Q How long did you remain with the Staff of this Army Group?
A The Staff of this Army Group was dissolved at the beginning of 1945, and, I came to the succeeding Staff of the Army Group-E, and remained there until the collapse.
Q And where was this Staff of Army Group-E, I believe you said, stationed?
A Finally it was stationed in Belgrade.
Q I see, in Belgrade. During the period of time when you were in Belgrade with the Staff of the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia, who was the military commander in Serbia?
A First of all it was General Bader, and approximately since August or September, I don't know the exact date, it was General Felber.
Q What year of August or September?
A 1943.
Q Did you become acquainted with General von Geitner?
A Yes, I did.
Q What was General von Geitner's position at the time?
A General von Geitner was Chief of Staff.
Q What Staff, there were several staffs?
A He was Chief of Staff of the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia, until Fall, when that agency was transferred and made a military command of Serbia, and he was Chief of Staff of that Command.
Q I said just before, Dr. Scheller, that there were a number of staffs there with the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia, so what Staff was General von Geitner the Chief of Staff of?
There was the Operational Staff and the Administrative Staff.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I am just inquiring whether Dr. Sauter is telling or asking the witness these things. I object to this line of questioning.
THE PRESIDENT: You are objecting because of it being leading?
MR. RAPP: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Doctor, if you are merely asking the question without an interpretation and a possible answer, then you should comply with the rules a little better, so you will avoid that please, and give particular attention to that matter.
DR. SAUTER: If Your Honor please, every soldier and every officer know there were several staffs, and if the witness does not remember this just for the moment. I see no objection in asking him the same question five times if the right answer does not come into his mind. That really can not be called a leading question. I mean, there must be reasonable limits here on questions to the witness.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q I shall put my question differently, witness. With the military commander in Serbia, and Belgrade, was there only one staff?
A There was, and the closest staff was the Operational Staff of the Commanding General. This agency comprised several departments, as so many agencies. There were the Chief of Administrative, Economic Department, and, then there was the actual Military Administration, and General von Geitner was Chief of Staff of this last department.
Q And what was the name of such a staff of which General von Geitner was Chief at the time?
A Operational Staff of the Military Staff.
Q Operational Staff of the Military Staff is that?
A Operational Staff. Well, there are several designations, but that is the real actual staff, the staff of the General's, of the Commanding General's.
Q What was your own rank at the time?
A I was a Captain.
Q Witness, so we will get a good interpretation, will you always make a pause, as the interpreter cannot possibly follow and the Tribunal cannot understand your answers. What was your own rank at the time, that was my question?
A I was a Captain at the time.
Q You were an active Captain, or a Captain of the Reserve?
AAs Captain in the Reserve, at the disposal -
Q And what position did you hold in the staff of the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia?
A Since I was an auxiliary officer, in the Department I-C.
Q And Department I-C, what did that department deal with, with what matters did it deal, and just answer it briefly?
A With enemy matters, enemy reports.
Q I see, enemy reports. Witness, in September 1947 you executed an affidavit. You swore to your statements, and you signed them, and this affidavit was offered to the Tribunal as Document No. 53, as contained in Document Book Geitner 11. Do you remember that affidavit today?
A Yes.
Q Did you read that affidavit again before your examination of today in order to refresh your memory?
A Yes, I did.
Q Do you maintain today the contents of this affidavit?
A Yes, I do.
Q Then we will briefly discuss this affidavit. Do you still remember that at some time from the OKH there came a draft of some sort concerning the evaluation of the Draja Mihailovitsch Organization in the light of international law?
A Yes, I remember that.
Q Can you tell us, perhaps in detail, what kind of a memorandum or brief that was, and what do you know about this document that came from the OKH?
A To the best of my recollection the point of the question was that a Court Martial addressed an inquiry to the OKH, that is, a summary court martial with my staff, to the effect whether or not the Draja Mihailovitsch Organization was a belligerent force under the Hague Rules of Warfare, and whether the members and that was a decisive point, were really soldiers.
There was a trial before this court martial and the point decided was whether the men concerned were to be regarded as soldiers, or as Franc-tireurs. The OKH on the basis of data available to it denied the military nature of the D.M. band but submitted this decision to the Military Commander in Serbia for his comment so that on the basis of more copious data available to the Military Commander, the decision could be either confirmed or amended.
Q Dr. Scheller, who was the Military Commander in Serbia at the time? I mean, at the time when this inquiry of the OKH arrived in Belgrade?
A To the best of my recollection that must have been General Felber. It was just around the time when the commands changed. It was in the Fall of 1943, but as to the exact information as to whether or not it was General Bader or General Felber, I cannot make certain.
Q Dr. Scheller, how was this inquiry by the OKH - concerning the military nature of the partisan organizations dealt with by your agency? In other words, what did the Commander in Serbia then do in order to answer this inquiry by the OKH?
A. This inquiry was passed on to the various competent departments, one of which was, or almost the main one of which, was the 1-c department, the department dealing with enemy matters, also the 1-a department. In these departments, on the basis of reports which they had available, reports by the troops own observations and all that abundant material, accumating during the course of the existance of such an agency, it was established whether the characteristics which either make or do not make an organization a military one, whether these existed with reference to these bands. It resulted that in the decisive factors, that is uniforms, open carrying of arms, discipline and discipline of a military organization, on the basis of the information which the military command had, this question had to be answered in the negative. That happened in September, 1943.
Q. Did you yourself in your capacity as auxiliary officer with the 1-c of the staff of the commander in Serbia participate in this examination and did you work on that problem?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Concerning this material, which was available in Serbia and concerning the results which were reached by the individual specialists, did you discuss these factors with other officers of the staff in order to clarify which results might be the correct one?
A. Yes, I did that. I was an auxiliary officer and the then 1-c Major Kalsow was a jurist and he did not only discuss these matters with me, but also with the other auxiliary officers of the 1-c department to the extent to which they could voice opinions about this. I remember now at this point that the work concerning this question took up quite some time, several days at least.
Q. Dr. Scheller, through these examinations and investigations, what was established concerning the uniformity of the uniforms worn; if you can give us an answer to this quite briefly?
A. There was no such thing as wearing uniforms. If one takes the word uniform, it means that there is one common form of clothing.
The band members, however, wore different types of clothes, some of them wore uniforms, uniforms of various countries, that is Yugo Slav uniforms, Italian uniforms, German uniforms, that is uniforms which they had captured, booty. Some of them only wore pieces of uniforms, boots, trousers or only caps, others again wore only civilian clothes. To a very small extent, mainly the leaders wore uniforms, pieces at that time already which had been dropped from planes. The majority, however, of the band members wore civilian clothes, fixed up in a military style if possible or suited for the necessity, that is gollashes or sometimes they wore caps. Altogether the manner of clothing was not uniform and mainly the leaders only wore a unified uniform or the members of the staff and perhaps also the protective guards.
Q. Dr. Scheller, in your examinations and investigations what did you establish concerning the question whether the band members in Serbia wore insignias which could be recognized at a distance?
A. As a rule, or as a general rule, they did not do that. A uniform insignia to recognize them as troops or belligerents or as members of a unified organization, such as arm bands or a similar insignia was not worn by them. Initially they did in order to mark themselves as wood-fighters, that is as people who wanted to wait until the monarchy was established again. They left their hair grow and did not shave, but that changed later when the fight lasted for some time. Besides, that is not an insignia recognized at a long distance and is not uniform either.
THE PRESIDENT: One of Dr. Sauter's affidavits was admitted in evidence as I understand it yesterday at least from the statements made by counsel and one of them was not admitted. The thought that I have in mind and the Tribunal has been discussing it here, I wonder if you would care to read such part of the affidavit as you may think is pertinent here and then perhaps that will permit the cross-examination and will shorten the examination and questioning of this witness. If that is agreeable to all parties concerned, that would avoid a repetition of a lot of questions and shorten the time, which is quite important here at this stage of our trial.
DR. SAUTER: This suggestion meets my full approval. Your Honor, I can only repeat what I stated yesterday, I submitted two affidavits executed by this witness at the time, one is Geitner No. 28, exhibit 64 contained in Geitner document book 1 on page 85. This affidavit has not been objected to by the prosecution. The prosecution expressly stated that he had no objection against this affidavit No. 28. Then later at that time I offered the affidavit which is under discussion now. That is one which is contained in Geitner document book 2 as Geitner document No. 53 and which also became exhibit No. 65, that is page 62 of Geitner document book 2. At that time the prosecutor stated he objected against this affidavit because the affiant resides in Nurnberg.
JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Sauter, are you proposing to interrogate the witness about some material other than that included in the two affidavits?
DR. SAUTER: No, only about the affidavit which we are discussing now. I mentioned at the time during the triaL that I did not want to read the affidavit in detail in order to save time. I was just offering it and asked that it be accepted, but that could not be done as the prosecution objected against it.
JUDGE BURKE: Yes, I understand. It seems to me it is now the subject for cross-examination and then the offer of readmission of the second affidavit if that is agreeable to Dr. Sauter.
MR. RAPP: I would like to inquire from the Tribunal the following, if Dr. Sauter has document No. 53 submitted into evidence and actually gave it an exhibit number, No. 65, then the only thing that can be done with this witness is that he should be cross-examined by the prosecution if the prosecution so desires. On the other hand, if it does not have an exhibit number then the affidavit is not in evidence and we are concerned with direct examination and the affidavit is not before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: It has been offered in evidence and has been given an exhibit number, it is subject cross-examination by the witness and action there on will be taken by the Tribunal.
MR. RAPP: That is correct, Your Honor.
DR. SAUTER: I am in agreement with the prosecution. Actually, I don't know why one affidavit was objected to because the witness lives in Nurnberg and the other one was not objected to.
MR. RAPP: Dr. Sauter has assumed the burden of the Prosecution by producing this witness if the prosecution wants the witness to be produced and the prosecution would ask for the witness if it so desired. Dr. Sauter has just offered the witness for the convenience of the prosecution and I would like to state now, I do not wish to cross-examine this witness.
DR. SAUTER: Well, that is very strange indeed. Yesterday another representative of the prosecution said the exact opposite that I was supposed to call the witness here and now they say they don't want to cross-examine him. I think that brings me to the end of the questioning of the witness. I now ask for document No. 53 as exhibit No. 65 to be finally admitted and I don't have to put any further questions then.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents will be admitted, the witness may be excused.
(The witness is excused.)
Who is to present any further testimony? Do you have any further affidavits or documents, Dr. Sauter?
DR. SAUTER: No, Your Honor, I have not.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is ready to proceed then with further presentation of further documents on behalf of any of the defendants?
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
DR. SAUTER: If the Tribunal please, may I make use of this opportunity to correct an error with reference to the exhibit numbers. I found out when I studied the record of the trial that exhibit No. 65 was used twice by me. That happened because when I first submitted the document book for General von Geitner I finished with Exhibit No. 64 and when I at a later time submitted another series of documents I started by mistake with the No. 64 instead of using No. 65. Now, we have a duplication here and I would suggest to make a correction to the effect that one of these documents be given No. 64a so that all the other numbers can remain as they are. If the Secretary General would kindly take note of this, it is in Geitner document book 3, page 92, document 80. That was the Army Service Regulation for the General Staff Service, the so-called "Red Donkey", an excerpt from which had been submitted. This document I would like to ask to be given exhibit No. 64-a. I repeat so that there may be no mistake anywhere. Document No. 80 in Geitner document book 3 on page 92 will be Geitner exhibit 64-a. Exhibit No. 64, that is without an a, will remain for Geitner document No. 28 contained in Geitner document book 1. I ask the Tribunal to take notice of this so that in quoting documents there may be no error.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I call the Tribunal's attention to the request of the Secretary General sometime ago not to label any exhibit with the additional a. As far as the prosecution is concerned, and I believe also the representatives of defense counsel, we agreed to discontinue that procedure and furthermore "a" was used for other purposes in admitting documents into evidence. I would like to make a suggestion, Your Honors, whether this second exhibit No. 64 could be given the last exhibit numbers for all the evidence for Dr. Sauter, rather than 64-a, then there would be no confusion and we would comply with the Secretary General's desires.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, of course it can be done the way Mr. Rapp suggested, just now I have no objection. The other way around could also be instead of saying No. 64-a, one could say perhaps 64-z. There are Court No. V, Case No. VII.
several ways of doing this without disputing the situation.
THE PRESIDENT: That would then become exhibit 184?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What is Geitner's last number - Geitner?
MR. RAPP: Dr. Sauter said that he did not figure on this scheme so at a later time he can do that.
DR. SAUTER: I am just being informed, if the Tribunal please. The last exhibit number for Geitner is 172, that is if I can rely on what has been whispered to me just now. In that case the document in question should be given exhibit No. 173, Geitner exhibit No. 173.
THE PRESIDENT: I have been informed by the Secretary General's office that there are, in connection with the exhibits offered yesterday, there seems to be two 179's and two 180's.
DR. SAUTER: Two 197's and two 180's?
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General tells me that we should have started with No. 181 and we started with No. 179. May I suggest that this be checked during our recess, then we can be sure that we are getting the right numbers. If you will check with the Secretary General during the recess.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, Your Honor, I will discuss it with the Secretary General. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed with the presentation of other documents by counsel.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, please, I wonder if it would be possible if we could have the recess now. I do not have the document book of Speidel with me and I did not know it would come up this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we are within five minutes of the recess period, so I guess there will be no particular harm done. We will recess until 11:10.
(A recess was taken.)
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. WEISGERBER (Counsel for defendant Speidel): Your Honor, I would like to continue in the presentation of evidence for General Speidel and I would like to read a number of documents which are contained in Speidel Document Book No. V. The first document in this document book is the affidavit by Frau Irene Keilig. This document is No. 74 and has already been admitted by the Tribunal as Speidel Exhibit No. 37; but since this document was not included in a document book at the time I have included it here.
The next document, Speidel Document No. 75, is an affidavit by Otto Kuenzel, Deputy Mayor of Reutlingen. I offer this document as Speidel Exhibit No. 59. The document contains the following:
"I am aware of the consequences that would arise for me if I give a false affidavit; I also know that I am liable to punishment if I give a false affidavit. Furthermore, I know that the following statement will be submitted to Military Tribunal No. 5 at Nurnberg.
"I, Otto Kuenzel, born 40 September 1903, Verwaltungsreferent and deputy to the 1st mayor at Reutlingen, declare the following:
"On 24 April 1945 French combat troops executed by shooting the following persons as hostages:
"Oberfeldarzt Dr. Wilhelm Egloff, at that time surgeon at the Wehrmacht hospital in Reutlingen."
And here I would like to add that the rank of an Oberfeldarzt corresponds to that of a Lieutenant Colonel and Oberfeldarzt Dr. Egloff was therefore a medical officer of the German Wehrmacht and, in addition, I would like to point out that Oberfeldarzt Dr. Egloff at that time was a prisoner of war -- and then I continue:
"Friedrich Wilhelm Schmid, Construction technical engineer, resident at Reutlingen, "Ludwig Ostertag, Chief Editor, resident at Reutlingen, "Jacob Schmid, Master Carpenter, resident at Reutlingen, "The temporary acting city administration did not receive any Court No. V, Case No. VII.
any official information from the French troops concerning the shooting of hostages. The temporary acting city administration received during the night the following proclamation to be posted in the city boundaries of Reutlingen:
"Iere Armee Francaise Commandant Militaire "In the night from 22 to 23 April a French soldier was murdered in Reutlingen.
"Those responsible have been executed by shooting. A fine of 200 000 Marks has been imposed in the community.
"From now on civilians will have to stay in their houses in the period from 18.00 to 09.00 hours.
"If another attack is made against our troops, martial actions against the town will be resumed."
"Signed: "The Commanding Officer."
Then comes this proclamation in French and I continue:
"If the proclamation reads: 'Those responsible have been executed by shooting,' I can state in this connection that the temporary acting German city administration had no knowledge at any time that those persons shot as hostages had anything to do with the alleged slaying of a French soldier in the night from 22 to 23 April 1945."
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, I object to the introduction of this part of the affidavit. If Dr. Weisgerber wishes to introduce that part of the affidavit which contains the proclamation of the French, we have no objection, if it states in there that those responsible have been executed by shooting. When it comes to the part that he has commenced to read now, it is at its best negative hearsay, not even hearsay but negative hearsay. It is highly argumentative. He is going to state what it means that those who are responsible have been executed by shooting. He admits nobody in the town knew anything about it and he goes on to make these argumentations, not even based on hearsay but a negative hearsay.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
We object to that part of the affidavit.
DR. WEISGERBER: Your Honors, I would like to state in this connection the following:
This proclamation of the first French Army was, as this witness has stated, given to the city administration as a threat and as pressure. The witness, Otto Kuenzel, was Deputy First Mayor of Reutlingen and now this is a statement by an official but whether the contents of this proclamation is the truth or not one must take into account the conditions of war at that time and then one will understand that this statement as made by the affiant was based on the conditions at that time and, above all, I would like to point out that if the statement as contained in paragraph 1 of the proclamation, the fact that a French soldier was murdered -- if this statement is correct, then certainly the city administration at Reutlingen again at that time would have known about it and it was known throughout the whole of Reutlingen. As I was able to find out by going there, nothing at all was known about this murder in Reutlingen and it is certainly the task of a witness to state an opinion on this kind of incident and that is what the affiant is doing in the second paragraph of this.
MR. RAPP: Parenthetically I may add that the statement has not been made under oath. It states merely in German that the affiant has been told of all consequences if he would make a false statement and then it says:
"I declare:"
And if the Tribunal desires we can have it put to the interpreter for his translation. I can't glean the word "under oath" from any part of the German.
DR. WEISGERBER: Your Honor, I think that this is really a play on words, a quibble here because if in the beginning of the affidavit the affiant states -
THE PRESIDENT: This last objection will not be sustained. It will be overruled and in that connection I want to call attention to Court No. V, Case No. VII.
the fact that there were two affidavits which were admitted yesterday without objection with were not even sworn to and it seems to me there should be some consistency in the objections which were made yesterday. As to the objection which has been previously made, it will be sustained. It being the conclusion of the affiant he can state as to what he knows but he is not in a position to state what other parties know.
You may proceed.
DR. WEISGERBER: Then I continue reading this affidavit, the passage where I was interrupted by the prosecution:
"Inquiries which were made from the Colonel Cambiez and the Captain Rouch', who were in Reutlingen at that time did not shed any light on this as far as the temporary acting city administration was concerned. Furthermore, the temporary acting city administration has no knowledge -
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, I understood that the Tribunal ruled that part was not to be read into evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
DR. WEISGERBER: Then the ruling of the Tribunal refers to that part of the affidavit which starts: "If the proclamation reads:" -is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, or beginning with: "I can state in this connection." It might as well start with that paragraph and, continuing the entire paragraph will be stricken.
DR. WEISGERBER: Then I read the concluding sentence:
"The temporary acting city administration had to collect and pay off the fine of 200,000 Marks within a few hours."
"Reutlingen dated 3 January 1948"; signed and certified by me.
The next document which I would like to submit is Speidel Document No. 76. This becomes Exhibit No. Speidel 60. This is an affidavit by Hermann Keicher. It is on page 6 and page 7 of Document Book V.
"Affidavit":
"I, Keicher, Hermann, born 13 August 1883, Catholic priest in Reutlingen an aware that I expose myself to punishment if I make a false statement in lieu of oath. I am also aware that the following statement is intended as evidence at the American Military Tribunal Court 7, Nuernberg. I declare in lieu of oath:
A few days after the occupation of the city of Reutlingen by the French army, a French army chaplain came to me and explained that several Germans were to be shot as hostages, to whom I should give spiritual comfort. Upon my suggestion that some of these persons might be of the Protestant faith we attempted to reach the Evangelical minister of Reutlingen, but we were not successful. Then I went to Urbanstrasse 22 in Reutlingen, where I had been told the hostages were. There I met Lt. Col. Dr. Egloff, the chief doctor of the German army hospital in Reutlingen, editor-in-chief Ostertag, construction engineer Wilhelm Schmid and master carpenter Jakob Schmid. These men explained to me that they were to be shot as hostages. I got permission for them to write letters to their families. After some time on the same day the four men were driven to a prepared place on the so-called "Schoenen Weg" near Reutlingen, and I accompanied them. At the prepared spot an execution squad of about 40 to 50 French soldiers under the command of a French officer was ready and carried out the execution by shooting, without any further formality such as reading an order or the like.
"Then the officer shot each of the four hostages in the back of the head as a coup de grace.
"To the question of whether I had heard anything about the presumed murder of a French soldier in the night from 22/23 April 1945, I can only say that I learned nothing positive of this event."
Signed and sworn to and properly certified.
The next document is Speidel No. 77 on page 8 in Document Book V, and this becomes Exhibit No. 61. This is the death certificate issued by a registry officer in the town of Reutlingen for Lieutenant Colonel Wilhelm Egloff, M.D. In this official death certificate it says, "Cause of death: Shot as a hostage." The registry clerk who issued this death certificate has stated in an affidavit, which I have included, that this certificate was made according to the death register in the city of Reutlingen, and this affidavit is certified by me and was given before me.
The next document is Speidel document No. 78, which is Speidel Exhibit No. 62. It is on page 10 of Speidel Document Book No. V. This is the death certificate for the editor-in-chief, Ludwig Ostertag, one of the four hostages, and it states cause of death the same, "Shot as a hostage." The registry clerk has given the same statement with regard to this certificate as he had regarding the death certificate of Dr. Egloff.
The next document is Speidel No. 79. This becomes Exhibit No. 63. It is on page 12 of Speidel Document Book No. 5. This is the death certificate for Friedrich Wilhelm Schmid who was killed by French soldiers in the city of Reutlingen in the vicinity of Schoenen Weg in April, 1945, and the cause of death is given as "Shot as a hostage", and the same affidavit covers this death certificate as covered the other two, and it was given before me and was certified by me.
The next document is document Speidel No. 80, and this becomes Speidel Exhibit No. 64. This is the death certificate for the fourth of these hostages, the master carpenter, Jacob Schmid, also shot on the 24th of April 1945, at 1600 hours at Reutlingen in the vicinity of Schoenen Weg by French soldiers as a hostage. The confirmation by the registry clerk, as in the previous cases, was also given before me and certified by me.
The next document, Speidel No. 81, becomes Exhibit No. 65.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I object to the introduction of this document because the exact contents of this document is already contained in that part of Document No. 75, Exhibit 59, which the Tribunal admitted into evidence. On page 3 at the bottom under the same date, the same will be found as in Document 81. It is merely cumulative and repetitious.
DR. WEISGERBER: Your Honor, this really isn't quite true. This is a photostatic copy of the official proclamation which was mentioned in the affidavit of Otto Kuenzel. The contents of this proclamation were put by me into Otto Kuenzel's affidavit intentionally, because if I hadn't done it then the prosecution would then have said, "We don't know where this proclamation comes from.
It could come from anywhere. First of all it must be identified."
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled. You may proceed.
DR. WEISGERBER: Well, then this is the photostatic copy of the proclamation which was posted at that time on the 24th of April, 1945, in Reutlingen. I have given an affidavit with regard to this that I might convince myself that this photostat complies with the original which is in the possession of the city of Reutlingen.
The next document is Speidel No. 82 and becomes Exhibit No. 66. This is the affidavit by Heins Scheurlen and the contents are as follows:
"I am conscious of the consequences of a false affidavit. I am also aware of the fact that the following deposition is destined for submission to the Military Tribunal V.
"I declare under oath:
"I, Heinz Scheurlen, born 24 April 1895, residing at Schwaebisch-Hall, Ackeranlagen 1, came to Athens in May 1944, in order to relieve the then Military Commander Greece, General of the Air Force Speidel. The handing over of the official affairs was done all in all. I do not remember that details as, for instance, orders concerning reprisals and the like, were discussed. Nor do I remember that General Speidel especially handed over to me any orders connected with reprisals, or that the contents of these orders were discussed in any way.
"The Higher SS and Police Leader Greece, SS-Gruppenfuehrer Schimana, declared to me in writing, right at the beginning of my activity, that he did not consider himself bound to orders which I perhaps might give him, since he was subordinate to the Reichsfuehrer-SS."
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I object to the introduction of that paragraph of the affidavit because it deals within a time limit we are not concerned with. We have no objection to the first paragraph when the affiant talks about this relationship with the defendant Speidel. What he did with the Higher Police Leader Schimana after Speidel left is entirely outside the scope of this Tribunal.
For that reason I object to this paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
DR. WEISGERBER: Then I have one other affidavit which I received yesterday noon, and it comes from President Sandstroem who in 1943 and 1944 was director of the Greek Relief of the International Red Cross. This affidavit I gave yesterday for translation. If the Tribunal agrees I can present it now, but otherwise if the Tribunal thinks it would be better if I waited until the translation was here, then, of course, I can present it at some later date.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we will have to wait until it is translated because that way that will be the only way in which the Tribunal would know as to its contents and could rule on any possible objection, and that would also be applicable to the prosecution too as they are not familiar with the German language and would not know as to its contents. We will wait until it is translated and presented in its proper form. Is it in the German language or the Greek language?
DR. WEISGERBER: It is in German. It is in German, your Honor.
Then for the moment I have finished, your Honor.
DR. GAWLIK: Dr. Gawlik for the defendant General Dehner.
Your Honor, now I would like to present those documents from my document book, Dehner No. 6. First of all I would like to submit document Dehner No. 35, Document Book 6, Pages 92 to 98 in the English and the German, and this becomes Exhibit Dehner No. 30.
This is an affidavit by Kurt Engelschall dated the 22nd of September, 1947. The fact that Engelschall has the necessary knowledge in order to make the statements which are contained in the affidavit can be seen from Figure 1. There Engelschall has stated the following: "From the middle of September 1943 until March 1944 I was Ia with the Corps Headquarters of the 69th Reserve Corps." With regard to Engelschall's personal details, he continues:
"Later I was Ia with the Plenipotentiary of the Armed Forces in Prague. On 22 July 1944 I was arrested by the Secret State Police for participation in the 20 July 1944 affair. In November 1944 I was dismissed from the Wehrmacht 'because I had uncritically accepted orders from the conspirators of 20 July 1944 and had prepared the execution thereof.'" I omit the next sentence and then continue.
"I never belonged to the NSDAP or any of its organization."
Under Figure IV Engelschall, during the whole time when General Dehner was in charge of the 69th Reserve Corps, Engelschall, who was la, makes the following statements about the attitude of the Croatian state.
"The Croatian government was entirely independent. Its relations to Germany were according to International Law. This is indicated by the fact, of which I know, that a German ambassador was accredited in Zagreb.
The independence of the Croatian government was further impressed upon me by the relationship between Corps Headquarters and the Grossgespan Vukovar, whose position corresponded roughly to that of a Prussian district president and to whom the Corps could never have given orders.
"Further I know that Prince Lobkowitz was at the Vatican in Rome as ambassador from Croatia." Then I continue with the next paragraph.
"For instance, the Corps was not empowered to make requisitions or collections independently. Furthermore, the Corps could not requisition billets without the consent of the Croatian authorities. Corps Headquarters also did not have the right, for example, to interfere with the sovereignty of the Croatian state, that is, the financial or judiciary sovereignty.
"Even in military operations it was necessary to get the consent of the Croatian government if the interests of the Croatian people might in any any way be injured. (For instance, in flooding operations.)
"The Croatian police, assisted by the Higher SS and Police Officer, was responsible for the maintenance of the public order and security in the area of the 69th Corps. The agencies of the Croatian government were not subordinate to the command of the 69th Reserve Corps."
Under Figure V then Engelschall made statements about the relation of the German police to the corps headquarters and especially he stated that the German police was not subordinate to General Dehner. Under Figure V it states:
"The Higher SS and Police Officer in Zagreb and the Police District Commander in Esseg were not subordinate to the 69th Reserve Corps. Both of these offices refused to accept any kind of orders from the Corps. When from time to time collaboration was necessary, agreements had to made with the Higher SS and Police Leader and the Police District Commander in Esseg.
"There were repeated controversies between the 69th Reserve Corps on the one hand, and the Higher SS and Police Leader and the Police District Commander in Esseg on the other hand, during which those agencies insisted on their independence and pointed out that the area of the 69th Reserve Corps was 'pacified' territory and that, in addition to the Croatian agencies, only the German police authorities were responsible for the maintenance of the public order and security.