"The Convention of the Treatment of Prisoners of War dated 27 July 1929 contains regulations to which the signatory powers are bound absolutely and without reserve since these are stipulated articles.
"The soldiers taken prisoner, consequently are not only entitled to be given treatment according to the regulations of the convent by the State in whose hands they are (guardian State), but the latter has above all the unalterable duty of applying to the prisoners of war the laws of the Geneva Convention and can by no means repeal this obligation partially or arbitrarily.
"According to Article 75, when signing an armistice, the belligerent powers have as a matter of principle to stipulate conditions concerning the sending home of prisoners of war. If stipulations of this kind do not exist, the sending home of prisoners of war has to be performed after conclusion of peace without further delay. However, prisoners of war can be detained as prisoners of war in case of prosecution because of a major or minor crime against common law, up to the date of termination of the proceedings or the time of expiration of the sentence.
"From this stipulation results that the guardian power is allowed to release the prisoners of war at any time before conclusion of peace, however, according to the meaning of the convention, only if this leads to an improvement, but by no means to a deterioration of their situation in a continued detention by the enemy power.
"The release from captivity of the Generals as prisoners of war and the simultaneous ordering of their further detention as civilian internees in a Military Court Prison, whereby they are deprived of the privileges accorded to prisoners of war, signifies without doubt a deterioration of their situation and is consequently an obvious offense against the purpose and aim of the covenant dated 27 July 1929.
"The measure of their further detention as civilian internees cannot be motivated either by the possibility of the Generals released from captivity being tried by a national tribunal of one of the enemy powers as war criminals, not even by their being scheduled as war criminals for trial. For, also in this case the prisoners of war must be tried as soldier prisoners of war before the national tribunal because of the crimes they are charged with, as results from an analogous application or interpretation of Article 75 of the Convention.
"The release from captivity so as to be tried as civilian internees resembles the measures formerly taken by the National Socialist regime for trial of the officers involved in the "Putsch" of 20 July 1944 who were discharged from the Armed Forces in order to be sentenced as civilians by the People's Court.
"This of all orders of Hitler which was absolutely unjust and lacking in any legal basis was that which rightly provoked the disapproval of the whole world.
III.
"It is extremely doubtful to what extent the victor States are entitled to perform discharges validly on behalf of the own State, presuming and stating that a central German government which would have to order the discharges from military service for the soldiers released from captivity does not exist any longer. This applies above all as to whether a victor State is entitled to enforce the discharge from military service also for such soldiers who are not prisoners of war of its own but of another guardian State.
"But also in the case of the legal admissibility of discharges from military service by the guardian State because of non-existence of a concerned, authorized German governmental office, it is inadmissible that the discharge from military service by the guardian State results in the prisoners of war being deprived of the rights laid down in the Geneva Convention.
For, otherwise the guardian State would be in a position to withdraw from the obligations agreed to in the Geneva Convention and to make the latter arbitrarily illusory.
"The Defense Counsel "(Dr. Hans Laternser) Attorney at Law."
On 21 June 1946 I received from the IMT the following reply, which can only be understood if one has read the preceding letters. May I ask the Court Interpreter to read it for me because it is available only in English. Would you please read it into the record as read by me?
MEMORANDUM TO DR. LATERNSER 1. With reference to your letters of 1 May and 7 May concerning the treatment of German generals brought here as prospective organization witnesses and who are confined in the Palace of Justice Prison, the Tribunal has had this matter investigated by the military authorities who are responsible for the custody and treatment of prisoners.
2. Based on the report of the investigation submitted by the military authorities, it appears that the prisoners are being treated in accordance with the regulations pertaining to the treatment of prisoners. Wherever a discrepancy was found, the military authorities have reported that correction has been made. From this report it appears that the main misunderstanding regarding privileges for certain individuals was due to a misinterpretation of the regulations pertaining to the status or category of the individual. It is reported that this has been corrected so that all prisoners are now in their proper status and that a notice setting forth the privileges to which prisoners are entitled has now been published.
3. Based on your request, the military authorities state that tho generals you mentioned have been quartered together so as to facilitate your work. The Tribunal requested from the military authorities that no prisoners' status be changed due to the fact that he was brought here as a witness and the military authorities report that they are complying with that request.
FOR THE TRIBUNAL;
(gez. ) W. I. Mitchell, W. I. MITCHELL Brigadier General, U. S. Army General Secretary
DR. LATERNSER: According to this Field Marshal List is still a prisoner of war.
I shall now turn to the Balkans.
MR FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honors please, before we leave this complex I should like to ask Dr. Laternser whether these documents are to be considered as the answer of the Defense to the Prosecution's brief which holds that this whole question of the status of these defendants is conclusively determined by the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Yamashita case, and, also, whether the Tribunal intends to rule upon this question prior to the conclusion of the case and presentation of the final arguments.
DR LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, first of all, I think that this can scarcely be debated now because I am just presenting my evidence at the moment; but I shall be glad to do so in case the Tribunal wishes me to. I need hardly say that it will be about what the Prosecution have said. About the question of their status of prisoners of war an opinion will be submitted at least in the final plea. With these documents I merely wish to furnish a fundamental on which I can later on build my argument by these various documents submitted just now. That is why I submitted them.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honors please, we might all save ourselves a lot of time if these apparent pleas under the Tribunal's jurisdiction were determined as speedily as possible.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will decide that question at the proper time and at its pleasure.
DR LATERNSER: If Your Honors please, I shall now turn to the Balkans. I wish to submit evidence concerning the channels of subordination. For that purpose I submit List Documents, 149, 150, 151) and..
THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly repeat again, Dr. Laternser; and may I suggest that you be a little more deliberate in your preliminary statements as to the documents, giving the document number, the page number, and the exhibit number which you are giving to the particular document--and that you did not rather deliberately support the identifying statements you made?
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you very much, Your Honor, for this. I shall certainly pay attention to this.
I now submit documents 149, 150, 151, and 152. They will become Exhibits No. 3, No. 4, No. 5, and No, 6. They are charts.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly give the book again?
DR, LATERNSER: Those are photostatic copies which I shall have handed to the Court, and I would ask the Tribunal to number them pages 1, 1a, 1b, and 1c, in Document Book I. There is a remark to that effect contained in Document Book I. on Page VII, Exhibit No. 3 shows the operational position held by Field Marshal List during the campaign; subordinate to him at the time were only troops in combat. Exhibit No. 4 shows also that field Marshal List's operational position was, until 25 June 1941, not subject to any change. As from 25 June 1941 a change occurred. Exhibit No. 5 shows the territorial conditions of subordination between 25 June and 19 September 1941, and it shows those agencies which were subordinate to Field Marshal List. I would like to draw attention to the special position hold by the Commander in Chief Serbia. Exhibit No. 6 shows the change. After the 19th of September 1941 the position of the General Plenipotentiary for Serbia was instituted. There the agency which I just mentioned was interpolated between the Commander in Chief Southeast and the Commander in Chief Serbia.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will take its morning recess at this time.
(A RECESS WAS TAKEN)
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you, your Honor.
If your Honors please, these four exhibits, 3, 4, 5 and 6, I have also offered because they may be of importance for the evaluation of the question whether or not the Armed Forces Commander Southeast could have gained knowledge of certain documents presented by the prosecution. Now, I would like to prove how these channels of command and of subordination affected particularly the Military Commander Serbia. For this purpose I shall, first of all, submit List Document 201. This is contained in List Document Book IV and on page 70. This document is an excerpt from the enclosures to the War Diary: "Military Commander Serbia --"
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, I fear you have been so far removed from the presentation of these documents in the last month or so you have forgotten the procedural end of it. If you will always start out and give the volume, the page and then the exhibit number, it will he very helpful to the Tribunal.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, certainly, your Honors; I apoligize and I shall from now on observe this.
This exhibit will be offered under Exhibit No. 7, List 7, and I shall read from page 91:
"Military Commander Serbia, Headquarters, Chief, Belgrade 24 July 1941. To the Headquarters Staff Office" for information to various agencies:
"A. The Chief of Staff of the Commander of the Wehrmacht in the Southeast writes:
"The organization of the Commander of the Armed Forces in the Southeast seems to be not generally known. Orders to the agencies subordinated to the Armed Forces Commander Southeast are still given directly over the head of the Armed Forces Commander South-east.
