confirm what we have learned from numerous documents concerning the method of warfare of the partisans.
This will bring me to Geitner Document 123 on page 32 of Geitner Document Book 5, and this will be offered as Geitner Exhibit Number 104. Here again we have an affidavit executed by a doctor. This is the Affiant Dr. Deubner who was Corps Physician, and in his affidavit he deals with atrocious illtreatment meted out to German soldiers. On page 32 towards the bottom he describes in paragraph 1 a particularly terrible case. He says:
"When it became known, in summer 1942, that the chief of police of Banja Luka had maltreated ethnic German women so badly that they had to be taken to a hospital, I examined these women (2 or 3), personally, in the hospital in conjunction with the doctors handling the case. Their behind was so beaten that it had swollen into a ball shaped mass of blood, so that the women had to lie on their stomachs. According to the reports and investigation, the chief of police had had these women tied by the knees to a board and raised to the ceiling by means of a chain, so that they hung head down, and whipped their behinds with a spring steel whip and a leather whip, because they presumably would not say what he wanted to hear.
Besides that, he stuck writing pens under their finger nails. The blood traces from this were clearly visible. When I forwarded this report to Commanding General v. Lueters, he was indignant and reported the incident to the German headquarters in Zagreb."
In that paragraph 1 of 233, if Your Honors please in the German version, it says on page 33, "the commanding General von Leyser". I don't know what it says in the English translation. It should read "Lueters". If it says "von Leyser" there also, would you be kind enough to correct this? It whould read "Lueters", who was commanding general, and he has nothing to do with it. He is not identical with General von Leyser who is present here in the court room. I wanted to correct it in case it was wrong in the English version also. It is toward the end of paragraph 1 on page 33.
In his further statements, the affiant reports further cruelties and I shall continue now with Document Geitner Number 124 which will be offered as Geitner Exhibit Number 105. This Geitner Document Number 124 is contained on page 35 of Geitner Book 4. This is not an affidavit, it is an excerpt from the service regulation for the military commander southeast. The date is 7 October 1943. This is Document NOKW-1471, Exhibit 423, a part of which has been presented by the Prosecution under the before-mentioned exhibit number.
This exhibit 423, however, only contains a part of the whole document and just that part which is of no interest to us; whereas, that part which is of importance is missing in the document presented by the Prosecution. That is the reason why I have incorporated this service regulation into my document book Geitner 5 in its full version, and that is why I am offering it under Geitner Exhibit Number 105. In this way the Tribunal will be in a position to see what the service regulation for the military commander southeast contains in acutal fact, at least, as far as the military commander there and his chief of staff Geitner is concerned.
Of interest here is paragraph 7 on page 36 and paragraph 8 on the same page. Paragraph 7 shows that the military commander southeast as territorial commander had military and territorial tasks in the area subordinate to him which included security measures inasmuch as they were invested in him by the commander and chief of staff southeast.
Paragraph 8, states that the military commander receives his instructions, apart from the Quartermaster, also in "a) the Commander in Chief southeast, in such matters that arc closely bound up with combat and security tasks. In case of emergency the Commander in chief Southeast can invest this authority in the Commanders in chief subordinate to him and thereby authorize them to issue similar orders to the competent territorial commanders."
In paragraph b, it is stated he receives directives "from the administrator of the Four Year Plan and the competent highest Reich authorities and offices of the O.K.W."
That is the end of my quotation from paragraph 7 and 8, and in this way the Tribunal will be in a position to evaluate these spheres of competency in that area.
On page 37, 38, and 39, which I don't want to read in detail, are statements dealing with the competencies in the area and with the activities of the Economic Staff, the Administration Staff, the highest SS and Police Leader, and the sub-area administrative headquarters. I recommend these regulations for competency to the judicial notice of the Tribunal because these in turn show the responsibility of one or the other offices concerned. This is the end of Exhibit 105, and it brings me to Exhibit 106 which is Geitner Document Number 125 on page 39 in Geitner Document Book 5. This document shows that the bands were no regular belligerents in the meaning of the Hague Provi sions of Land Warfare.
