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:
"It is a fact that Herr von Geitner ordered a medical inspection and investigation of the sanitary and health conditions for the collecting camp Semlin. I was present when the order was given; however, I was not personally in that camp.
"Following the report by the investigating medical officers, (probably Dr. Rost, Dr, Reuter, Dr, Koebben), Herr von Geitner immediately effected comprehensive relief measures."
In the next paragraph which I don't want to read verbatim we find the old complaint about excesses committed by the Higher SS and Police Leader. I do not think I have to read this in detail.
This brings mo to yet another affidavit, which is Geitner Document 135, on page 68 of Geitner Document Book 5, and this will be offered as Geitner Exhibit 113. This affidavit was executed by Prince FriedrichFerdinand Schleswig-Holstein-Glueckburg, who, as he states, was auxiliary officer in the Ia Department, Strategic and Tactical Planning Staff of the Commanding General and Military Commander in Serbia, during the period from 12 July 1942 until January 1943.
The affiant first of all checked on detail on General von Geitner's attitude toward reprisal measures, and he does that in paragraph 1a. There is nothing new in his statements because we have heard about these facts before, and therefore I can leave this out for the moment.
However, on Page 69 there is a paragraph which I would like to read, approximately towards the middle of the page, two sentences after Paragraph "B". I would like to read that because there is an immediate connection between this statement and the record of this trial of 23rd October 1943, Page 4809 and Page 4810 of this record. The affiant says here, two sentences after Paragraph "B", on Page 69:
"Prisoners of the Dragha Mihailovic movement, who were captured during mopping-up operations in the fall of 1942, von Geitner saved from getting into the hands of the Higher SS and Police Leader by having these people removed to prisoner of war camps in Germany, without informing this official. At such a removal the Dragha. Mihailovic officers Tribedjanin and Djurie escaped and returned to Serbia."
This is the end of my quotation from Paragraph "B," through which the Defendant von Geitner wants to prove that he wont much further than was his duty in even treating captured band members as PW's.
I shall now go on to read from Paragraph "C," on Page 69, towards the bottom of the page.
"The chief of staff endeavored to substitute reprisal measures with regular trial procedures, in order to eliminate the possibility, under all circumstances, that innocent people were punished, This intention failed to materialize, because material, which was obtained by the radio control, and supplied by Lt. Wollny, would have been introduced as evidence against those insurgents concerned. Because of a secrecy ruling this material was not permitted to be used for such a purpose. When the Chief of Staff mentioned this plan, the Senior Intelligence Staff protested against it. These persons, under special obligation to observe the secrecy ruling, could not allow the release of secret information of the radio control."
That's the end of my quotation. The Defendant attaches particular importance to the fact that it is being confirmed here--which had been mentioned in a document of the Prosecution,--namely, that he made even reprisal measures dependent on a judicial procedure and judicial decision.
On Page 70, the affiant goes on to deal with a chapter which is also dealt with in the record of this trial of the 27th of October, on Pages 4757, and he says in Paragraph 2 on Page 70:
"General Bader, in the capacity of judiciary and holding executive powers in Serbia, reserved for himself the right to pass decisions and to give orders regarding reprisal measures. During discussions he mentioned this several times. When he was present, General Bader always signed the reprisal orders himself. When he was away on leave or official business the Chief of Staff always made it a special point that the deputy, who had been appointed, at all times gave the orders regarding reprisal measures himself."
The Chief of Staff mentioned here is General von Geitner. This is Paragraph 2, which the Defendant von Geitner thinks to be of importance because what is said here coincides with his own statements, according to which he was excluded from reprisal measures and had no say in them.
In Paragraph 3 the affiant goes on to say on Page 70:
"Time and again, by orders and hints of the highest commands, ruthless and energetic measures were commanded for sabotage and murder actions. Inquiries by the High Command of the Armed Forces, what the Commanding General and Military Commander in Serbia had ordered and planned to execute by way of reprisals, after acts of sabotage and what steps had been taken to prevent such acts, were frequently passed on by phone. I mention this to prove that the command staff was thoroughly controlled and supervised. As a result, reports of sabotage and assassinations - when it could be assumed that they were not reported via other channels - were deliberately withheld. Thus, reports on executed reprisal measures for such cases were unnecessary."
