"The operations carried out by the police were not ordered by the 69th Reserve Corps. Furthermore, the Corps had no command power of any kind in these operations. This pertains particularly to the operation that was known as operation 'Ferdinand' and is referred to in the war diary of the Corps as well as the daily reports as operation Kammerhofer. This operation too, was neither ordered nor executed by the Corps. As usual, Kammerhofer considered himself so independent in this operation too, that he did not consider it necessary to send reports to the Corps. For this reason the Corps could only get reports from the police on the execution of this operation with the greatest difficulty."
These statements refer to the operation Kammerhofer mentioned in various daily reports.
"During the time that I was on the Corps staff, the 7th SS Mountain Division 'Prince Eugen' was never under the command of the 69th Reserve Corps."
These statements refer to the representation contained in the legal brief of the prosecution in which it was stated that the commander of the 7th SS Mountain Division 'Prince Eugen' was subordinate to the command of the 69th Reserve Corps, although the prosecution during its presentation of evidence never presented any kind of assertion in this respect.
From Figure VI it can be seen that the 69th Reserve Corps in Croatia had a certain definite task and never exercised executive power. The task of the 69th Reserve Corps was, in addition to the training of troops, especially to protect the main railway line from Belgrade to Zagreb. "This railway was the main supply route for all the German troops in the Balkans. Therefore it was the pulse which had to be protected by all means. The assignment of the troops to protect the railway was done with the consent of the Croatian authorities, which was greatly interested in preserving railway traffic."
Figure VII then concerns the bands which appeared in the area of the 69th Reserve Corps. "The bands against which the troops of the 69th Reserve Corps had to fight in Croatia were composed of Communists, German and Italian deserters and Domobrane deserters as far as I can remember.
Later on some deserters from the Cossack divisions joined them. In addition there were adventurers from various nations. So far as the Communists were concerned, they were Croatian citizens, as well as other Yugoslavs and non-Yugoslavs.
"The commander-in-chief of the bands was Tito. Tito's bands were not the remnants of the regular Yugoslav armies which had fought against Germany in 1941. The insurrection of the Communists under Tito was directed against King Peter as well as against the newly formed Croatian state, and in this connection against the German Armed Forces who were allied with the Croatian state.
"In my opinion the activities of the bands under Tito can in no way be considered an uprising of the people. It was a pure movement towards the left, so far as it was not directed by outside sources."
The next paragraph then state: "I am convinced that the religious differences between the strongly Catholic Croatians and the Communistic bands under Tito precluded any collaboration. I know from various conversations with Croatians that they had rejected Tito's movement.
"I am convinced that during the time I was with the 69th Reserve Corps Tito's bands were not yet recognized by the Allied Nations. In this connection I remember reading a report that was directed to the Corps. This report contained directions which Tito had given to his officers in which the officers were directed to detain Allied officer commissions - I no longer remember whether it was American or English commissions - and not to allow them to travel further."
"So far as I know, the bands did not wear any insignia that could be discerned from a distance. My knowledge is based on the reports that were sent to the Corps. These reports referred mostly to bandits in civilian clothes. I remember that a large group was once seen in Italian uniforms.
"I know from reports from the troops that the bands often did not adhere to the rules of the laws of war. For instance, I know from troop reports that the bands repeatedly took German soldiers from trains and murdered them. I remember to this day that in the territory of the 173rd Reserve Division an officer was taken from a train, murdered, undressed and mutilated. As I recall today, this officer's testicles were cut off.
"In the fighting near Brcko the bands approached the German troops with raised arms and called out: "Do not shoot -- deserters". When the bands had approached as closely as possible, they suddenly opened fire.
"I further remember that the reports after the capture of Tuzin indicated that, according to statements of residents, the officers and men of an artillery replacement battalion were ambushed by bands, put against a wall without trial and shot. As a result of these reports an investigation was ordered by Major General Brauner which confirmed these reports, so far as I remember.
Figure VIII relates to reprisal measures within the area of the 69th Reserve Corps, and from this it can be seen particularly that these measures in the area of the 69th Reserve Corps were also tried out in agreement with the Croatian authorities and the police authorities.
Under Figure VIII it states: "The Croatian authorities and the Police Commanders were authorized to arrest hostages and carry out reprisal measures against hostages. As a result of an Army order the German divisional commanders and independent regimental commanders were also given the authority to take hostages and carry out reprisals against hostages.
"In my opinion the Corps did not have this authority. The Corps could not interfere with the powers of the division and independent regimental commanders without the consent of the Army.
"While I was the I-a on the Corps staff, no orders to take or to lay claim to hostages in any particular case were issued by the 69th Reserve Corps to its subordinate units.
"Not every attack on German troops, by far, was answered with reprisals in the territory of the 69th Reserve Corps."
I skip the next paragraphs and continue on the next page. I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to Page 96 in Document Book 6, and I would like to continue reading from Paragraph 4:
As far as I remember, the ratio of 1: 1 was by far not reached in the corps area. I am convinced that a much greater number of German soldiers was killed by the band raids than band members were called to account. In this connection I have particularly in mind the band raid near Ilok, when about 70 German soldiers were murdered. As far as I have been informed, no reprisal measures were carried out for this crime. Moreover, no reprisal measures were carried out for the murder of several German officers and soldiers at Tuzla.
The divisions under the command of the LXIXth Reserve-Corps reported to the Corps all the reprisal measures which were carried out in the area of the divisions, and, to be precise, also the reprisal measures carried out by the Croatian authorities, by the German police, and, in case the division commanders had carried out reprisal measures, these reprisal measures as well.
In the area of the 173rd Reserve Division no reprisal measures were, as far as I am informed, ordered or carried out by the commander. In the area of the 173rd Reserve Division all the reprisal measures were carried out by the police, sometimes even without notification of the divisional commander.
This I know for certain, particularly from a special case, where 11 partisans were hanged. In answer to my personal inquiry, because the reason was not clear to me, the report came that the SS or the Security Service had carried out the execution because of a raid against the railway line without the agreement of the division.
"I presume that all the executions for assaults in the course of which no German soldiers lost their lives were carried out only by the police or by the Croats.
"I still remember the case of the woman teacher of Kapella. I know that this teacher was set free by the Croats, when the reasons for suspecting her were, as I heard, not confirmed. My knowledge of this case comes from the report of the division."
And then Figure IX deals with the treatment of captured band members and from this it can be seen that although these band members, as I will show in my final plea, were not belligerents under international law; nevertheless, they were treated according to the laws of war. In Figure IX it states:
"With regard to the captured band members orders were issued by the Corps that these persons were to be treated as prisoners of war.
"The divisions had no prisoner-of-war camps. There were prisoner-of-war camps under Croatian command. Therefore, I must assume that the troops of the 69th Reserve Corps handed the captured band members over to the Croatian authorities."
The next figure deals with the Commando Order and the Commissar Order.
"During the time when I belonged to the 69th Reserve Corps, the Commando Order and the Commissar Order were never carried out.
"No Italian soldiers were shot in the area of the 69th Reserve Corps, during my membership with the Corps staff.
The next figure deals with concentration camps and forced labor.
"There were no concentration camps under the command of the 69th Reserve Corps.
"The conscription of Croatian nationals for compulsory labor at the construction of the Heinrichsburg, as mentioned in the document NOKW 509, Exhibit XIV, page 47, which is shown to me, was not ordered by the 69th Reserve Corps. As far as I remember today, it was the Reich Main Security Office which ordered the conscription for labor. Neither did the Corps take any part in the conscription for labor, but was rather accidentally informed of that conscription for labor."
The next Figure, XII, deals with the measures taken by the Corps against the Cossacks, as far as the Corps heard about any excesses committed by the Cossacks.
"In each individual case in which the Corps received information about excesses committed by the Cossacks, and this information proved to be correct, steps were taken against it. I know that in serious cases Court-Martial proceedings were instituted. I remember that in the course of these proceedings at least 8 Cossacks were executed."
The next document which I would like to submit is Document Dehner No. 32, on pages 86 to 87 of Document Book 6, and this becomes Dehner Exhibit No. 31. This is a letter from the Swiss Consulate-General in Munich, dated the 17th of November 1947. With this letter I want to prove that Croatia was an independent state within the meaning of international law, and in particular that Croatia had the possibility of making connection with allied nations in the international community, and that Croatia also made use of this possibility, and, as can be seen from this letter, was also in connection with Switzerland according to international customs.
Figure 1: "It was within the general rules of the Federal Government not to recognize de jure any territorial changes which came about during the war, and this was the reason why the Croat State was never recognized. Nevertheless, during this interval a de facto representation through the Swiss Consulate in Zagreb did exist."
In my final plea I will refer in detail to this paragraph and show that de jure recognition is not essential to the genesis of a state in the meaning of international law. The legal sources for this I have already set down in the local brief which I referred to this morning. Under Figure 2 it states:
"During this period several trade agreements were concluded with Croatia. They are the agreements of 10 September 1941 on the commodity and currency exchange between Switzerland and Croatia, which expired on 31 December 1942, and which was given a short extension afterwards to which the Croat co-signee agreed. Another agreement on the commodity and currency exchange with that particular state was concluded on 19 March 1943, which was continued automatically for another three months each, because none of the parties concerned gave notice to that effect."
My next document on the same subject will be Dehner Document No. 37, page 102, Document Book 6, and this becomes Dehner Exhibit No. 32. This is an excerpt copy from the Journal, the American Journal if International Law, Volume 35, July, 1941. From this Journal --.
MR. FULKERSON: (Interrupting:) It seems to me, if Your Honor please, that if extracts from a newspaper itself are not admissible in evidence, then certainly references to extracts from newspapers are not admissible in evidence, and apparently that is what this document consists of; and, further, if this has any place at all, its proper place is in a brief and not in evidence. For that reason, I object.
DR. GAWLIK: The case is rather different, Your Honor. I want to prove with this that the dates which are set down for the genesis of the Croatian state are decisive, and it is not an excerpt from a newspaper but from a scientific journal, and I know that the prosecution also submitted scientific statements as exhibits.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained. The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 9 January 1948)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GAWLIK: I shall now continue with the presentation of my documents. Dehner Exhibit No. 32 will be assigned to Dehner Document No. 33, contained in Dehner Document Book 6, on pages 88 to 89 of both the English and the German text. This is an affidavit given by Willy Zorn, dated 28 November 1947. With this affidavit I want to show that the bands in the Croatian area did not adhere to the rules of warfare and that even this condition did not exist with regard to them for the recognition as a belligerent unit. From paragraph 1 and 2 it becomes apparent that Willy Zorn had the necessary knowledge to make the statements contained in the affidavit. It is stated in paragraph 1:
"During the war I was finally master sergeant in the German Armed Forces.
During the entire period in which General Dehner was in command of the 69th Reserve Corps I was attached to Corps Headquarters of this Corps as a driver. I had an opportunity through my trips to become acquainted with the conditions in Croatia, moreover I very often had a chance to look at reports and messages from subordinate units."
The next paragraph, 3, makes statements about the subject matter of the affidavit. In Paragraph 3 he says:
The German army in Croatia was in an exceptionally difficult position because it had to deal with an enemy there whose mode of warfare was in no way in keeping with that customary in modern armies. The partisans waged war in a wily and cruel manner.
I have the following to say about this in detail:
a) They wore no common insignia which could be recognized at a distance. I never heard that the partisans ever wore a common insignia at all; on the contrary it frequently happened that the partisans wore uniforms of the German Armed Forces or their Allies.
I myself saw a large group of partisans who had been captured north of Zagreb and who were brought back to the prisoners' camp. They all wore German uniform without any insignia whatsoever which might have distinguished them from German troops. General Dehner also pointed out to me at the time that the uniforms of the partisans were in better condition than those of the German guards who were escorting them.
b) A favorite means used by the partisans to deceive the German army was to disguise themselves as peaceful farmers. This was done both for the purpose of setting a trap for German troops or individual soldiers and in order to escape from the German army if they were confronted by superior German forces. This conduct resulted in great insecurity for the German soldier, for he was never able to know whether he had a peaceful inhabitant or a partisan before him.
The German soldier who fell into the hands of the partisans could not expect to keep his life. I know of cases in which German soldiers were not only killed but were also cruelly mutilated and tortured. One example of this is the massacre of an entire engineer company, of which I learned from a report to the Corps Headquarters.
The engineer company had marched out on maneuvres and was resting when it was attacked by partisans from ambush. Of the entire company only 6 men escaped. The rest were cruelly mutilated and murdered. I did not learn that any reprisal measures whatsoever were ordered in return for this by the Germans, On the whole, the German troops never retaliated for the atrocities of the partisans with similar measures.
The Zagreb-Brod railroad was a main target for partisan attacks, the partisans carried out raids against it almost continuously. The frequency of the raids varied; however, there was an average of one raid every hour.
The next document to be offered will be Dehner Document No. 31, and this will become Dehner Exhibit No. 33.
This is contained in Document Book 6, on page 85 of both the German and the English text.
This is an extract from the war diary of the 69th Corps Headquarters covering the time from 1 January until 30 June 1944. Under the date of 19 March 1944, in the war diary there is the following entry:
"This headquarters has received complaints from Hungarian military personnel and Hungarian civilians, according to which German enlisted men and officers do not behave properly. (Excesses against Jews in Stuhlweissenburg, attempts to disarm Hungarian military personnel on the Mur Island, requisitionings, etc.
"Such behavior, which is damaging to the German Armed Forces, is dangerous in the present tense and completely obscure situation. This headquarters will take strict disciplinary action in its area, will order investigation and the punishing of the guilty parties."
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I object to the admission of this affidavit. The defendant Dehner is not on trial before this court for his command of this corps in Hungary. It is entirely outside of the jurisdiction of this case.
DR. GAWLIK: If the Tribunal please, I would like to reply to this. I am offering this document in order to show that General Dehner intervened as soon as he heard of any excesses by units subordinate to him. I consider this relevant and I here refer to the well-known law book by Wharton "Evidence on Criminal Cases", in order to show the reputation and character which General Dehner enjoyed, If he intervened in this particular case in Hungary, it is a proof of the fact, that he would have also intervened against excesses in other places, if the excesses had been known to him. This is a general proof and evidence of the General's character and reputation, which according to the general rules of procedure in American trials are material.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I submit that Dr. Gawlik's statements are strictly argumentative to say the least. What the General Dehner did in Hungary is one thing, and we are concerned with what the defendant Dehner as commander of the 69th Corps did. He may have learned later on better, I don't know, but certainly it has no bearing in this case.
DR. GAWLIK: Now may I answer this again, Your Honor. I want to prove on behalf of the defendant General Dehner that at all times as commanding general he fulfilled his duty. Whenever any excesses were known to him, he proceeded in his duty as commanding general at all times. If he acted that way in Hungary, there is no reason why Hungary should not be considered because when he was in Croatia, he would have behaved the same way as in Hungary. For this reason I believe the document is material.
THE PRESIDENT: The specific instances are not admissible for the purposes of showing reputation. The objection will be sustained.
DR. GAWLIK: As Exhibit No. 33, I wish now to submit Document No. 34. This is a further affidavit given by Willy Zorn and it is dated 28 November 1947. The document is to be found in Dehner Document Book VI on page 90 & 91. This is the affidavit executed by Zorn, and is concerned with the same affiant as the one by whom another affidavit has here been submitted.
This particular document deals with General Dehner's conduct in France, and then in paragraph 3 it is stated that General Dehner also showed the same attitude in Croatia, whenever he heard of officers which were not subordinate to him had effected measures which in his opinion were too severe, and he made personal efforts to have them rescinded. It is for example, as shown in paragraph 3: "General Dehner also adopted the same attitude in Croatia. Whenever he learned that offices which were not subordinate to him had adopted measures which in his opinion were too severe he made personal efforts to have them rescinded. Thus, for example, he saw to it that the quartering and treatment of the prisoners in the prison of the Vukovar district were improved."
This brings me to the end of my presentation of Dehner's Document Book VI, if the Tribunal please.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, if you please I have a question I would like to ask the defense counsel, not in the nature of an objection, but merely in reference to this last piece of evidence, I asked someone to get this material, otherwise, I would have put the question earlier. Your Honor, I notice that in the affidavit before you on page 90, the affiant states that he is born on 4 August 1916 in Norn, in the Taunus. I also notice that the original states that he is born in Zorn. Now this in itself would not amount to anything, it would be merely a typographical error, but the reason I want to ask the defense counsel this is because this affidavit has been written with a typewriter, and then the defendant's birthday has been filled in with ink, and also his birthplace, and I would like to ask the defense counsel why the affiant who obviously must have written this affidavit himself did not fill in his birthplace at the time. Maybe he didn't know at the time, and he had to write them in later on. In any event, I would like to have the court look at this.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that particularly material or is it that you may wish to question the authenticity. Are you questioning the authenticity of the affidavit?
MR. RAPP: That is what I am doing. The affidavit which has already been admitted, and I can not then raise any objection and I don't want to call the affiant for such purpose.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document 33 shows "Zorn".
MR. RAPP: I take it that is his name, and my document shows, in Document 34, Your Honor, in my document it is spelled Norn. In my document in English text it is spelled "Norn".
JUDGE CARTER: We are referring to the other affidavit.
MR. RAPP: Oh, I beg your pardon, Your Honor.
DR. GAWLIK: May I give some explanation of this. The affiant's name is Zorn, and he is also born in Zorn. That is shown in the German document.
JUDGE BURKE: Zorn, Born, Norn, but it is Zorn?
DR. GAWLIK: In Zorn he was born. His name is Zorn and he was born in Zorn.
THE PRESIDENT: Anything further to question on your part?
MR. RAPP: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, any further documents to be presented, Dr. Gawlik?
DR. GAWLIK: At this time I have no further documents to be presented. My other documents have not been completed.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not resting your case at the present hearing then?
DR. GAWLIK: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: But the documents will be here either this afternoon or in the morning, or Monday morning for the final completion.
DR. GAWLIK: If Your Honor please, my last documents, only be one or two, will be given to the Secretary-General before Monday morning at 9:00 o'clock, according to the ruling of this Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Weisgerber, may I make inquiry, please. I would like to inquire as to whether or not you have completed the submission of all of your documents for the defendant Speidel, and whether you are now in a position to rest?
DR. WEISGERBER: If Your Honor please, the affidavit of Sandstroem which I mentioned this morning I received only yesterday afternoon, and yesterday I submitted it to the Defense Information Center for translation and mimoegraphing. That is one of my documents which is outstanding and the other ones the Greek Documents, were discussed this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. I thought we would try to close up on some of these defendants' cases. Thank you very much.
DR. FRITSCH: If Your Honors please, before I offer my last documents altogether six, I would like to briefly refer to this morning's discussion concerning the replies to the brief of the Prosecution. I would like to state for the record here that from the Defense Information Center I received for myself, as well as for my colleague, Dr. Gawlik, the information that our briefs have been handed over to the Secretary-General.
If Your Honors please, I now would like to offer two more Document Books, which altogether will comprise six documents for my client General Rendulic. I shall start with Rendulic's Document No. -
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I do not have the document books, as yet.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that the messenger is getting them and will present them shortly. The Tribunal now has before it Document Books III and IV for Rendulic. Are those the ones to which you refer.
DR. FRITSCH: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other documents?
DR. FRITSCH: No. No, there are no other documents outstanding, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. FRITSCH: If the Tribunal please, I would like to offer as Exhibit No. 56 Rendulic Document Book III, Document No. 51.
In this connection I observe that unfortunately in the mimeographing, in the English as well as in the German text, a part of the heading has been forgotten, that is, the note "Speech of Winston Churchill". It is an excerpt from the speech made by Winston Churchill on 24 May 1944 before Parliament. By this excerpt I intend to show that until the date given here, that is, 24 May 1944, Tito was not regarded a regular belligerent, by the Allies, either. I can dispense with the reading of details of this document, as the document speaks for itself.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly repeat the document number and the page and exhibit number.
DR. FRITSCH: That is Rendulic Document Book III, Document No. 51, Exhibit No. 56.
THE PRESIDENT: And the page, please?
DR. FRITSCH: Page 1 of the Document Book III in the English and German text. The next document to be presented is Rendulic Document No. 52 contained in Rendulic Document Book III, on page 2 of the Document Book, and the Exhibit No.will be Rendulic 57. This is an excerpt from the war diary of the 21st Mountain Corps, dated 26 August 1943, until 30 September 1943. The document contains a teletype, dated 9 September 1943. On this occasion I should like generally to recall the problem of the treatment of Italians. With the teletype message submitted here, I intend to show that the Italians started fighting at the side of the Allies. I shall read: "According to a statement by Marshal Badoglio the Italians are fighting together with the Allies and refuse to surrender any of their arms. Italian troops in the Balkans are, according to a report by broadcasting station CAIRO, subordinated to General Wilson. Italian resistance must therefore be reckoned with."
Next I shall offer the following document, which is Rendulic Document No. 53.
It is contained in Rendulic Document Book III, on page 3 of the Document Book, and the Exhibit number will be Rendulic 58. If Your Honor please, I am submitting this document in connection with the problem of Commissar Order. The Tribunal will remember that on direct examination the defendant General Rendulic stated concerning the Commissar Order, among others, that at the time, one could have assumed that it was a reprisal measure. In order to show that this assumption was a likely one, I am offering the document just mentioned. This is a document which was compiled by the Foreign Office, and included in the general report, and we have a telegram here. This telegram is dated 12 August 1941, and on that date sent to the Foreign Office from the front. I quote "In the captured Operation Report No. 11 of the 13th day of the previous month, 1000 hours, of the 26th Division Staff, 1 kilometer west of Slastjena, in the forest north of Opuschka, was the following report: 'Approximately 400 killed were left on the field of battle by the enemy, around 80 men had surrendered, who were shot to death.'" and they add that the captured report mentioned is a Russian report which is contained in the further course of the document submitted by me. Furthermore, I would like to refer to the statement found on page it of the German and the English text. I shall read this. In the English text there, on the 12th line, we find the same text as say, in the telegram, namely: "Around 80 men had surrendered who were shot to death."
Next, I shall offer Rendulic Document 54, contained in Rendulic Document Book III, on page 6 of the Document Book, and the exhibit number to be given the document will be 59. This is the affidavit given by Erich Strassl, by whom several affidavits have been presented in other document books. The affiant has given his opinion of the defendant, particularly in reference to propaganda activity, I shall only read one sentence from thus document, roughly, towards the middle of the large paragraph: " I remember that General Rendulic repeatedly remonstrated with me, reproaching me that too much fuss was made, according to his opinion, with his name in the German press and radio."
The next document to be offered is Rendulic Document No. 55 contained in Rendulic Document Book III, oh page 8 of the Document Book and the exhibit number to be given this document is Rendulic 60. This is an affidavit of the former chief of the Reich Chancellory, Dr. Hans Henrich Lammers, dated 9 December 1947. With this document I intend to show a proof for the fact that the defendant General Rendulic was in no way sponsored by the Party. I am reading from the document as follows:
"In my capacity as Chief of the Reich Chancellery it was my duty to deal with endowments made in accordance with individual orders of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor. Among the beneficiaries of such endowments, which consisted of deeds to large estates, or payment of an amount in cash, there was also a considerable number of high generals. I am certain in my memory that General Dr. Lothar Rendulic never received any such endowment in any form whatsoever."
If the Tribunal please, that brings us to the end of Rendulic Document Book III, and I now offer the only document contained in Rendulic Document Book IV. This is Rendulic Document 56, contained in Document Book IV, page 2 of the Document Book, and the exhibit number assigned to that document will be Rendulic 61. Here again we touch upon the question of the conduct of the Italians, I may point out that this is an excerpt from the war diary. -- Well, the document speaks for itself, and I shall briefly read it: "Gen Roncaglia answered our request to come over to our side and to surrender the arms as follows: Your request to surrender arms is a hostile act, therefore, I ordered my divisions to oppose that request by force of arms. For your information the 11th Army and all the Italian forces are acting in the same way."
If the Tribunal please, that brings me to the end of my presentation of evidence on behalf of the defendant General Rendulic.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it, Dr. Fritsch, that you are now resting your case for the defendant Rendulic?
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I am now resting my case.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, in the course of the last few days I have announced the examination of three witnesses to take place. The witness's names are Ruehm, Schmaier and Hassold, I shall dispense with the Lehmaier. The witness, Hassold is unfortunately not yet arrived. I hope that he will be here at the beginning of next week. Now, I shall only examine the witness Ruehm. At the same time, however I should like to announce that in place of witness Lehmaier, I shall very briefly examine one or two other witnesses concerning the destruction of the place PFaffertshofen by Allied troops, after the conclusion of hostility. The names of these witnesses unfortunately I can not announce as yet, because they are not known to me, but I am sure that the Prosecution will be helped by the circumstance of my mentioning the subject matter of this examination.
MR. RAPP: May I inquire which is to happen during the defense's case. He gives some German witnesses names, and I now ask are these men to be heard, if and when they are available, before or after the rebuttal.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I have made endeavors to get hold of these witnesses, in such a way that I may be able to hear them on Monday.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I would appreciate a more direct statement as to whether or not they are going to be here on Monday or Tuesday, or if they are now whether they are to appear at a later time to be heard.
DR. LATERNSER: If Your Honors please, unfortunately I am in no position to make a statement to this effect. I learned today of this circumstance and I took all the steps I could take today and I hope that things will work out the way I hope they will turn out. Whether or not this will be the case I cannot tell the Tribunal, much as I would like to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal announced this morning that as a result of comments made at that time that the defense would close their case on Tuesday, that being true I can see no opportunity for the presentation of any further evidence at a later time if this evidence is not presented prior to Tuesday afternoon at the time we adjourn.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Your Honor. I shall now call the witness Julius Ruehm to the stand.
JULIUS RUEHM, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness will kindly raise his right hand and be sworn.
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION:
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. Witness, will you please take off your earphones now, I believe that will be simpler for you.
THE PRESIDENT: Now for whom is this witness being called, is it general or what?
DR. LATERNSER: For all the defendants, if I have the consent of my colleagues to this, I may anticipate that.
THE PRESIDENT: There being no objection you may proceed.
BY DR. LATERNSER: