And now I would like to submit document 171, Exhibit 70 on page 29, of Document Book 3. Page 29. It is on page 29, in Document Book 3, Document 171. It is an "information sheet for the regional commander", the Convening Authority. (Courts-Martial Procedure). I. In urgent cases every regimental commander, or Commander of an autonomous battalion, etc. can exercise the functions of a convening authority without limitations as to cases, in other words in all cases concerning demeanors and crimes. (No. 13 a of the Decree concerning military jurisdiction during war and special operations.
"Prerequisites. I. Compelling military reasons require immediate sentencing. That is particularly the case in offenses against discipline (for instance cowardice on the part of leaders or sub-leaders, severe violation of duties by troop commanders, abandonment of Wehrmacht property received in trust, in particular discarding or unauthorized destruction of weapons or other means of combat, mutiny, serious insubordination, assault against a superior).
"2. A convening authority is not available on the spot." Leave out the rest of that paragraph.
"3. Witnesses and other evidence are at the disposal immediately. (Culprit was caught in flagranti, confession, facts clearly established.) The Regimental Commander shall not burden himself with cases which require investigations for the purpose of convicting the culprit.
"II. When the prerequisites 1-3 are filled the Regimental Commander is not only authorized but obliged to act and to function as convening authority The courts-martial are to be used whenever danger is imminent or if it is to be feared that delay in the proceedings may cause a diminuation of the evidence (witnesses) or a covering up of the facts.
"III. The Regimental Commander authorizes an officer of the Judge Advocate's Division or another officer to serve the indictment orally.
"He convenes a Field Court-Martial.
"Composition:
"1. President.
An officer who is qualified for the office of a judge. If such an officer is not on hand, every other officer - if possible at least a Captain - can preside over the proceedings.
"2. Associates.
2 soldiers. (It is recommended to use 1 officer, 1 soldier of the rank of the defendant.) Selection to be conducted with care. The prosecutor or a qualified soldier are to make a brief Memorandum, if possible, of the proceedings.
"When possible sentence of the offense is death. Defense counsel is to be provided if possible. The proceedings are to produce thorough and unobjectionable clarification of the facts. The defendant must be hoard on the indictment and must be admitted to make a final plea. Oath for witnesses subject to individual decision.
"IV. Verdict based on the majority decision. Brief opinion to be rendered writing. As a matter of principle, the case is to be reviewed by the regular convening authority and or the higher commander. Death sentences, also against officers of every rank may be confirmed by the Regimental etc. Commander during a period of crisis, in particular in the fight against signs of disintegration, if the immediate execution is imperative for the maintenance of discipline and for the purpose of intimidation. Death sentences are to be executed before a troop formation. It is not compulsory to submit a judicial opinion.
"V. Action taken is to be reported to the convening authority; reports to be attached to the notice."
I don't need to read the next two points. I would just like to point out to the Tribunal that this memorandum for Regional Commanders is not provisions for a normal procedure, but for the summary court-martials in cases of urgency when speed is necessary and when the normal convening authority can not be reached.
The fact that action was always taken in this way I can prove by Prosecution Documents in Document Book III. From this compilation in this document you will see proof of my assertion that court procedures were ordered, first of all from Prosecution Exhibit 4 on page 32 of this book "Corps Order" in which sentence by summery court martial is provided. This can also be seen in Prosecution Exhibit 70 which I have included on page 33 of this document book. This is an order by teletype from Field Marshal List himself. In this connection I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the first paragraph and the two figures quoted there. Further, I have included in this document book Prosecution Exhibit No. 76which is to be found on page 35 of this document book. This also provided sentencing by summary court martial. I am able to prove a case but for this point I have no other evidentiary material available but I hope to get some more later on.
I submit List Document No. 23 a as Exhibit No. 71. This is an affidavit by a company leader called Hausbacher and I would like to read the 5th paragraph. I am sorry; it is in Document Book I, page 85. I only want to read the 5th paragraph:
"While I was acting Ib I remember only the following isolated case where a person was executed by shooting: the mayor of the town of Iraclion had been twice found conspiring with the British. In consequence of this he was at the end of July or at the beginning of August 1941 sentenced to death by a summary court martial and was shot dead".
Passages in the prosecution documents that summary court martial took place, I have already pointed out while I have been reading the Tribunal will remember in a large number of cases it was reported. that so and so many people were shot after summary court martial. I have just dealt with evidence for the fact that Field Marshal List with regard to reports about the shooting of partisans was able to assume that a proper trial had taken place. This assumption does not, however, of course, apply when hostages were shot as reprisal because the reprisal does not need a trial, because trials only find out the guilty people while reprisals can also hit the innocent.
That is how reprisals are, in order to obtain the ultimate purpose of intimidation.
I would now like to submit evidence for the assertion of the defense that hostages may be killed as reprisals. I now submit List Document 250 as Exhibit No. 72. This is in Document Book V, page 116. This is in the American Rules of Landfare which I would like to read into the record at this point.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honors please, this document goes to the law of the case which the Tribunal is presumed to know and that presumption being true I am sure the Tribunal would take judicial notice of it. It certainly is not evidence. I object to its admission as evidence.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection will be sustained.
DR. LATERNSER: Not only the American Army Quarters consider the shooting of hostages as reprisal as admissible but also the Russian authorities. I would like to submit Document List No. 123 as Exhibit Do. 73; I am sorry - 72. This document is contained in Document Book I, page 87.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honors please, I believe it has already been introduced in the case of von Geitner.
DR. LATERNSER: I don't know that it has already been submitted.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I have no independent recollection. Well, if it has been introduced it may be received again and then no harm will be done thereby.
DR. LATERNSER: "Extract from Official Gazette of the City of Berlin. Issued by the City Council of the City of Berlin. To the Population of Berlin! 10 July 1945.
"Berliners! Hitler's war crime has plunged our native city into the worst catastrophe of its history.
Now there is only one way out: to clear away the rubble and the ruins by peaceful work and then to rebuild Berlin. Everybody trying to prevent us doing this is an enemy of the people, a person without conscience, who commits a crime against our homeland and against our wives and children. But there are still such criminal and misguided persons trying to prevent the return of calm and order against acts of madness."
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Now that you read it, my recollection is refreshed. It has been introduced and it has been read into the record in the case of one of the other defendants. If you wish to call attention to that by exhibit number, there is no objection.
DR. LATERNSER: Well, then, of course, I won't read it. It is a threat of reprisal shootings in the ratio of 1 to 50. This order for Berlin was not only published in the official Gazette but was also published on the radio and in American newspapers. I would like to prove this in List Document No. 470 and this I would like to offer as Exhibit No. 73. This is in Document Book VII, page 11. It is an affidavit by Heinz Loechel and I would like to read from the third paragraph:
"From 25 April 1945 till 2 June 1945 I was a patient in the Air Force hospital 12-XVII. Bad Gastein/Austria, as a 1st lieutenant, because I had been wounded. From 4 June 1945 till 3 August 1945 I was a 1st lieutenant with the 2nd German Armored Army (disarmed German forces) holding an assignment as platoon commander with the 3rd company of the 5th Battalion, Motorized Regiment 9, serving under the US 10th Armored Division, in the area of Weilheim on Lake Starnberg in Bavaria.
In the period after the capitulation and before the beginning of the Potsdam Conference - unfortunately I cannot give a more precise date I read in a newspaper published by the American Army for the German population that the Soviet Russian Military Command of Berlin had established that several attacks by Nazis, Hitler Youth members, etc.
on members of the Red Army had taken place. They warned people from repeating such attacks, as, in the case of future recurrences 50 (fifty) members of the Nazi Party would be executed for each member of the Red Amy.
As far as I can recall, this report was also given over the radio stations of the military government.
The French also regarded shooting of hostages as admissible. In Markdorf in the French Zone they threatened shootings in the ratio of 1 to 30. As evidence for this I submit List Document No. 390 as Exhibit No. 74. This is in Document Book VII, page 1.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I object to this on the ground that if there is such an order or such an announcement, that order or announcement itself should be produced as the best evidence rather than an affidavit on the subject.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I would like to state here that this is direct evidence of the man who, on orders of the French, posted and published this notice. That is, quite clearly, direct evidence.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection will be overruled.
DR. LATERNSER: This Exhibit No. 74 is an affidavit by Wilhelm Kappeler. I would like to read the third paragraph of this:
"From 1943 to 1945 I served with the auxiliary police in Markdorf. One day in the beginning of May 1945, when Markdorf was already occupied by the French, I received the order from Burgomaster Grieshaber to make a public proclamation in the village of an announcement by the local French commandant. The contents of the announcement were to the effect that 30 citizens of Markdorf would be shot if the criminal who had shot at a French soldier a few days before was not discovered."
As the next document in this case I would like to submit List document 400, as Exhibit No. 75. This is an affidavit by the town priest of Markdorf, Jakob Boch, who has the following to say about this case and another case. I read from the third paragraph onwards:
"On the 2nd of May " -
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: In what book?
DR. LATERNSER: This document is in Document Book 7, page 2. It is just the next page. I read from the third paragraph onwards:
"On 2 May 1945, when Markdorf was already occupied by the French, an announcement was made by the Local French commandant, towards the evening, by publicly crying it out to the population, that at the slightest hostile act on the part of the population 20 citizens of Markdorf would be shot.
"So far as I can remember, a poster with the same contents was placed on the cellar door of the rectory situated on the busiest street.
"I no longer remember what signature the poster bore."
Signed, "Jakob Boch, Clergyman."
In Markdorf, the French not only threatened, but also transformed the threat into action. Four or five people were shot. As proof of this, I submit document 410, and this becomes Exhibit No. 76. This is an affidavit by Wilhelm Kahles, living in Markdorf. I will read this affidavit, which is on page 3:
"I am a merchant by occupation and was Deputy Burgomaster until 1933 in Markdorf. After 1933, after I was removed, I was still frequently consulted by the Nazi Burgomaster Grieshaber in matters concerning the office of burgomaster. During the war I was 10 weeks in protective custody because of anti-National Socialist activity. I was always an opponent of National Socialism.
"On 29 April 1945, Markdorf was occupied by French infantry. The Commandant of the city was a French captain about 45 years old. I do not remember his name. Neither do I know anything in detail about the French unit (regimental number, to which army it belonged, etc.)
"About noon on 2 May 1945 Burgomaster Grieshaber suddenly came to my house and asked me in the greatest haste to go with him to the French Commandant. On the way he told me that a member of a French patrol had been shot at by a German soldier in civilian clothes whose papers failed to pass inspection. He said the German soldier suddenly reached into his pocket, drew out a pistol, and shot the Frenchman in the breast. The Frenchman was still alive. Grieshaber then informed me that because of this the French Commandant intended to have ten citizens of Markdorf shot, whom we two were supposed to name to him.
"At the Commandant's office Grieshaber and I declared that we would never name any fellow citizens to be marked for death. They could shoot both of us. The Commandant refused to do that and the interpreter told us that the matter was settled. I stepped up and expressed out thanks to the Commandant that none of our fellow citizens were to be shot. At the same moment the door opened and four men in civilian clothes were led into the Commandant's office accompanied by several French soldiers. They were German soldiers in civilian clothes who had been picked up by the French patrol.
They had their pay books with them and stated that they were guards from the Freudenstatt prison camp. They said they had been trying to reach their homes in Allgaeu and elsewhere. The Commandant said something of which I understood "partisans". Then he gave an order in French which I did not understand. The four men were led away. I came to the conclusion that the four men were going to be shot, and went to the French army chaplain and begged him to intercede."
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I ask that the conclusion of the affiant as to what was meant by the French Commandant when he said something in French, which the affiant admits he did not understand, should be stricken.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: For whatever it may be worth, it may stay.
DR. LATERNSER: "I came to the conclusion that the four were going to be shot, and went to the French army chaplain and begged him to intercede. He said that was useless. A few hours later I received the order from the Commandant, by runner, to procure wagons to carry away the bodies after the impending shooting. Then, together with Burgomaster Grieshaber and Town Clergyman Boch, I had to witness the shooting. The four were placed before the wall of the church enclosure, were given bandages for their eyes-without being bound--and at about 6 o'clock they were shot by about ten French soldiers. Before the execution the body of a German soldier in civilian clothes (Bischof by name) was displayed behind them, high up on the outer wall of the church and fastened to a window shutter. It was said that the soldier had been beaten with rifle butts. Directly after the execution I had the bodies of the four men who had been shot and the body of the fifth soldier carried to the cemetary chapel. The burial took place on the following day. No judicial proceedings took place.
"The names of the four men who were shot were: Bodenmueller, Frey, Lichtenfels, and Zimmer. The fifth soldier was named Bischof.
"For quite a while the rumor persisted in Markdorf that the four men had been shot as hostages in place of the ten citizens whom the Commandant had at first demanded. They were said to have been taken out of a prisoner of war camp.
However, this was not in accordance with the facts. These two events merely happened to coincide by accident. However, in addition to this there was the fact that in the meantime 20 citizens had been gathered together at random by the French soldiers from houses or on the street, from whom the ones to be shot were apparently to be selected. However, these citizens were immediately set free after our talk with the Commandant. The shooting of the four soldiers had nothing to do with this, but apparently took place because they were picked up in civilian clothes as "partisans".
"I do not know of any posters containing any sort of threats by the French army in case of hostile acts by the citizens or individual German soldiers.
"Former Burgomaster Grieshaber (Eugen) is at present still in the Lahr-Dinglingen Internment Camp."
Signed, "Wilhelm Kahles."
Now I would like to submit List Document No. 420, as Exhibit No. 77. This is in Document Book 7, page 6, and it is a certificate which runs as follows:
"Markdorf, dated 12 May 1945.
"Kurt Bischofs has been killed by shooting in Markdorf"-
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I object to this. This has no relevance or materiality without more being shown that this person named here in the death certificate tics in in some way with the preceding documents. I submit that tie-up has not been shown.
DR. LATERNSER: Actually, I agree with this. The Prosecution, however, has done this perhaps thirty or thirty-five times. I would like to make this case quite clear. This is a death certificate of the man shot. The death certificate is the document which brings in evidence about of this person, and in my opinion it must be admitted as a official document. With this document every German citizen can obtain an official doctor's certificate.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I have no objection to the validity of the document on its face as being a public record. My objection is different.
There has been no tie-up shown between this document and the preceding documents, and unless there is something shown, it is completely irrelevant and immaterial.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection will be sustained.
DR. LATERNSER: In conclusion of this subject I would like to submit an important English opinion, which also regards the shooting of hostages as admissible. I submit to the Tribunal-
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I think, Dr. Laternser, that we will be unable to finish it tonight, so we will adjourn at this time until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(At 1630 hours, 6 January 1948, a recess was taken until 0930 hours, 7 January 1948 Official Transcript of Military Tribunal V, Case VII, in the matter of the United States of America against Wilhelm List, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 7 January 1948, 0945, Justice Burke, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal V.
Military Tribunal V is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you will ascertain as to whether or not all defendants are present in the court room.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all defendants are present in the court room with the exception of the defendant von Weichs who is in the hospital.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. LATERNSER (Defense Counsel for defendant List): Your Honor, yesterday we stopped with the question of whether hostages could be killed as reprisals and I would mow like to let British opinion speak on this question. As proof, I submit List Document 330 as Exhibit #77. It is to be found in Document Book 6, page 12. It is an opinion which was made on the 4th of December, 1944, and I would like to read the last paragraph:
"In threatening to take and if necessary shoot hostages General Leclerc, in an effort to deal with a dangerous situation, was acting in full accordance with the rules of war."
MR. FULKERSON: If Your Honor please, I would like to object to this newspaper clipping on the same ground as the prosecution has made former objections to newspaper clippings.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I think that this objection is rather too late because I have already finished reading and, for the rest, this is an article which comes from that period, an article which appeared in the Times, one of the most important newspapers in the world. I am already finished with the document.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be overruled as not being made timely then, I was having difficulty with my earphones and getting it over. Would you kindly repeat the reference to the exhibit?
DR. LATERNSER: It's Document List #330 and it receives Exhibit #77. It is in Document Book 6, page 12. I only read a part of the third paragraph in which the Times talks about shooting of hostages as being in accordance with international law.
Your Honor, unfortunately I am not able to submit the declarations which have already been made by American commanders on this subject because the French statements are still missing and I want to submit this statement in its entirety. They belong together. On this occasion when I present this opinion I will also present a very important opinion from authentic British sources. I will submit this evidence to the Tribunal as soon as possible and I am expecting the French statement to arrive any day.
This brings me to the end temporarily of my presentation of evidence with regard to Count I of the Indictment and now I turn to the presentation of evidence regarding Count II of the Indictment according to which Field Marshal List is charged with plundering and spoliation and destruction of property - spoliation and plundering through the special detachment of Rosenberg which is allegedly supposed to have been subordinate to the army. The fact that this Rosenberg Detachment was not subordinate to the army has been proved many times by testimony of witnesses. I will now submit further evidence.
Firstly, with List Document #330 and this becomes Exhibit #78. This document is to be found in Document Book 1, page 96. This is an affidavit by Colonel Werner Pfafferett and I want to read from the third paragraph onwards, picking out a few passages:
"Field Marshal List in no way supported the work of the Rosenberg Bureau and of the SD. Any impression to the contrary can only be the result of misunderstood or misleading reports of the representative of the Rosenberg Bureau, a certain Lt. Ritter von Ingram.
"Shortly before the start of the Balkans campaign, numerous document screening detachments of various agencies arrived at the Army District Command LK 12. One such detachment belonging to the Rosenberg Bureau was ordered to secure documents for the investigation of the Jewish question and of Freemasonry. All these detachments reported to the AOK Ic, received their certificates and gasoline according to orders, but otherwise they were absolutely independent. Since my stay in Bulgaria I have never seen the Rosenberg Detachment again; a corresponding SD detachment I have never seen at all. The Chief of the Rosenberg detachment, who had received the Knight's Cross when he was a lieutenant in the French campaign, was received by Field Marshal List for a short period. On this occasion, The Field Marshal in the most outspoken manner objected to any arbitrary actions and to any sort of illegality.
"This is the only case known to me, where Field Marshal List had any contact with the Rosenberg Bureau during the Balkans campaign. Field Marshal List never received a representative of the SD. Belgrade belonged to the Area of AOK 12. It is therefore unlikely that the Field Marshal made a promise in this direction. The Jewish question was altogether irrelevant for AOK 12 on the Balkans in 1941."
And, on the same subject, I submit List Document 162 as Exhibit #79. This is contained in Document Book 1, page 98. This is an affidavit by captain and ADC Switlik and I would only like to read the last paragraph:
"Even before the invasion of Greece a Rosenberg detachment arrived at our headquarters, whose task it was to secure objects of art and objects of research interest. This detachment received no cooperation at all from us. On the contrary, it met with difficulties in various quar ters, because people knew, that List did not want to receive this deputation."
The next document I would like to submit is List Document #18 and this becomes Exhibit #80. This is contained in Document Book 1, page 99. I am going to read from the second paragraph onwards. This is an affidavit by Alfred Bruen. I will just read the last paragraph:
"I have never had any knowledge that Field Marshal List promoted in any way operations such as the investigation of Freemasons' lodges, Jewish libraries and other objects of research at Belgrade, Salonika or elsewhere in the Balkans, or that he ever made promises to this effect. Such conduct would have been inconsistent with the general attitude and character of the Field Marshal."
As Exhibit #81 I am going to submit Document List 161A which is contained in Document Book 3, page 54. List Document 161-A. This is an affidavit by Hans Kliemann who was major in the staff of the Wehrmacht Commander South-East. From this affidavit I would like to read from page 55 at the top:
"To Count II of the Indictment against General Field Marshal Listlooting and/or robbery of private or public property in violation of international law.
"In this connection I remember that some cases were reported at the staff of the AOK of offenses of this kind committed by soldiers belonging to its units. But I also know that in such cases detailed investigation and severest punishment of the guilty members of the army was ordered by the commander in chief, and as far as possible, reparations made to the affected persons.
"No looting has ever been carried out with the knowledge of or approval by General Field Marshal List."
This paragraph refers to the general plundering which takes place by soldiers when a land is occupied. I continue reading:
"About the appointment of an agent of Rosenberg on the Balkans I remember quite definitely that Field Marshal List refused to accept him on his first visit in January 1941 in Roumania. Only following another request, of Rosenberg's office supported by the OKW, General Field Marshal List complied with the demand of Rosenberg's office, at the same time giving strict orders that this Einsatzstab Rosenberg was not to be given any hope by any of the executive forces of the army (Field police, field constabulary) and that it was forbidden to requisition art treasures and other research material on its own accord. I do not know anything about a possible close understanding between Rosenberg's agent and the Einsatzkommando of the SD; but according to my memory, General Field Marshal List has certainly not arranged for it or helped it in any way.
"On the contrary, I remember a report of the AOK to the OKW containing details of the experiences which had been made with the special commandos of Rosenberg's office of the foreign office and the SD, detailed to the army during the action in the South East, and sharply criticized the activities of these non-military institutions, putting forward a request for their withdrawal which was also complied with.
"I further remember on this point that the Einsatzstab Rosenberg was refused a further issue of gasoline and rations on order of the commander in chief, so as to force these people to stop their activities which were not welcomed by the army."
I would like to ask here where the word at the top in the second line, "Zugeteilt", has been translated.
THE INTERPRETER: Yes, the word "zugeteilt" has been translated in English as "detailed to the army".
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you.
Further proof for alleged robbery and plunder has not been presented by the prosecution. With regard to the alleged weakening of the economic potential in the country. I have already submitted proof and I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to exhibits in the case of List, numbers 24, 25, 26 and 27.
And now I would like to submit on this point -- that is, the asserted weakening of the economic potential -- a further document and this is List Document No. 207, and this becomes Exhibit No. 82, List No. 207, Exhibit No. 82. This is contained in Document Book V, page 56. This is an excerpt from the supplement to the War Diary of corps headquarters of the 18th Army and I would like to read from page 58 at the top just one passage. I must take the heading of this document from the top of page 57: "Headquarters," dated 15 October 1941, "Quartermaster to the Plempotentary Commanding General in Serbia"; that is at the bottom of page 57.
And now I turn to page 58, "III Economy":
"1. War Economy", and then a few things omitted and then comes:
"b. War Economy as applied to additional subjects:
"Bor: Machinery in the process of arriving, beginning of mining, probably at the end of October."
I will not present any supplementary evidence with regard to destruction because the prosecution has not offered proof a single case for an arbitrary destruction and the arbitrariness is not proved and also the defendant did not have the military necessity to carry out these destructions.
And now I turn to Count III of the indictment in which Field Marshal List is charged with having passed on illegal orders, in particular commissar order, terror order, not however the commando order, which was only issued at the end of 1942.
With regard to the commissar order which is Prosecution Exhibit No. 13, I would like to prove that it was not valid at all in the Balkans and to this purpose I submit, first of all, List Document No. 12 as Exhibit No. 83. This is contained in Document Book I, page 104. It is an affidavit by Army Judge Gruen. I only want to read the last paragraph.
"The so-called 'Commissar order' has never come to my knowledge, while I was in the Balkans. Furthermore, I have never had any knowledge of the Commissar order being carried out in the Balkans."
The next document I would like to submit is List Document No. 27 and this becomes Exhibit No. 84. It is on page 105 of Document Book I and it is an affidavit by Major Hepp. I want to read two paragraphs:
"From April 1941 until December 1941 I was 4th General Staff Officer of the Army Command 12 with the rank of Captain and later Major."