That's my quotation from Paragraph 3. At further paragraphs of his affidavit the affiant goes on to describe in detail the procedure which was taken, namely, that people in the Staff--therefore General von Geitner--made efforts to camouflage their orders to higher agencies so that in this manner they could keep reprisal measures on the lowest possible level.
The result is described by the affiant towards the middle of Page 71: "By this method the execution of actual reprisal measures often was not carried out, as, counted in numbers. the actually to be effected reprisal quota had been met. Herr von Geitner and General Bader were informed about this kind of reporting and approved of it."
That is the end of the quotation, and this expresses that the Defendant von Geitner approved and sponsored this camouflage method of reporting so that reprisal measures could be restricted to the greatest extent possible.
Finally, the affiant makes a statement to the effect as to how he has this complete knowledge and he says:
"I am making the above statements as, in. 1942. I had the task to compile those daily reports within the Strategic and Tactical Planning Staff. By that, both reports on acts of sabotage and slayings given by the subordinate departments and the Field General Staff and reports on successes, came to me for compilation. I could use them as required. This method had only one danger, i.e. that acts which should be met by reprisals according to orders, were forwarded in reports of other commands."
The affiant goes on to relate in detail how that was possible. He points to the danger which could have existed if these inexactitudes of the Staff had been found out. This affiant also has duly sworn to his statements and his signature was properly certified.
Document No. 136, on Page 73 of Geitner Document Book V, will be offered as Geitner Exhibit No. 114. This is an affidavit executed by General Otto Gullmann. According to his statements he was German Plenipotentiary in Albania, during the period of time from 1 June 1944 to 28 August 1944. He describes the constant battle waged by General von Geitner against intervening of all kinds of officers, and towards the end of the page, namely, Page 73, he relates how, on the occasion of the complaint made by General Gullmann because of intervening of an SS agency, it was General von Geitner who promised his assistance against this interference and actually supported him soon afterwards.
I recommend tills affidavit to the judicial notice of the Tribunal, and I shall immediately come to deal with the next document.
This is Geitner Document No. 137, on Page 75 of Geitner Document Book V, and this will be offered as Geitner Exhibit No. 115. This is an affidavit executed by Dr. Carl-Heinz Kunde. He was First Lieutenant in the Staff of the German Plenipotentiary General in Albania, and he was a member of the 117th Light Infantry Division during the period from January 1944 to April 1945. He gives examples and relates the chivalrous attitude shown by General von Geitner. In Paragraph 2 towards the bottom of Page 75, and towards the top of Page 76, he talks about relief actions granted to civilian agencies. Here General von Geitner gave all kinds of instructions in order to improve the medical and other installations in Serbia. In the last but one paragraph, on Page 76, the affiant mentions the following example, and I quote from the last but, one paragraph on Page 76:
"When the head of the British military mission, General Davis, fell into German hands with a serious abdominal wound, the well-known surgeon. Professor Schoenbauer was expressly brought by plane from Vienna to treat him. As General Davis later assured me, he had only this German attention to thank for his recovery."
This is the end of my quotation from Paragraph 2, and in this connection General von Geitner told me that he considered all this as a matter of course, but that unfortunately it had to be mentioned expressly in order to correct the completely wrong picture which was created by the one-sided evidence submitted by the Prosecution.
This brings me to the next document, which is Geitner Document No. 139, contained in Geitner Document Book V. It will be offered as Geitner Exhibit No. 116 on Page 78. I repeat: Geitner Document No. 139, Page 78, Geitner Document Book V, Geitner Exhibit No. 116. This document deals with several statements which were made during this trial on the 23rd of October 1947, and they are contained on Page 4807 of the record of this trial. These statements are somewhat connected with a document submitted by the Prosecution, which is Document NOKW-668, which is Exhibit No. 440 of the Prosecution. This document is contained in Document Book XVIII of the Prosecution, Page 87 of the German text, and Pages 88 and 89 of the English text. This document deals with the Jewish problem and with actions of the SS Skanderbeg Division. The affiant who made the statements here is Dietz Freiherr von Thuengen. During the war he was chief with the liaison staff with the Albanian Government. That is, with the Plenipotentiary German General in Albania. He was in this position in the period from December 1943 until September 1944. The affiant says, on Page 78:
I remember that the SS Skanderbek Division arrested Jews in large numbers. The occurrence was reported in due time by Prizren Field Headquarters with reference to the completely illegal behavior, which was contrary to orders, of the Regimental Commander of the SS Skanderbek Division residing in Prizren. At the order of his superior officer the undersigned which Baron von Thuengen then phoned the above-named commander. A vigorous dispute developed, since the commander tried to contest the (completely unimpeachable) jurisdiction of the Authorized General. Thereupon complaints were made about the behavior of the commander in Prizren to both the Commanding General in Tirana (13th Army Corps) and the Higher SS and Police Leader and it was requested that he be reprimanded.
This was certainly done by the Commanding General, and von Fitzthun indeed promised to do so, but as a matter of fact he probably hardly did. Furthermore, this led to an order being sent out by the Authorized General to the Field Headquarters that such things were under no circumstances to be permitted in the future.
The above-mentioned SS division was subordinate to the Higher SS and Police Leader with respect to the service of the troops (and discipline?P, but only tactically to the Commanding General.
The affiant later on makes comments about the agreement between the Albanian Government. This is of no great interest here, but the Defendant von Geitner presents this document in order to show that because of the excesses committed by the SS Skanderbeg Division directed against Jews, the Commander in Serbia did everything in his power.
This brings me to Geitner Document No. 140. This document is contained on Page 80 of Geitner Document Book V, and it will become Geitner Exhibit No. 117. This is an affidavit executed by one Theobald Keyser, who, as we know, was, during the war, a member of the Economic Administration of Serbia, from April 1941 to October 1944. The affiant describes the endeavors of the Defendant von Geitner in an economic respect, namely, to sponsor Serbian economy. His statements are somewhat connected with the record of this trial of 24th October 1947, which is on Page 4841, and also with Document NOKW-717 of the Prosecution, which is Exhibit No. 435 of the Prosecution. It is contained in Document Book XVIII of the Prosecution on Page 26. I am making reference to these pages so that the Tribunal may easily find those documents and those pages in the record to which this affidavit refers.
The next document to offer will be Geitner Document No. 141, which is contained on Page 82 of Geitner Document Book V, and which will be offered as Geitner Exhibit No. 118. This is an affidavit made by the same affiant, Theobald Keyser, and these statements are connected with Document NOKW-1774, which is Exhibit No. 583 of the Prosecution.
This document is contained in Document Book XXV of the Prosecution, on Page 110. It was dealt with in the record of this trial of 24th of October 1947, or Page 4841. The Problem here is the question of the Economic Administration, but the affidavit makes it clear that the Chief of Staff of the Operational Department, that is, the Defendant von Geitner, was not competent for this question.
The next document to offer will be Geitner Document No. 142, on Page 85 of Geitner Document Book V, and it will be offered as Geitner Exhibit No. 119. It is an affidavit executed by one Otto Gescher, who, during the war, was IIb with the Military Commander Southeast from January to October 1944. This document has also been duly sworn to and properly certified, as being submitted for the purpose of showing that the Military Commander, in the event of his absence, was not automatically represented by the Chief of Staff, but that a deputy was appointed by a higher agency. The affiant says, on Page 85, towards the middle of the page:
In Spring 1944 General Felber left Belgrade for a leave of absence. I can, unfortunately, not remember the exact date. Artillery of General Beig who had moved to Belgrade from Tirana in Albania for this time and this purpose, acted as his deputy while he was on leave, taking up quarters at the Casino of the so-called 1st Echelon.