In those cases which became known, the Armed Forces Commander South-east asked to observe the prescribed official channels.
"I ask the Chiefs of the Staffs to make sure also for their part that.
"1. orders within and from their areas of command are given in accordance with the rules laid down in the basic order of the Wehrmacht Commander South-east, "2. that the Commander of the Wehrmacht South-east is immediately informed about orders which were received directly, "3. that deviations from the proscribed official rules by personal conferences, trips, etc.
are avoided.
"The Generalfeldmarschall attaches very great importance to these points. I ask that the Commander, and the commanding generals are informed about this matter."
"B. It is the duty of all Headquarters agencies to observe the above comment most scrupulously. The office of the Armed Forces Commander South-east was created in order to relieve the OKW in Berlin and the Berlin offices; in future it is, therefore, no longer necessary to contact the Berlin agencies directly. On the occasion of his stay in Belgrade, the Generalfeldmarschall again asked me personally to give my attention to the view-points outlined in the above letter of the Chief."
It is signed "Gravenhorst, Lieutenant Colonel in the General Staff."
I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that this order is dated 24 July 1941.
I shall now further submit List Document 15 which will become Exhibit 7, List Document 15. That is contained -
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors, before we pass from the preceding document I should like to read two things further into the record, in Document Book IV-a on page 86 at the top of the page:
"The example of the 6th mountain Division, billeted in and around the, capital Athens, proves that timely action prevents more harm."
This, of course, goes into the question of whether or not Italian troops were in Athens.
DR. LATERNSER: If your Honors please, for the moment I have to object to this procedure. The part which the prosecution just started to read I shall want to read myself however in a different context, because I am presenting this evidence in a certain order. I have not yet finished reading this Document, Exhibit 7. I have only finished it to the extent to which I needed in this connection.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors, I am not quite sure how I should proceed then with respect to reading certain excerpts into the record from documents, excerpts which we are interested in. Perhaps if Dr. Laternser could tell me when he is finally through with the document, that is satisfactory.
THE PRESIDENT: That, I believe, is the better procedure and, Dr. Laternser, when you have completed a document you will by some indication to Mr. Fenstermacher indicate that fact so that if he wishes to make any additional statements or read any additional statement into the record he may have the opportunity before we get too far away from the particular document in question.
DR. LATERNSER: I am very ready to do that, all the more so because it is in accordance with my own suggestion which I just made.
I shall now offer to the Tribunal Document List 15 as Exhibit 7. This is contained on wage 2 of List Document Book I.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire, Dr. Laternser, if you did not give Exhibit 7 to 4a, page 79?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, this one should be Exhibit 8; I beg your pardon. It is contained in List Document Book I on page 2. This is an affidavit executed by Army Judge Gruen and I shall read this affidavit from the second paragraph onwards:
"From the beginning of the war until August 1942 I was an Army Judge of the 12th Army and at the same time legal advisor of the Armed Forces Commander Southeast. During the years 1941 to 1942 I was Chief Judge.
"After General Boehme had been appointed Plenipotentiary Commanding General in Serbia the position of the Military Commander Serbia was made considerably independent. In court procedures against the population of Serbia all the Armed Forces Commanders Southeast retained was the clemency right whereas all other functions were transferred to the Plenipotentiary Commanding General in Serbia.
"I also know that in the case of administrative matters the military commander of Serbia received his directives directly from the OKH and that he also reported directly to the OKH.
"The Reich Fuehrer SS, respectively the Reich Main Security Office, issued direct orders to the Military Commander of Serbia as far as police matters were concerned."
(Laternser) I shall now further present List Document 33, as List Exhibit 8 -- I beg your pardon, - 33-A. This is contained in List Document Book 1, on page 3. This is an affidavit executed by Lt. Colonel Pfafferott, and I shall read a few excerpts from this document. I shall start with the second paragraph:
"I have been a professional soldier since 1921, from December, 1940 until spring 1942. I was a Major and Third Officer at the General Staff (1c) at the Army High Command 12; from spring until fall, 1942, I was Lieutenant Colonel in the Officer Reserve Corps of the AOK 12."
I shall continue with the third paragraph:
"Although it did not belong into my actual field of activities I know from my work with the staff of the Army High Command 12 that especially the subordinate military commanders (Serbia, Salonik; Aegaeis and South Greece) often, and evading the Army High Command, were in direct contact with the OKW or other agencies and vice versa. This went on usually through channels of the air force or the military administration and there were frequently questions e.g. from the OKW to the Army High Command without the latter having any knowledge of the matters in question. This was the case especially concerning Serbia, where the lines of communication as well (line OKW-Belgrad usually worked, BelgradAthens was frequently interrupted) as also the ambitions of individuals, among others of the Staatsrat Dr. TURNER to act independently were decisive.
After several controversies, which I don't know in detail, between the AOK and the commander of Serbia a long conversation between Field Marshal LIST and Staatsrat TURNER took place, at which, for a while, I substituted for the Ia in taking the minutes. The summary of my general impression of that conversation is as follows: At first in a polite way, later on more sharply, Field Marshal LIST reproached the Staatsrat TURNER, to have disregarded respectively trespassed the directives of the AOK; to have informed the AOK negligently or in a way that could lead to misunderstandings and thus to have worsened the situation in Serbia.
It was his, TURNER'S fault, if through his efforts the German soldier would now have to straighten out again what politics had spoiled. I think that I can also remember that Field Marshal LIST made the further assignment of the unit dependent on the absolute observance of the orders of the AOK. Staatsrat TURNER denied the reproaches made and referred to the necessity of having the liberty to make decisions according to the respective local situation. He also referred to the fact that the communication of news to the AOK did frequently not work. The conference ended unsatisfactorily and everybody was angry. In consequence of that I had to ask the police director Dr. LOOS to come to Belgrad. He was so to speak to be the counter-balance for TURNER for the authorized commander general in Serbia and had approximately the order, to inform the AOK concerning the actual situation in Serbia. Only on occasion of his personal and oral reports was he to inform the AOK about the police and political measures of the military administration of Serbia."
This conference of Field Marshal List with State Counciller Turner can also be found in the daily notes made by Field Marshal List of which we have a photostat, in Document 178, which I shall now offer as List Exhibit 10. It is List Document 178, and it will become List Exhibit 10. It is contained in List Document Book 3, on page 78. I said that this document is on Page 78 of Document Book 3, but for the moment, I shall only read from page 90.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor I object to the admission of this document. For all that it appears here, it is simply several pages of handwritten notes. We cannot tell who wrote them, we cannot tell from Dr. Laternser's statement because he is not a witness.
I further object on the ground that we have not been furnished with the total diary from which excerpts are being offered by the Defense.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I would briefly like to give my comments on this. First of all, I would very much like the Tribunal to look at the exhibit offered. It is a photostat of approximately 20 pages of this diary, which I have offered as an exhibit.
If the Court should hold the opinion that the Prosecution is entitled to see the whole of this diary, I am ready at all times to hand it over to the Prosecution. There are no reasons whatsoever to hold back this document. The only reason was that Field Marshal List himself was to retain the diary. The Prosecution is, of course, entitled to see the whole diary, and I am very willing to hand it over.
THE PRESIDENT: It is the judgment and ruling of the Tribunal that if it is the desire of the Prosecution, they shall be permitted to see the entire diary, and make such use of it as they may see fit.
I take it that the document will not be retained except for such purposes of photo stating if they should care to do so, and that it will then be returned to Field Marshal List.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: That is our understanding, Your Honor. That is what we will do.
One other point I had is as to the identification of the document. It is my opinion that Field Marshal List should be called to the witness stand to identify it, and in order also that we might have an opportunity at the appropriate time to cross examine him on the excerpts from his diary.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, it seems very strange that this motion be now made by the Prosecution. The Prosecution is merely entitled to make a cross-examination concerning matters discussed during direct examination. I did not examine Field Marshall List about this particular point. How, then, can the Prosecution demand that Field Marshal List be cross-examined about this diary? I am not submitting it as testimony. I am submitting it as a document. There must be a difference made between testimony made by witnesses, and evidence made through documents.
Where now, can the Prosecution demand to make a cross-examination about a diary, because I am just submitting an excerpt out of this diary. I ask for this motion to be rejected.
THE PRESIDENT: This witness is here who can identify it, and it should be identified, and it is the judgment of the Tribunal that as pertains to this particular document, the Prosecution shall have the right to cross-examine him on such matters as are disclosed by the document itself, and will be restricted to that matter alone.
DR. LATERNSER: I shall then call Field Marshal List immediately to the witness stand.
DIRECT EXAMINATION FIELD MARSHAL LIST BY DR. LATERNSER:
THE PRESIDENT: You need not be sworn the second time.
DR. LATERNSER: I would like to ask to be handed Exhibit 10.
Q Field Marshal, I shall now hand Exhibit 10 to you. I am merely asking you, is this photostat a photostat of pages of your diary kept during 1941?
A Yes.
DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, might I reserve my right to crossexamine until I have examined the total war diary, total personal diary?
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, if the Tribunal please, the Prosecution has had my document book for at least two months. The Prosecution will have to be prepared to make cross-examination immediately, such as we have done with every Prosecution witness. The Prosecution simply has to be in a position to do that.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors, certainly of the missing excerpts from this diary will undoubtedly throw light upon the excerpts which have already translated, and it is for that reason that I should like to reserve my cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not raising any question at this time as to the foundation of the identification?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: No, I have no cross-examination on that point, Your Honor, at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to the Tribunal, Dr. Laternser, that as to the document itself, the entire document, - that the Prosecution has not had an access to that document, as I understand it, and if that is true, they should be given the privilege of a reasonable time to examine it.
DR. LATERNSER: If your Honor pleases, I understand what the Tribunal means. The Prosecution is entitled to cross-examination only about those points which I have made the subject of the examination, and these parts have been in their hands for several weeks now. Therefore, the Prosecution will now be obliged to make cross-examination immediately, if they want to make any cross-examination at all.
If your Honors please, in all instances that came up during this trial, the Defense was in a position, and was forced to make a cross-examination immediately. Why should there be any difference here now, where those parts which I have used in the examination have for several weeks been in the hands of the Prosecution?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, the Tribunal required the Prosecution to present the entirety of certain documents, at some considerable trouble, and it took some time. Now they are entitled to observe and to have an opportunity to study, for a reasonable time, the entirety of this diary, and for the purpose of ascertaining from its entire study, whether or not it is information concerning the matters which you have here presented.
It will be the ruling of the Tribunal that the Prosecution shall have a reasonable time, perhaps until tomorrow morning, to examine this entire document, and to then cross-examine the witness at that time.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honor please, I do not know how lengthy this total personal diary is, but I wonder if our time might run for perhaps two or three days following its turning over to us for examination?
THE PRESIDENT: The ruling will be followed for the present.
Do you have the document here, Dr. Laternser?
DR. LATERNSER: If your Honors please, I have just been told that I have this little diary. It is just a pocket diary. During the course of the day I shall hand it over to the Prosecution, but I shall have to go to my apartment to fetch it. I have not got it here.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you do that during the noon-hour? Would you have time to do it during the noon-hour, - during the noon recess?
DR. LATERNSER: I do not think I shall have time enough just then, but at five o'clock, the document will be in the hands of the Prosecution. Let's say 1715 to be quite sure.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
(Witness excused)
The question being only as to the right of cross-examination and the later examination of the diary itself, in its entirety, by the Prosecution, there is no reason why you should not go ahead with the reading of this particular document.
There is no objection on that procedure is there, Mr. Fenstermacher?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: None at all, Your Honor.
DR. LATERNSER: This document is contained in List Document Book 3, and I shall read a part of page 90. On top, on the left hand side it says, "September". Then I shall skip a few lines, and it says, "15 Monday", and again I shall skip two lines, and then it says, "Afternoon". That is how the next line starts.
"Afternoon. At home wrote and worked. Waited in vain for the Chief of War Administration Turner".
I shall again skip a few lines, and I shall start, - I shall read from the entries for the next day:
"16 Tuesday". I am skipping again, three lines, and I am reading the next line, "Afternoon, 1845 hours. Chief of War Administration State Counciller Dr. Turner, reported about the situation.
Views which do not always apply. Seems to lead in Belgrade. I must express myself clearly. Remains to dinner; pretends to be very militaristic and confidential".
I have not yet finished with this document altogether. In order to show the effects of the conditions of Command, I shall further offer List's Exhibit 144, which will become List Exhibit 11. This is to be found in List Document Book 1, on page 5. This is an affidavit executed by General Serini. I shall read parts of this affidavit, and I shall start with the second paragraphs "From 7 November 1939 until 5 May 1942 I was first as Lieutenant Colonel, and from 1 October 1940 on as Colonel First Adjutant of the XII Army.
I was witness to numerous extra-office conversations during which Field Marshal LIST mentioned to officers of his staff that a personality like Staatsrat TURNER was not suited to be chief of the military administration for Serbia. The reason for these sharp judgments was almost always the worry that TURNER'S incapability, on whom the AOK XII had no influence, was blamed by the population on the German Army. I myself made the observation that Field Marshal LIST did not only object to the way TURNER run his office, but also to his personality."
That is the end of this document.
I shall further offer List Document 164, and this will became List Exhibit 12. This can be found in List Document Book on page 6.
It is an affidavit given by Xenophon Switlick. I shall read from the second paragraph of this document:
"From September 1939 until the end of October 1941 I was assigned to LIST's staff as an ordnance Officer, first with the rank of a lieutenant and finally that of a captain.
It was known at LIST's staff that LIST and his chief constantly complained that they were not sufficiently informed about the happenings in Serbia which belonged to the field of activities of the Chief of the military administration of Serbia, Dr. TURNER. The relations to TURNER were always strained. The OKH often knew more and earlier about happenings in Serbia than did the Armed Forces Commander South East.
I remember that the Director of the Field Police, LOOS, suddenly traveled to Belgrad. I don't know what order was connected with that travel."
That is the end of document 12.
I further present List document 16 which will become List Exhibit 13. This is contained on page 7 of List Document Book 1. It is an affidavit given by Dr. Gruen, from whom I have already offered an affidavit. I shall read beginning with the third paragraph:
"There were rather strained relations between the Armed Forces Commander South East and the Chief of the Military Administration of Serbia, Staatsrat Dr. TURNER. There were complaints at the staff of the Commander of the Armed Forces South East that Staatsrat Dr. TURNER governed rather autheratically and that he did not notify at all or not in time the Armed Forces Commander South East even of important matters.
I also know, that in fall 1941 the Director of the Field Police LOOS was ordered by Field Marhsal LIST to go to Belgrade for some time, in order to repress the influence of Staatsrat Dr. TURNER on General BOEHME. I am not in a position to tell what were the details of the order for LOOS."
DR. LATERNSER: That brings me to the end of this document, which is List Exhibit 13.
In the same connection there are two further documents, first of all, List Document 30 which will become List Exhibit 14. This is also contained in List Document Book I, on page 8 of that document book. It is an affidavit executed by General Max Pemsel, and I shall start reading from the second paragraph of this affidavit. It says here:
"From the end of September until the end of November 1941 I was tactical chief with the rank of a Colonel, of the General Staff of General BOEHME as chief of the General Staff of the 18th (mountain) army command.
I had the impression that Staatsrat Dr. TURNER worked very independently and received his directives directly from HIMMLER and most likely also reported to him. I was never present when Staatsrat Dr. TURNER reported to General BOEHME. I only know that general BOEHME repeatedly gave vent to his dislike "of that man".
I don't know whether and to what extent Field Marshal LIST was informed about reports which belonged to the field of activities of Dr. TURNER.
I know that in October 1941 Police Director LOOS was assigned by Field Marshal LIST to the staff of BOEHME in order to act as a counterbalance against Dr. TURNER. I saw LOOS only once, when he paid his visit. I don't know the contents of Field Marshal's LIST'S order to LOOS."