I shall skip the next two paragraphs where I discussed the question whether an independent Croatian State would be possible before the war and I shall skip the next paragraph where I discuss the question of recognizing this state and continue on page 17.
What is the result of this finding?
It results that the forces of the LXIX. Res. Corps in Croatia were not an occupying power in the sense of international law, but forces in a country on friendly terms with Germany. Relations therefore between the troops of the LXIX Res. Corps and the Croatian population were not regulated by the rules of the Articles of War, certainly not by the provisions of the Hague Convention. Germany and Croatia could rather adjust these laws quite freely by agreements of a treaty nature. The German troops had in Croatia those rights which had been conceded to them by Croatia.
It is proved that the German troops before every measure affecting the interests of Croatia or the Croatian population, sought approval of the Croatian authorities and refrained from these measures if they did not get approval.
The German troops have always taken into consideration this legal status of Croatia. Insofar as subordinate authorities exceeded the limits of their authority for lack of knowledge in individual cases the German authorities put an end to these encroachments.
The principles of the martial law, especially of the Hague Convention, are not possibly applicable neither because the bands were to be regarded as belligerents in Croatia. In my Memorandum I have shown that in recognizing rebels as belligerents distinction is to be made between:
a) recognition as belligerents and
b) recognition of independence.
I have further shown that recognition of the bands as belligerents, in accordance with the principles of international law, was already impossible fundamentally for the reason that the bands at no time exercised complete sovereignty in one sphere within the area of the LXIX Res.
Corps.
The Prosecution did not state this nor in particular has it put forward any proof for it.
Within the area of the LXIX Res. Corps, during the period when General Dehner was commanding general of this corps, the bands merely succeeded once in having possession, for a short time, of two places from which the bands had been driven again, however. Further, the bands did not meet in principle the prerequisites of belligerents in the sense of the Hague Convention because they 1.) wore no definite badge which could be identified from a distance, 2.) did not bear their arms openly, and 3.) did not observe the laws and practices of war.
In so far I refer in particular to the affidavits of Engelschall, Beer, and Kaudewitz.
Moreover, the bands appearing in the area of the LXIX Res. Corps had no centralised Command. In no way was proof offered that these bands too were under the High Command of Tito. From the documents submitted by the defense it appears rather that in many cases with these bands it was a question of entirely independent groups not subordinated to Tito. I refer here in particular to the entry in the War Diary dated 26 September 1943, Document Dehner No. 16, Exh. 10.
But even if it had been a question of bands under Tito's command this would have no significance for the state of affairs and the legal position. In this, it must be taken into consideration that it would then be a question of a rebellion of left wing circles and that this uprising was aimed not only against German forces, but also
a) against the Croatian Government which had been the governing power in Croatia since 1941, and what is of even more decisive significance in this connection,
b) against the Exile Government in London.
The bands fought, consequently, in this case, not for the rights of the Yugoslav Government in London but for the establishment of a Communist Government in Croatia under Tito's leadership independent of the Government in Exile.
Furthermore, as appeared from the hearing of witnesses, the bands which appeared in the area of the LXIX Res. Corps, fought even against the indigenous population in Croatia. The bands cannot therefore for this reason also have cooperated with the Yugoslav Government in Exile in London.
The Prosecution has, indeed in its Memorandum put forward the assertion in general that the bands in Yugoslavia acted with consent and authorization of the legal Exile Government in London and that these bands had sent reports to the Yugoslav Government in London.
This is an assertion for which the Prosecution has furnished no proof. The Prosecution has not proved that the bands sent reports of this kind to the Yugoslav Government in Exile in London and that the bands became active with the consent of this Government.
At all events, this proof was not furnished for the bands who appeared in the area of the LXIX Res. Corps.
For the area of the LXIX Res. Corps it can consequently be ascertained that the bands did not belong to the United Nations.
The Court of a State belonging to the United Nations is only competent however to reach a final decision on such actions as were against military forces of the United Nations. This is uncontested in the field of international law. This is evident especially from a report furnished by the well-known teachers of international law Dickensen, Finsch and Hyde in 1943 and appearing in the California Law Review, Volume 33 dated July 1945 on pages 217/218. These legal teachers were of the opinion that war crimes that can be prosecuted by a Court of the United Nations must be committed against the security of the United Nations.
Possible actions of the troops of the LXIX Res. Corps affecting the bands would therefore in no way have endangered the security of the United Nations; For, in so far, too, as the bands were subordinated to Tito in Croatia they were fighting against the Yugoslav Government in Exile in London which belonged to the United Nations.
The bands therefore threatened the interests of the United Nations.
The previously mentioned legal opinion was advocated too by the teachers of international law Campos, Fenwick and Costa in the report dated 30 July 1945 already alluded to by me. These teachers of international law have declared expressly, too, that under war crimes only acts against military forces or against members of the United Nations are to be understood.
Possible actions of German forces of the LXIX Res. Corps should not therefore be looked upon as violation of the martial law, especially of the Hague Convention. For this reason, these actions cannot be regarded as war crimes either.
Nor do the prerequisites for a crime against humanity exists there, either.
From the legal opinion of the well known legal teachers Campos, Fenwick, Costa, who carried out the preparatory work for the Statute and Control Council Law No. 10 in the year 1945 and have recorded the results of their labors in the report dated 30 July 1945, it is evident that the violation of the laws of humanity was to be no new independent fact of the case but that under it the most serious war crimes are to be understood. I am referring, in so far, to the report on the International Judicial Status of Individuals as "War Crimes" dated 30 July 1945.
As a result it can consequently be established:
1.) Croatia was an independent state,
2.) The bands within the area of the LXIX Res. Corps did not have the rights of belligerents.
For these reasons, the laws of war, especially the Hague Convention found no application. The actions of the German troops, therefore, cannot be regarded either as war crimes or crimes against humanity.
General Dehner cannot therefore be condemned, for these further reasons, because of all the actions of which he is accused in his capacity as Commanding General of the LXIX Res.
Corps, even if full value as proof were to be accorded to the documents submitted contrary to my statements in Part I.
However, even if Croatia should not be recognized as an independent state in the meaning of international law, even if it should be conceded to the Prosecution that Croatia was dependent on the Axis powers to an extent excluding her independence, if Croatia thus was, in the words of the Prosecution, a puppet state, even so, one thing cannot be denied, namely the fact that Croatia was considered an independent state and treated as such by the German troops, furthermore the fact that the German troops did not exercise executive power in Croatia, but that the executive power was exercised by Croatian authorities, and further the fact that General Dehner did not exercise supreme executive authority in Croatia. These facts cannot be denied by the Prosecution either. These facts must be admitted, even if for some legal considerations the existence of an independent Croatian state should be denied.
Therefore General Dehner in no way bears responsibility for what has happened within the area of his Corps. In particular General Dehner is not responsible for the acts for which he is charged under figure 1, 2 and 4 of the indictment, if they should be proven. These charges under figures 1, 2 and 4, referring exclusively to Croatia, I shall deal with first of all. These acts were not ordered by General Dehner. Furthermore it has not been proved that these acts were committed at all by the troops of the LXIX Res. Corps. They were if they should have happened at all, ordered and executed either by Croatian authorities, not subordinated to General Dehner, or by Police authorities, over which General Dehner had no authority either. This follows from the entry into the War Diary of the 2nd Panzer Army from 9 Sept. 1943 (Doc. NOKW 2632, Exh. 655). From this entry it follows that particular conditions prevailed in Croatia and therefore the military authorities did not have the authority of a Military Commander.
From the fact that reprisal measures were reported in the daily reports of the Corps does not follow, therefore, that they were carried out by the troops of the Corps. The divisions and the Corps reported everything that occurred within their area. I refer in this connection to the affidavit Engelschall. Engelschall has declared that all reprisal measures were reported by the Divisions, regardless whether they had been ordered by the Division Commanders or carried out by the troops. These statements of Engelschall concur with the entry in the War Diary of 18 January 1944. I particularly refer to the fact that in this entry the words "subordinated to the Corps" were added by the German divisions and that this addition is not to be found with the Croatian units and Police units. This proves that the Croatian units and the Police units were not subordinated to the LXIX Res. Corps.
The Generalkommando of the LXIX Res. Corps was not the highest authority within its area.
The Croatian Civil authorities were not subordinated to the LXIC Res. Corps. The German police units, who were in Croatia for the support of the Croatian Government, were not subordinated to the Corps either.
The contrary does particularly also not follow from the statements of von Bach-Zelewski and Korn. None of these two witnesses has testified that the police units employed in Croatia were subordinated to the LXIX Res. Corps.
I am interpolating something. Korn did not state that the police unit were subordinate to the army. This claim of the Prosecution in their final statement is incorrect and completely invented. Korn, on the contrary, stated that he had no comprehensive knowledge about the police missions in Croatia. In this respect I refer to page 9363 of the English transcript. The statement of Korn has expressly stated and I quote: "I only know of two operations - page 9368 of the English transcript. If Korn participated in one of these operations that one of these operations was the operation "Ferdinand" which took place under the direction and power of Commander of the SS Major General Kommer.
The 69th Corps and divisions under its command had no power of command in this operation. This has been expressly confirmed by Korn and is on page 9483 of the English. The other operation was the operation "Arnim". The statement of Korn refers to this operation "Arnim". Korn could not make statements about any other operations. On page 9368 of the transcript he expressly stated, "I can merely make statements about the main operations in which I participated. The statement of the Prosecution in reference to the statement of the witness Korn are therefore completely incorrect. I shall continue on page 25.
In the case of Bach-Zelewski there is not enough knowledge available for making statements relevant to the evidence thereof. For according to his own statements Bach-Zelewski stayed only for one day within the area of the LXIX Res. Corps. His statements based only on hearsay refer exclusively to the operation "Arnim".
This operation "Arnim" lasted for only 4 days. It started on 14th October 1943 and ended on 18th October 1943. None of the documents submitted shows that during this 4 day operation any act was committed, which is subject of this proceeding.
This operation "Arnim" must be distinguished from the operations "Kornblume" and "Ferdinand", which were pure Police operations.
I shall interpolate once again. The operation "Kornblume" did not at all take place during the time in which General Dehner was in Croatia. I shall continue on page 26.
The operation "Ferdinand" was directed by SS-Gruppenfuehrer Kammerhofer independently. This was testified by the witness for the Prosecution Korn (Protocol Page 9363). The witness Korn testified further to the effect that Kammerhofer was not subordinated to the LXIX ReserveCorps (Protocol Page 9356 English).
Furthermore did the witness Bach-Zelewski declare that the German Police was not subject to orders by the German Army.
Inasfar as the witness Korn made statements in regard to the relationship between the German Police and the German Army, he qualified his testimony at the close of his cross-examination to the effect that his statements referred only to one operation and that generally he did not know how the relationship between Police and Army was during the execution of operations.
I shall interpolate. Now in view of these statements by Korn and Bach-Zelewski, the prosecution's claim in their final statement that Korn confirmed the subordination of police units to the Army - the transcript shows quite the contrary.
I shall continue on page 27.
The Croatian troops fundamentally were not subordinated to the German troops. From the War Diary entry of 15.8.1943, it follows that only at the start of the employment of the LXIX Reserve-Corps was the Generalkommando of the 2nd Croatian Corps subordinated to the LXIX Reserve-Corps. Already after a few days, namely on 18 August 1943, as can be gathered from the same document, it withdrew from this relationship of subordination.
Hitler ordered, as follows from the entry of 10 September 1943 of the same document, that Croatian troops should not be subordinated to German command authorities.
General Dehner never issued an order to the troops subordinated to him for the shooting of hostages. He also never authorized his troops to arrest or shoot hostages.
The summary order by Rendulic of 15 September 1943 was passed on to the subordinated units by the Deputy of General Dehner, who, while General Dehner was on leave, was the responsible leader of the Corps. During this time General Dehner did not command the Corps. Already for this reason he is not responsible for the passing on of the order of 15 September 1943.
Besides within the sphere of the LXIX Reserve Corps the order was not to be carried out by the Army and also was not carried out by the Army during the time, when General Dehner commanded the LXIX Reserve Corps. That the order was not to be carried out by the Army in Croatia follows from figure 5, of this order, which contains a special regulation for the execution of reprisal measures in Croatia. According to this regulation reprisal measures in Croatia were to be carried out by the Croatian Police, which, as I explained already, was not subordinated to the LXIX Reserve-Corps.
The rule in the order of 15 September 1943 that in urgent cases the Division Commander may order reprisal measures, was never made use of within the area of the LXIX Reserve-Corps. I refer in this connection to the statements of the former Commander of the 173rd ReserveDivision, General von Behr in his affidavit of 15 December 1947, who confirmed his statements during cross-examination on 21 January 1948 in the afternoon, and expressly testified that he never ordered any reprisal measures and that the troops under his Command never carried out any reprisal measures.
The same is true of the 187th Reserve-Division. The Prosecution has furnished no evidence that the Commander of the 187th Reserve-Division, who cannot be located, has ordered reprisal measures and that the troops under his command carried out any reprisal measures.
But even if the Division Commanders did order reprisal measures, then the Commanding General of the LXIX Reserve-Corps would have had no possibility to exercise any influence, since in regard to reprisal measures the Corps was entirely excluded. The witness Behr during cross-examination testified that the Division Commanders alone bore responsibility for the ordering and carrying out of reprisal measures. These statements were confirmed by the former director of the leadership corps with the LXIX Reserve-Corps, the former Lieutenant Colonel Engelschall in his affidavit of 22 December 1947. The correctness of these statements also follows from the summary order of the II Panzer Army of 15 September 1943.
I interpolate something. Therefore there can be no question that General Dehner tried to shift the respon sibility to his divisional commanders as the prosecution blamed in its final statement.
It was not that General Dehner shifted the responsibility or rejected it but one of his divisional commanders still to be located has taken the responsibility for himself. The prosecution can take everything away from this general of a defeated nation but it cannot take his honor.
Also in the Loehr-order of 22 December 1943 it was expressly ordered for Croatia that the decision on reprisal measures must be taken by the representatives of the Croatian Government. Therefore also on the basis of the Loehr-order the troops of the LXIX Reserve-Corps were not competent for the decision and carrying out of reprisal measures.
Now I come to the individual cases for which General Dehner is being held responsible.
Under point 1) of the indictment General Dehner is charged with the cases stated under figure 5 i), k) and m).
In case 5 i) the Prosecution up to the close of the evidence proceedings has not submitted any evidence.
From no document that was submitted by the Prosecution can the correctness of its claim be deduced that on 14 September 1943, 40 hostages were shot by troops of the 173rd Reserve Division in Croatia. No witness interrogated by the Prosecution has testified to that either.
Besides this allegation of the Prosecution can be considered disproved by the statements of General von Behr, the former Commander of the 173rd Reserve-Division. Von Behr led the 173rd Reserve-Division during the time when General Dehner was Commanding General of the LXIX ReserveCorps. These statements were maintained by von Behr during his cross-examination.
Even if the Prosecution had furnished proof to its claim, General Dehner could not be hold responsible, because Dehner was during this time on leave and did not command the LXIX Reserve-Corps, as follows from Document Dehner No. 1, Exhibit 9.
The Prosecution failed further to prove the claim under 5 k) of the indictment that on 28 September 1943 troops of the 173rd Reserve-Division shot 40 hostages. As evidence for the correctness of this claim the Prosecution submitted Document Exh. 332, the Daily Report of 28 September 1943.
I have explained already in the first part of my statements that these daily reports have no probative value, as they are incompatible with the recognized principles governing the taking of evidence. Add to this, with respect to this document, that, as may easily be seen from the photostat submitted by the Prosecution, two different teletyped letters had been placed one on top of the other and a photostatic copy made of them. The heading of the photostatic copy does not belong to the text of the report. This document, therefore, does not show the time when the incident mentioned in the report really happened. Thus, it can not be considered as a proved fact that this incident occurred during the time during which General Dehner was responsible for the command of the LXIX, Res. Corps. For this reason, let alone for the other reasons I have stated above, this document cannot be attributed any probative value, in particular, it cannot be used to achieve a conviction of General Dehner.
It must be added that three paragraphs of that teletype of 28 September 1943 completely tally with the daily report of the 2nd Armoured Army, dated 4 October 1943. The same incident is included at the same time in the teletype of the 2nd Armoured Army of 28 September 1943 and in the teletype of the 2nd Armoured Army of 4 October 1943. This fact too shows the unreliability of both reports.
Obviously the daily report of the 2nd Armoured Army of 4 October 1943 is based on the teletype of the LXIXth Res. Corps of the same date. In this teletype it is firstly stated that this measure had been carried out by the police. The word "police" was then struck out. But it would be wrong to infer from that that the measure was not carried out by the police, for it is quite possible that the word was struck out for the reason that it was not essential to state in the report by whom that measure had been carried out.
The evidence has shown that the 173rd Res. Division, which is alleged to have carried out that execution, has, in fact, not committed that act.
This is shown by the affidavits von Bohr and Kaudewitz.1) On the contrary, it may be assumed that that execution was carried out either by the German police or may-be by Croatian units, both of which were not under the command of General Dohner. The incident was reported by the 173rd Res. Division for the only reason that, as was shown by the evidence, the division reported all the incidents happening in the Corps area.
To point 5m) of the indictment the Prosecution has submitted the daily report of 10 October 1943, Exhibit 375, as well as document 079, Both pieces of evidence are, as may easily be seen from the documents and has been stated also by General Dehner in his deposition (Rec. p. 7931), one and the same document.
Even on the basis of these documents it cannot be considered a proven fact that in the neighbourhood of Vinkovci 20 people, suspected of being members of a band, have been executed. An argument against the assumption that the execution has been carried out is above all the fact that the execution has not been mentioned in the war diary of the LXIX th Res. Corps. In any case the conclusion may be drawn from this fact that, if the execution really did take place, it surely had not been ordered and carried out by the troops of the 187th Res. Div.. It would then be the case of an action carried out either by the German police or by Croatian authorities, and reported by the division to the Corps for information purposes only.
As a final result, the following statements maybe made with regard to the three points mentioned in count 1 of the indictment, in which General Dehner has been charged:
It has not proved that
a) these executions did take place at all,
b) in case that it should be regarded as proved, it is certain
1) Affidavit von Behr, Doc. Dehner No. 38, Exh. 34, vol. VII, page 104105 Engl. and German.
Affidavit Kaudewitz, Doc. Dehner No. 56, Exh. 52, vol. XI, p. 142 Engl. and German.
that these executions were ordered and carried out by units under the command of the LXIXth Res. Corps.
The Prosecution submitted, among the pieces of evidence submitted by it against General Dehner, some other teletypes, in which the execution of hostages was reported.
General Dehner, testifying as a witness, commented in detail on these documents. It results from General Dehner's deposition that not a single one of those executions had been ordered by him. Furthermore, the Prosecution did not succeed in proving that these executions by shooting, provided that they did take place, were ordered and carried out by the troops of the LXIXth Res. Corps.
Moreover, there is no proof for the assumption that General Dehner has been informed of the execution of those measures. Therefore, it cannot be ascertained whether or not General Dehner had the possibility to prevent these executions, provided that they did take place at all.
As far as the teletypes of 20 September 19431), 21 September 19432), and 23 December 19433) are concerned, it must be said that General Dehner cannot bear any responsibility from the criminal law point of view for the simple reason that he was on leave during that period and not in command of the LXIXth Res. Corps. The periods of General Dehner's leave, are shown by the excerpt from the pay book.
In particular, General Dehner gave his comments to those further teletypes which contain incidents not included in the indictment, when he was heard as a witness. I particularly refer to his statements(Engl. page 7935).
In a general way it might be said with regard to these further
1) document NOKW 1758, exh. 549, vol XXIV, p. 253 Engl.p. 185 German
2) document NOKW 658, exh. 375, vol. XVI, p. 6 Engl.
3) document NOKW 658, exh. 375, vol. XVI., page 36 Engl.
documents that the Prosecution has furnished no proof for the fact that these actions have been ordered and carried out by units under the command of General Dehner.
In this connection some more documents were submitted by the Prosecution in which the seizure of hostages was reported. This seizure of hostages too was not carried out by units under the command of the LXIXth Res. Corps, but by Croatian authorities. In this respect I particularly refer to the English transcript of the hearings, page 7963. This particularly applies to the seizure of the woman teacher from Kapella (reported in Doc. NOKW 143, exh.346, vol. XIV, page 77 Engl.), who was seized by a Croatian unit, part of which was the company that the husband of the teacher, a deserter, tried to induce to desert to the enemy. For the rest, it has been proved that this teacher from Kapella was set free by the Croatian unit when the reason for her seizure had ceased to exist.1) Therefore, General Dehner bears no responsibility for the seizure of hostages.
The seizure of the hostages as mentioned in the documents submitted would, incidentally, not constitute a war crime or a crime against humanity, as I am going to explain below. Thus, the seizure of hostages has for this reason not become a subject of the indictment against General Dehner.
Under count 2 of the indictment General Dehner is charged with looting and plunder of public and private property, as well as with the wanton destruction of towns and villages. The Prosecution contended that General Dehner too gave orders to the forces under his command to burn down entire towns and villages, to destroy them, to level them, and to shoot the inhabitants.
The Prosecution has not furnished the flimsiest proof for these contentions. It has not been proved that General Dehner ordered the plundering of public and private property or that acts of this kind have been committed in the area of the LXIXth Res. Crops by German troops.
1) Affidavit Engelschall, Document Dehner No. 35, Exh. 30, volume VI, page 96 English and German.
The documents I have submitted on behalf of General Dehner1)show that the German forces in Croatia did whatever was possible in order to conserve the economic strength of the country.
Moreover, the Prosecution has furnished no proofs for the assertion that General Dehner ordered the forces under his command at any time to burn down, to level, whole towns or villages, or to shoot their inhabitants. These are allegations without any foundation made by the Prosecution and for which there is not the slightest clue in the evidence submitted by it.
In particular, General Dehner has been charged with the cases mentioned under the counts of the indictment 2 e), g), h), and i). With regard to this, the evidence has shown the following results:
It does not result from the daily report of 24 September 1943 submitted by the Prosecution as an evidence (doc. NOKW 658, exh. No. 375, vol. XVI p. 7 Engl.) to count of the indictment 2 e) that these places had been set on fire at all, for the words "on fire" have been struck out.
Even if such an act should have been committed, General Dehner bears no responsibility for it for the following two reasons:
1. As is shown by the document Dehner No. 1, exhibit 9, vol. I, General Dehner was, at that time on leave and was not in command of the LXIXth Res. Corps.
2. If the places should have been destroyed it is not the troops of the LXIXth res. Corps that would be responsible for this measure but rather the police. The teletype shows that this was an action carried out by the SS Gruppenfuehrer Kammerhofer, who was not subordinated to General Dehner, but who acted quite independently. I shall interpolate. This was even confirmed by the Prosecution witness Korn. I shall continue. Here I am referring to the affidavits of von Behr, Engelschall, von Selchow
1) Affidavit Strachwitz, Document Dehner No. 28, Exh. 28, volume V, page 59 English and German Affidavit Schlegel, Document Dehner No. 39, exhibit 35, volume VII, p. 107 Englich and German Kaudewitz, Strachwitz, and to the entry into the war diary of 13 September 1943.
Likewise, the statements made by these people cannot be considered as refuted by the statements of the witnesses Bach-Zalewski and Korn. None of these two witnesses testified that General Dehner or an officer under his command ordered the destruction of those places, or, for that matter, that the destruction was carried out by the troops of the LXIXth Res. Corps. The witnesses Bach-Zalewski and Korn were not in a position to make any statements to that effect for the simple reason that at that time they were not yet in Croatia.
Nor is General Dehner responsible for the destruction of the villages Paklenica and Pokarica, as mentioned under subsection 2 g).
On the basis of the evidence submitted by the Prosecution it may be regarded as altogether highly doubtful whether or not these places were set on fire at all. In this respect I am referring to the testimony made by General Dehner on the witness stand. (Rec. pages 7974/7975 Eng.)
In case those places should, however, have been destroyed, the destruction was not carried out by the troops of the LXIXth Res. Corps, but rather by the Croatian police.
For the rest, the destruction was obviously no reprisal measure. Instead, the Croatian police destroyed those villages, because there was a military necessity to do so. Those two villages were notorious strongholds of the bands, from which raids against the railway line were carried out continually.
Under count, 2 h) of the indictment General Dehner is charged with the destruction of the village Yamena during the period of about the middle of November 1943. In this respect the Prosecution referred to the daily reports of 7 November 1943. But it results from the daily report of 23 December 1943 that this village was not yet destroyed by the end of December 1943. Thus, some well-founded doubts are arising about the correctness of the daily report of 7 November 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, before we take our noon recess, I think the record should show that there has been delivered to the Defense Counsel approximately forty copies of the German transcript for Tuesday.
The furnishing of this transcript and these copies to Defense Counsel is through very speedy work on the part of the Reproduction Department. It has been impossible to furnish this in manuscript form, as has been done in other cases, because, as the Tribunal is informed, the material which was submitted to the Reproduction Department was not in such a form or in such a condition as it could be taken care of, but the situation has been met by the furnishing to the Defense Counsel of the transcript for the day in question.
The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours, 7 February 1948.)
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 7 February 1948.)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal V is again in session.
DR. LUCHT: ( Attorney representing Dr. Latarnser, for the Defendant List) If it please the Tribunal, in the English version of the final plea for Field Marshal List, which has been obtained in the meantime, there are a number of translation errors.
This particularly refers to the documents quoted in the footnotes. We now have made a list of the corrections of these errors, and I would like to take the liberty to offer this list to the Tribunal as a supplement to the Final Plea.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received; pardon me.
MR. FULKERSON: If the Tribunal please, what he says in perfectly true because what has happened here is that we wrote the final statement and of course incorporated extracts from the English translation of these various documents, and from the English translation of the testimony, and we didn't have time, unfortunately, to go back through and comb half of these various originals you see and incorporate them, so what appears in the English, in the German transcript is a re-translation of those various excerpts from the English into the German; but, since every one is so familiar with the record any way, we hope no confusion will arise through that.
THE PRESIDENT: Does this refer to the Prosecution documents?
MR. FULKERSON: To the Prosecution's closing statement, yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will receive the statement to which you refer.
DR. GAWLIK: I shall continue reading on page 39.
"Furthermore, evidence has not shown that the destruction was ordered or carried out by the troops of the LXIXth Res. Corps. Thus, it is quite possible that the destruction was carried out by the German or Croatian police, which was not commanded by General Dehner.
"For the rest, it was not a question of a reprisal measure being Court No. V, Case No. VII.