I furthermore confirm that leave was usually started one day ahead of time and ended on the day following the last. This additional time was naturally utilized by going on leave one day ahead of time and arriving at Belgrade on the day following the last day of leave.
The statements of this affiant have been duly sworn to and properly certified.
This brings me to the next document, No. 143, which will become Geitner Exhibit No. 120. This document is contained on Page 86 of Geitner Document Book V. I beg your pardon; I shall withdraw this document.
I'm not offering Geitner Document No. 143 in evidence because this happens to be a witness who is a resident of Nuernberg, and the affidavit is of no particular importance any way. In Geitner Document Bock V, with which we are dealing at the moment, the last document is Geitner Document No. 14, which I shall offer as Geitner Exhibit No. 120. This is on Page 87 of the Document Book. It is Document No. 144, on Page 87.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: There is no such document in our Document Book. No. 144 seems to be absent.
DR. SAUTER: It runs from Page 87 to Page 91.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The last page in our Document Book is Page 86, and it's marked "The End." Neither does it appear to be in Document Book VI.
DR. SAUTER: I just notice, Your Honor, that this last document, which is properly contained in the German Document Book, is not contained in the English version. Why this is so I do not know, but perhaps we can circumvent this difficulty and this for the following reason: This last document which I wanted to offer from Document Book V is Document No. 144, and it contains excerpts from the Rules of Land Warfare, which, as I have seen, are contained in other document books for other defendants and have, as such, already been submitted; and, furthermore, I assume that in any case the Tribunal will have those regulations handy and, of course, will notice them. I shall today, then, not present Document No. 144 because it is not contained in the English version. If Your Honors please, this brings me to the last Document book, which is Geitner Document Book VI. This book contains Documents 145 through 200. This Document Book, Geitner Document Book VI, comprises a number of affidavits concerning General von Geitner's character and personality. Mainly, howrever, this Document Book contains excerpts from Situation Reports of the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia, from Daily Reports etc. That is, it contains excerpts from documents which we received from Washington. We are presenting these documents in excerpts to the Tribunal.
First of all, we have three documents in Document Book VI which belong together. They are: Document No. 145, on page 1, which will be offered as Geitner Exhibit 120; and Document 146 on page 2 which will become Geitner Exhibit 121; and then there is Geitner Document 147 on page 3 which will become Geitner 122. These three documents are affidavits executed by well esteemed citizens of the town Schneeberg in the Erzgebirge. This is the town where the defendant was born and where he lived and where until 1939 he worked as the owner of a factory. These three Inhabitants in the three documents mentioned, namely 145, 146 and 147, gave an opinion concerning General von Geitner's character and personality, and they comment on his political attitude about which there can be no doubt, and they have mentioned that because of this attitude in '34, the defendant von Geitner was discharged from his post as a Standartenfuehrer because his national socialist conviction proved to be insufficient. The affiants go on to comment on defendant General von Geitner's examplary, helpful attitude which he showed to his fellow citizens. I recommend these documents to the notice of the Tribunal but from page one I would like to read the last sentence of Document 145, and this sentence reads--it is the last sentence of page one:
"The persecution of Jews he severely critized in meetings, particularly the excesses of the SA in Aue - which is a town in the Erzgebirge - against the Jews by smashing up of residence etc."
These three documents which I have dealt with as one entity are all duly sworn to and properly certified.
The next document to deal with is Geitner Document 148 which will be offered as Geitner Exhibit 123, and this document is contained on page 4 of Geitner Document Book VI. This is an affidavit, quite a brief one, executed by Baron Thuengen, and the affiant states that he was Chief of the Liaison Staff with the Albanian government. He comments on the anti-Jewish action carried out by the SS Division Skanderbey in Albania. These Jews, by order of the Commanding General, were released or were to be released.