I omit the next sentence and go to the last paragraph.
"While I served with the Command of the 12th Army the 'Commissar order' was never brought to my knowledge either verbally or in writing. If this order had been transmitted by AON 12, I should have had to be notified of it in some way or other. Nor can I remember any discussions about this order among my comrades. There would, however, have certainly been such discussions, if such an order had arrived at the AOK.
The next document is List No. 36 which is Exhibit No. 85. You will find this document also in Book, Document Book I, 106. This is an affidavit by Dr. Schaeffer and I want to read two paragraphs from it.
"At the time of the events in question I was GeneralStaff veterinary officer and army veterinary officer of the 12th army. I heard nothing of the so-called Commissar order while I was stationed in the Balkans. I learned only later that there was such an order when I served on the Eastern Front, that is, after the Fall of 1942."
My next document is List 130. This becomes Exhibit No. 86. This document is to be found on page 107 and it is an affidavit by Col. Hans Gerog Faulmueller. I want to read one sentence from paragraph 3:
"From 12 January 1941 I was captain and quartermaster of XVIII Mountain Corps which was under General Boehme's Command and was subordinate to the Command of the 12th Army."
I omit the rest of this paragraph and read from the next paragraph.
"The 'Commissar order' did not come to my knowledge while I was serving on the Balkans. In my capacity as quartermaster of the XVIII Mountain Army Corps I should have had to be notified of this order if it had been issued to my Corps. Moreover I have no knowledge that Commissars were ever taken prisoner or shot dead on the Balkans."
The next document I would like to submit is List 7a which is Exhibit No. 87. This is an affidavit by General Foltmann and I just want to read the last two paragraphs. It is on page 108 in Document Book I.
"At the time in question I was Major General and Divisional Commander of the 16th Infantry Division stationed in Northern Greece. Concerning the matter in question I state:
"As far as I can remember, the so-called 'Commissar order' did not come to my knowledge at that time. Moreover, it would have been inopportune because conditions in Greece were altogether different from those in the East. I have never known of anything to suggest that this order was carried out in the Balkans."
Now comes Document List No. 27e, Exhibit No. 88. It is contained in Document Book I, page 109. and it is an affidavit by Major General Krakau. I am going to read the last two paragraphs:
"I was at that time Colonel and Commanding Officer of the Mountain Infantry Regiment 85 in the 5th Mountain Division. This division belonged to the XVIII Mountain Corps and therefore to List's Army."
I omit the next sentence and just read the last sentence.
"The so-called commissar order, according to which all political commissars who were taken prisoner had to be shot dead was made known neither to me nor to the regiment."
And the next document on the subject is List No. 23b, Exhibit No. 89. It is in Document Book 1, page 110. It is an affidavit by Captain Hausbacher. I read the last two paragraphs:
"From 6 April 1941 until 24 May 1941 I was stationed in Northern Greece; from 24 May until 1 December 1941 on the island of Crete and then later for a short time in Greece (Athens district). The so-called Commissar order was never received by my unit. There being no political commissars in the sense of the commissar order in the Balkans, there was no need to promulgate such an order in the Southeast."
The next document is List No. 117, Exhibit 190. It is also contained in Document Book I, page 111. It is an affidavit by Dr. Drexler and I read from the second paragraph onward:
"In the time from 6 April 1941 until 5 February 1942 I served on the Staff of the AOK 12 as Major Medical Corps and medical officer on special assignment. I know of no order of Field marshal List for the shooting of political commissars taken prisoner. If this order was intended to be distributed to the subordinate units, it would have had to pass through my hands because it would have been one of my duties to distribute such an order to the medical units under AON 12."
The last document on this point which I would like to submit is List No. 168, Exhibit 91. This document is contained in Document Book I, page 112. It is an affidavit by General Pensel and I read only the last paragraph:
"The so-called Commissar order" is no known to me. In June 1941 I was Chief of the General Staff of the XVIII Mountain Army Corps in Greece. In this position I should have had to be notified of this order if the order had been received by the XVIII Mountain Army Corps."