This document has a certain connection with the record of this Trial of 23 October 1937, page 4806. I shall repeat, record of 23 October 1947, on page 4806 where the questions dealt with here are discussed. I shall now deal with this next document which is Geitner Document 126 -- correction 125 on page 39, which will be offered as Geitner Exhibit Number 107. I beg your pardon -no, it is correct. It is Document Number 125, page 39, and it will be offered as Geitner Exhibit Number 107. It is an affidavit of one Guenthor Roth who was third ADC in the staff of the Commanding General for Serbia, during the period from July 1941 until January 1944.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Just a moment, Dr. Sauter. I think we have some difficulty in your exhibit numbering here.
DR. SAUTER: Document Number 124 on page 35 was Exhibit number 105, if I am not wrong there. Document Geitner Number 124 on page 35 was Geitner Exhibit Number 105, and now Geitner Number 125 on page 39 will be Exhibit 106. Then, I believe I an straightened out.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Very well.
DR. SAUTER: All right. I now deal with Document 125 on page 39 of Geitner Document Book V and this is Geitner Exhibit 106. It is an affidavit executed by one Guenther Roth, and ADC, as we have just heard, in the staff of the Commanding General. The affiant confirms from his own observations that bands appeared in civilian clothes without any insignia whatsoever and that only the leader had Italian arms equipment. None of the other men carried his arms openly. I recommend this document to the notice of the Tribunal.
The next document with which I shall deal is Geitner Document No. 126 on page 141 of Geitner Document Book V and this will be offered as Geitner Exhibit No. 107. This is an affidavit executed by one Rudolph Hug.
MR. FULKERSON: Is the affiant still in Nurnberg?
DR. SAUTER: Just a moment, I will just have a look. No, this witness lives in Ellwangen in Wuerteemberg. That can be seen from the introduction in paragraph 1 where the affiant says under oath:
"My name is Rudolf Hug, born on 21 October 1885 in Pommertsweiler, district of Aachen, and I am residing in Ellwangen."
The affiant came to Nurnberg in September 1947 merely to be heard here as a witness and for his signature to be certified.
The affiant was, because of the 20th of July 1944 and the plot against Hitler carried out at that date, discharged from the army and at that time he was forbidden to be a member of either the armed forces or the party or to be employed by the state.
Before that, as the witness states, he was Sector Commander in the Northwest of Serbia during the period from Sommer 1943 to September 1944. I shall read from paragraph 3 on page 42?
"Moreover, again and again I received calls for help from the inhabitants of the villages on the Drina river who asked for protection against attacks by bands from the Croation area. In spite of the fact that guards had been placed along the banks of the Drina river in order to prevent such attacks, we did not succeed in stopping them completely because our own available forces were too weak and the terrain was too obstructed (mountains).""During the above mentioned period I have repeatedly met with members of Chetnik units, however, only for the first time in the summer of 1944 did I notice that they were insignias indentifying them as members of a unit."
Under paragraph 5 he states:
"In agreement with General V. Geitner it was an order in my sector that Chetniks would be fired on only, if they themselves had opened fire first. This order was submitted to the Chetniks by mediators."
In paragraph 6 the affiant says:
"People of the peace loving Serbian population have repeatedly expressed to me that they hoped the German troops would remain until tranquillity was established in the country. They feared increased unrest and blooshed in case the German troops were removed too soon.
This affidavit has been duly sworn to.
The next document to offer will be Geitner Document 128: I beg your pardon -- 129, which is to be found on page 49 of Geitner Document Book V. I repeat Geitner Document 129 on page 49 of Geitner Document Book V and this document will be offered as Geitner Exhibit 108. This document is an affidavit and it refers to the record of this trial of 24 October, page 4842. The affiant describes the defendant von Geitner in a similar favorable way as have numerous witnesses before him. He said that he was a conscientious soldier and a man of warm feelings. He was an opponent of Hitler methods and Hitler policy and the affiant confirms that Geitner was no trouble maker and goes on to make statements about the Serbian labor service.
The next document to offer will be Geitner Document No. 131 on page 53 of Geitner Document Book V. I repeat Geitner Document 131 on page 53 of Geitner Document Book V and this will be offered as Geitner Exhibit 109. It is an affidavit executed by Sigismund von Schlichtung.
During the war the affiant was a military administration officer from April 1941 to the geginning of October 1944. The affiant relates of the constant battle which existed between the military commander Serbia and the defendant von Geitner on the one hand and the Bulgarian occupation troops on the other hand of which we have heard earlier in s different context.
The next document to offer is Geitner Document 132 on page 55 of Geitner Document Book V and this will become Geitner Exhibit 110. This affidavit was executed by Ernst Ihnen and he was Liaison official of the Reich Ministry of the Interior with the Armed Forces Operational Department in the period from August 1943 to March 1945. This statement, as all other affidavits submitted by me, is duly sworn to and the signature is properly certified. The affiant states in paragraph "a" on page 55:
"To the best of my knowledge of affirs, General von Geitner, in his oral and written reports, isplayed an attitude characterized by a great feeling of responsibility towards the Serbian people. He advocated that trend of thought which from the very beginning favored a government of the occupied Serbian territory which would work together in a conciliatory, friendly and helping way with the elements in the country which wanted reconstruction. In this connection ho repudiated, insofar as he could express himself, all tendencies which aimed at a weakening or one-sided exploitation of the country and its population. Here he stood in opposition to several other offices and personages who were active in the same area at the same time."
"To my knowledge Herr v. Geitner several times made concrete proposals for the treatment of the population which were in keeping with his fundamental attitude. However, due to the lack of any documentary information whatsoever, I can no longer recall any details."
"On the other hand I can confirm that after September 1943 by express order of the Armed Forces Operations Dept. all such measures had to be reported directly to it by the Military Commander for the South-East in daily teletype reports."
"I know from conferences in which I took part on occasion that the Billeting Section of the Armed Forces Operations Dept. often tried to put through proposals of the Military Commander in the SouthEast for softening the reprisal regulations. These attempts never had any success, since they were immediately rejected by the Chief of the OKW (Keitel) because of ostensible orders by the Fuehrer or because there seemed no prospect of acceptance."
Also the rejection of the Himmler agency had to be taken into consideration which in most cases was enough to make the acceptance a hopeless undertaking. I shall also read the first 2 sentences from paragraph "f":
"The recognition of the gradual collapse of any unified system of command in the occupied territories led--after strong internal struggles-to Fuehrer Order 48. According to this, even in Belgrade all German official agencies were supposed to be subordinate to the Military Commander for the South-East. The Higher SS and Police Leader for Serbia, Meyszner, immediately set himself in opposition to the practical execution of the order on the basis of an ostensible special order by the Reichs-fuehrer SS. The Military Commander without success. For reasons which I no longer recall Himmler insisted on retaining the old service regulations for the Higher SS and Police Leader, according to which the latter received his orders directly from Himmler. The Gen. F. Marshal Keitel submitted to this and instructed the Military Commander accordingly."
I would like to make the following remark in connection with the last sentence I read. It says:
"The chief submitted to this and instructed the Military Commander accordingly."
In view of the preceding text, it becomes obvious that this Chief is not the defendant von Geitner by any chance which I would like to stress expressly so that we don't gain a wrong impression. The chief mentioned here is the Chief of the OKW, General Field Marshal Keitel.
This becomes clear from the context and it might "be expedient to make a note here in this document and thus to make it clear that the defendant von Geitner should net be brought into connection with this.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Dr. Sauter, the Tribunal would like to have you, after the recess, give us a report on how many document books are yet to be offered in evidence by other defendants after you close and the number of witnesses that remain to be called. If you can find that out for us we will appreciate it.
We will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SAUTER: If Your Honors please, I have consulted with my colleagues; at least, with those whom I could reach. We have estimated the length of time which we shall have to use yet for the defense. Our result was that in the next year the whole of the defense will need a week and a half for its presentation. It may be an extra one or two days, but at the moment, we estimate the length of time at one and a half weeks in the next year. This is what I want to tell the Tribunal as an answer to the question which I was asked.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Doctor, does that include the witnesses that Dr. Gawlik said he was going to call?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, it does. That is the whole time which we will have to need for the presentation of documents and for Dr. Gawlik's witnesses.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Very well. You may proceed with the documents.
DR. SAUTER: The next document, if Your Honors please, will be document 133 of Geitner Document Book 4, on page 57, and this will be Geitner Exhibit -
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You mean Document Book 5, do you not?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, I beg your pardon, Geitner Document Book 5. I shall soon be finished with this document book. It is Geitner Document 133, on page 57 of Geitner Document Book 5, and this will be Geitner Exhibit 110. This is an affidavit executed by one -
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: It seems to be Exhibit 111.
DR. SAUTER: I beg your pardon, yes, thank you very much. It will have to be 111. I would like to ask the Tribunal to correct this. It will be 11. It is Geitner Document Book 5, page 57, Geitner Document 133. This is an affidavit executed by one Karl Schall, who was I-A with the commanding general in Serbia from December 1942 to 3 March 1943.
The affiant first of all makes statements about General von Geitner's character and the way in which he executed his duties. He recognizes the general's capabilities, and he says he was a chivalrous thinking man, unusually tactful, and strictly kept within the bounds of his authority, never overstepping them both in relation to the commanding general and to the members of his staff. This statement is contained in Paragraph 1. In Paragraph 2, the affiant goes on to describe General von Geitner's rejecting attitude concerning Hitler's policy toward foreign nations. There is only one sentence which I would like to read, and this is in Paragraph 6 on page 59, and I would like to read this sentence because at one time the term "inciter" was mentioned. The affiant says, in this connection, in Paragraph 6, "The idea that General von Geitner might have been an 'inciter' and an enemy of Serbdom appears to all people who came to know him just ridiculous Humerous utterances of his showed, on the contrary, that he regarded the Serbs as the most honest, bravest and in itself most sympathetic nation of the Balkans, and that he regretted the fact that they were seen in the camp of our enemies. He expressed his satisfaction when Hitler - although not deciding in favor of a future for the Serbian State and nation which would have been acceptable to the Serbs - declared at least that the Reich was not interested in territorial acquisitions in the Balkans."
The affiant goes on to relate in a further part of his affidavit some incidents in connection with General von Geitner's altitude towards the Serbian population, and in paragraph 7, or page 60, the affiant deals with reprisal measures. He describes the effect of reprisal measures on the insurgents, which has also been said here in this courtroom on the 23rd of October, 1947, and these statements are contained on page 4801 and 4802 of the record of this trial. The affiant, regarding this chapter, says on page 5 of the document - I beg your pardon, that is page 61, on the top of that page, about the 4th or 5th line, and I am reading from page 61, "All the same, the retaliation measures had a considerable influence upon the activity of D. Mihailovic and his followers, as can be proved.
The order in which Dr. Mihailovic ordered his people to go slow because of the expected retaliation measures, fell within the time soon after my arrival in Serbia and was reported by our monitoring service."
In this connection I would like to interpolate that the affiant arrived in Serbia on the 2nd of December, 1942. In the second paragraph of page 61, the affiant goes on to say:
"Without the retaliation measures an open insurrection would very probably have broken out in Serbia as soon as at the end of 1942, which necessarily would have led to major and more violent fighting, and by that to greater loss of lives, particularly in the Serbian camp, and very likely also, in connection with the fighting, to numerous and heavy destructions.
"The Commander gave and signed the orders for retaliation measures independently.
"During my membership in the staff Gen. v. Geitner never ordered reprisal measures of hiw own accord, e.g. acting for the Commander. He would not have been authorized to do so by the Commander, who was fully conscious of the grave responsibility resting upon him.
"I well remember that Mihailovic withdrew his orders commanding murder and sabotage under the effect of the retaliation measures, cautioning his followers to the greatest reserve. This must have been about the beginning of December 1942. We learned of it through the radio monitoring service."
Particular importance I attach to the fact that the Commander gave and signed his orders independently and so did his deputy, and that General von Geitner had nothing to do with this operation.
On page 61 in paragraph 9, the affiant goes on to say about the effect of the reprisal measures that "Various discussions were held about the question that by using the excellent results of the radio moniteering service, this itself ought not to be jeopardized. But it would have been jeopardized and thereby a priceless source of news blocked up in all those cases in which we obviously could not have gained our exact knowledge of the conditions in the DM camp and of the measures taken there by any different means."
In paragraph 9, on page 62, we hear concerning the charge by the Prosecution that the defendant von Geitner had participated in a plan for the extermination and decimating of the Serbian population.
We have statements concerning this charge in paragraph 9:
"The alleged plan to decimate the Serbian population is but a wrong imputation. Repeatedly it was mentioned that Germany, saw in Serbia an important partner in commerce, as it had been before the war, and deplored the fact that a profitable co-operation with Serbia in the economical field after the war had became more and more doubtful as a result of the severe guerilla warfare.
"The allegation that the "collective punishment" had been ordered with the aim of compelling the population to disclose the facts about their "national army" is incorrect. Such a purpose was never expressed in my presence. Likewise, the alleged plan to debilitate the Serbian population for a long term, cannot be but an invention.
"There was never a talk about plans of this kind, which would have been repudiated by all the officers of the German Army (Com. par. 6.)" I will skip the next paragraph but I recommend it to judicial notice of the Tribunal.
In the next but one paragraph, the affiant goes on to say:
"Of concentration camps within the meaning of this word after 1933 I never heard at Belgrade, but only of camps for reprisal detainees, the only major one of which was allegedly the Samlin camp of the Higher SS & Police Leader s. par. 7.
"I have never heard of beatings-up, torturings, etc. of natives of the country by any official under the command of the Commander in Serbia.
"Orders purporting the deportation of the male population of whole villages for forced labour in Germany are not know to me."
On pages 62 and 63, the affiant goes on to describe the efforts of General von Geitner concerning the improvement of the organization, mainly for the purpose of a humane administration.
In paragraph 11, the affiant comments on the question of the characteristics of the insurgents. This is a problem which is dealt with in the records of 23 October, 1947, on page 4806 the record of this trial. The affiant comments on the basis of his own observation which he made as IA of the Military Commander Serbia.
This paragraph 11, page 63 and following:
"There were, during my membership in the staff of the Commander in Serbia, no lawfully formed enemy military forces.
I may interpolate here, and point out that this period of time covers the time until March, 1943, as the affiant stated initially:
"Both the Communistic troops, and the DM groups which, incidentally were at a deadly feud with each other, were not recognized by the Serbian government at Belgrade and were fought against by it, if not with the same determination. Nor did they conform in other respects to the conditions set by the provisions of international law for lawfully formed enemy forces. E.g., I never heard of raids or acts of sabotage being carried out by people in uniform or wearing another easily distinguishable insignia identifying them as members of a unit. They did not wear their arms overtly in the manner of regular forces, nor can there be a question of the existence of a responsible leadership, which is the distinguishing mark of lawfully formed armed forces, in view of the frequent cases of insubordination of individual groups against the attempts of establishing a central direction, of which we too learned from our radio monitoring service."
That is the statement of this particular affiant, Schall, and I shall now turn to the next document which is Geitner Document No. 134. This is on page 65 of the Geitner Document Book 5, and it well be offered as Geitner Exhibit 112. I repeat, Geitner Document No. 134, page 65 in the Geitner Document Book 5, and it will be offered under Geitner Exhibit No. 112. This is an affidavit executed by a physician who as medical officer worked in Belgrade. His name is Dr. Joseph Winkler. He is a Bavarian physician and he was Chief Medical Service Officer with the Command in Serbia during the period from 10 April 1942 to 1 December, 1942.
In this affidavit which has been duly sworn to and properly certified, the affiant described first of all Geitner's rejecting attitude toward the methods shown by the Croatian Government.
I believe it is not necessary for me to deal with this affidavit in detail, except perhaps from what the affiant says on page 66 in the first paragraph about Geitner's character.
The affiant worked together with Geitner in the staff of the Military Commander for Serbia and he said, on page 66, at the top of the page:
"Herr v. Geitner's actions were guided by humanitarian feelings, and I personally was under the impression that he always attempted to alleviate hardships which had been ordered against Serbians. Judging by his remarks and actions, everybody could ascertain that Herr. v. Geitner was far from following the maxims of his National Socialist masters. Because of his position ho could have easily surrounded himself with luxury and splendour at the expense of the country, as was with the Party members in Belgrade. In his personal habits Herr von Geitner was extremely modest.
"His vies on the whole war situation I only know from his close assistant, Colonel Munkel, who was killed in action later on. In summer 1942 Herr Munkel, during private conversation with me painted an extremely gloomy picture of the military situation."
In further paragraphs of his affidavit, the affiant goes on to describe General von Geitner's efforts concerning health regulations for the civilian population, and we find there that this is a sphere of work in which he, as a medical man, was particularly interested.
On page 67 the affiant goes on to talk about the camp in Semlin, in the record of 24 October, 1947, which is page 4838 in the record of this trial. The affiant says in his statement, and his medical knowledge is of particular importance: