Q Was the transmission signed?
A Yes.
Q By whom?
A By the deputy chief.
Q What would you say in what manner the command in the Southeast was designated by Hitler and OKW in general?
A It was repeatedly called weak.
Q This order Exhibit No. 53 of the 16th of September had been issued. What did you do?
A In the beginning of October I issued a teletype dated the 4th of October.
Q May I point out to the court that the teletype of the 4th of October is Exhibit 70 which in the English Document Book II is on page 141 and in the German Document Book it is on page 108. To whom did you address this teletype of the 4th of October?
A To the Plenipotentiary Commanding General in Serbia.
Q Who else did you address it to?
A No one else.
Q Why not to other officers?
A That wasn't necessary because the Plenipotentiary Commanding General was in Serbia and he alone was the person responsible in Serbia for the issuing of the orders for crushing of the Serbian movement, and he possessed executive power in those respects.
Q. Did you assume that this office then informed all the other offices?
A. That was their task; they had to do that.
Q. Under point 2 of this order you ordered, and I quote: "Men in the insurgent territories who were not encountered in battle are to be examined, and b), if they are only suspected of having taken part in combat of having offered the bandits support of any sort or of having acted against the Wehrmacht in any way there are to be held in ta collecting camp. They are to serve as hostages in the event that bandits appear or if anything against the Wehrmacht is undertaken in the territory of their home localities and in such cases they are to be shot." What is your present attitude to the order which I have just read?
A. I am of the opinion that under the conditions existing at that time it was militarily speaking necessary and that it was admissible under International law.
Q. Why didn't you order any ratios?
A. Because it seemed difficult to me to fix ratios; the retaliation measures or reprisal measures should generally adapt themselves to the facts of the case.
Q. Who may order reprisals?
A. Every commander from every divisional commander upwards.
Q. Where was that laid down?
A. In the ten commandments.
Q. Which ten commandments do you mean?
A. Those which every soldier had to carry or was supposed to carry.
Q. What were the contents quite briefly?
A. Essentially the provisions of the Hague Convention.
Q. And where were those ten commandments for the soldiers contained?
A. In his pay-book.
Q. I shall submit this pamphlet or manual to the court as an exhibit. Now, I should like you to take a look at Exhibit 7 which is Volume I and is on page 20 of the English Document Book and on page 17 of the First Volume of German Document Book. In the first part of this exhibit your office asks on the 27th of June 1941 the Military Commander Serbia whether the Russian radio reports are correct; that for the killing of German soldiers 100 Serbs had been shot in Belgrade. Why was this inquiry made by you?
A. Since this was a radio report of Russian origin and I did not know anything of it yet I had to make sure regarding this message. Apart from that the number appeared rather conspicious to me.
Q. What was the result of your inquiry?
A. The result was that this radio report was erroneous.
Q. We are reverting now to Exhibit 70 which in the English Document Book II is on page 141 and in the German Document Book II on page 108. In this teletype of the 4th of October and that is Exhibit 70, you talk about collection camps, whereas in the order of the 5th of September, Exhibit 42, you talked of concentration camps. What is the difference you intended?
A. There is no difference because I meant by concentration camps the same as by collection comps because in the army as such there were no concentration camps.
Q. What was the actual purpose of Exhibit 70, that is, of the teletype of the 4th of October.
A. The actual purpose was to create orderly conditions and at the same time to mitigate the decree of the OKW of the 16th of September and to bring about milder retaliatory measures.
Q. If you are just mentioning the OKW order of 16th September, do you mean Exhibit 53 which I submitted to you before?
A. Yes I do.
Q. I should then like you to look at Exhibit 76. Exhibit 76 is in Volume II, page 156 of the English text and in the IInd volume on page 120 of the German Document Book. This order was issued to General Boehme and in it he requested him to collaborate as far as possible in crushing the uprising. Was this order known to you?
A. No.
Q. In spite of your teletype of the 4th of October General Boehme --- this teletype we discussed previously as Exhibit 70 -General Boehme -- in spite of this order and in spite of his own order, issued the very severe order of the 10th of October, Exhibit 88, which in the English Document Book III is to be found on page 34 and in the German Document Book III on page 27. How do you explain to yourself and to us this fact?
A This order of the 10 October of General Boehme was preceded-
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me, please, Dr. Laternser, will you kindly repeat the last reference?
DR. LATERNSER: That is English Document Book III, page 34, and in the German Volume III on page 27.
THE PRESIDENT: And the exhibit number?
DR. LATERNSER: Exhibit 88.
A This order of General Boehme was preceded by the shooting of 22 soldiers of the Army Intelligence Regiment, which were mutilated and maimed. I recall, but not very strongly though, that the order relating to the ratio of one to 100 in retaliation was ordered by the OKW directly.
Q Which case are you referring to?
A The case of the shooting of the 22 soldiers of the Army Intelligence Regiment 521, and I could imagine that General Boehme on his part, on the basis of this OKW DIRECTIVE, and on the other hand by reason of these bestial murder of his soldiers arrived at his order. He probably said to himself that in view of such actions by members of the bandit groups.
MR. DENNEY: I think the witness is speculating about what Dr. Boehme said to himself. It is improper testimony, and I move that part should be stricken.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I have noticed this myself, as I have noticed myself that this is a case of arguing, and not proper testifying and at the same moment I wanted to intervene myself.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the statements made by Dr. Laternser apparently approving the motion of counsel for the prosecution, the motion to strike this will be sustained.
Q Field Marshal, when did you hear of this order of October 10, Exhibit 88, for the first time consciously?
A The first time consciously here in Nurnberg.
Q From the distribution, however, we see that this order was re ceived by way of information by the Commander Southeast; can you remember having received it at that time?
A No.
Q How do you explain this fact to yourself?
A This order was sent to me by way of information. That is to say from the sender as well as on the receiver it was probably not treated in a very expeditious manner. The mail from Belgrade to Athens and vice-versa took sometimes a long time and sometimes not so long. There is no receiving stamp on this document. I myself fell sick on the 15th. I was no longer in my office and I have to assume definitely that I did not receive this order.
Q When were you operated on?
A I was operated on the 17 October.
Q Exhibit 93 was submitted here, which is an order of the Plenipotentiary Commanding General in Serbia dated October 14 which is Contained in Volume III, page 53 of the English Book, and in Volume III, page 43 of the German book, - have you got this order in front of you?
A Yes.
Q Did you at that time receive knowledge of this order?
A No.
Q How do you explain this?
A This order did not even for information purposes go to the armed forces commander Southeast.
Q The order was issued by the Administrative Staff of the Plenipotentiary Commanding General; what kind of an office is that?
A The Commander in Serbia had two staffs, the command staff and the administrative staff.
Q Who was the chief of the Administrative Staff?
A The Chief of the administrative staff was Turner, T-u-r-n-e-r.
Q Who was Turner?
A He was an SS Obergruppenfuehrer, and also a Prussian State Councillor as well.
Q What was his attitude?
A Turner was not a very straight forward personality, and was also a very difficult person. He certainly liked to show off, and in Belgrade and in Serbia he wanted to be the main figure.
Q Did you yourself gain this impression and did you experience this?
A Yes.
Q At what occasions?
A When the new Serbian Government was formed. I was neither informed regarding the forming of this Government nor was I informed in time that the formation of this Government had taken place, and I only heard this several days later.
Q Regarding the armament and weapons conceded to the new Serbian Government and to the Gendarmery, I found out only through a note in the newspapers.
Q After making these experiences with Turner what did you do?
A Because of these experiences which were aggravated by reports from my Chief, I asked the Chief of the Administrative staff for me to explain to him that he was actually bound to inform his commander about the most important happenings. Apart from that I sent Police Director Loos to Boehme in order that he should assist him directly.
Q who was Loos?
A Chief of the Secret Field police in the Staff in the Army command of the Army Southeast.
Q What was his attitude?
A Loos was a clever and adroit man and he was moderate.
Q When did you send him to Belgrade?
A He arrived at Belgrade on October 13. I must have ordered him to do so on the 12th, at the latest. My intention to do so was probably formed a couple of days prior to that.
Q What was Loos' actual task when you sent him to Belgrade?
AAs far as I can recall his assignment was to become police adviser to General Boehme to make up for Turner.
Q What did Loos report later on?
A I no longer learned that.
Q Why not?
A Because at the time when Loos returned I was at the military hospital.
Q Who gave Turner directives and orders?
A He received directives and orders from his superior, the commander of Serbia, and he also received directives via the Quartermaster General. He received directives directly from the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler in a police matters, and I am firmly convinced, but I cannot check this, that as State Councillor, he received orders and directives from Reichsmarshal Goering, who at the same time had the right to give direct orders to the plenipotentiary for the 4-year plan in Belgrade.
Q Before I go into the discussion of individual points I want by some preliminary questions to give a general picture to the Tribunal. How did you communicate with your subordinate offices?
A The telephone, the teletype and radio.
Q And what were your lines of communication to the OKW, that is, to your superior offices?
A The same, although we mainly used the radio, because of the great distance the telephone communications were usually disturbed.
Q The Prosecution submitted a number of reports from all kinds of offices; I wanted to ask you quite generally which of the reports and news do you know?
A I do not know of those reports which were not addressed to my office.
Q In other words, all of those were not directed to your office, and why are these reports not known to you?
A If they were not received by the Armed Forces Commander Southeast I could not know them.
Q Who received the messages for your office?
A They were directed to the departments to which they were addressed. They were received by an orderly officer.
Q I would like to ask you, and will you give examples, please, which were the departments competent for each case?
A For messages of a technical nature, for the employment of the troops, Department 1-A. For messages concerning the enemy news, it was Department 1-C.
Q What was the competent department for the news regarding shootings or burning down of villages?
A. That was the department 1-C. Later on this was taken over by Department 1-A, but at that time it was the Department 1-C.
Q. In what way was such a message received, what possibilities did exist?
A. They were received by telephone, by radio. They could also arrive as a teletype. That could come as a telephone messages immediately to the officer.
Q. One question, Field Marshall, what was the most frequent way in which a message was received?
A. The most frequent way was the teletype.
Q. To whom was this teletype submitted?
A. The teletype was submitted to the orderly officer of the department in question who was on duty.
Q. And to whom did he submit it?
A. This orderly officer submitted it to 1-A or to the 1-C.
Q. And what did the Chief of the department in question do, that is the 1-A or 1-C?
A. With the collected messages he went to see the chief and he reported to the chief about these news.
Q. In what manner were you informed about these things?
A. I was informed by the Chief of Staff.
Q. In which form?
A. The chief of staff reported to me about the messages received.
Q. To what did his report refer?
A. The report referred to everything that had happened, chiefly how the over-all situation had developed, where new centers of unrest had appeared.
Q. Now, what was the gist of this report and what had to be the gist of it?
A. The total situation of the insurgent movement.
Q. During this report on the part of your chief of Staff, were the messages that had been received read to you?
A. In general a general report was given to me, but messages were also read to me. When I read such messages I initialed them as a matter of principle.
Q. Did you frequently deviate from this principle of initialing everything you had read?
A. No. I adhered to that habit. I initialed everything which I had in fact read.
Q. And what was now the more frequent form of the report, a summary of the general situation or the reading of the individual messages?
A. The main form was the summarized report.
Q. Which of the reports, so frequently submitted by the prosecution, which were addressed to armed forces commander Southeast, do you remember?
A. Individual messages I couldn't recall at all. I have a general impression of the situation at that time, but I couldn't say that I have seen or have not seen those messages. That is not possible here. On the strength of the messages which have been submitted to me I have refreshed my memory, as in the case of the second company of the Army Intelligence Regiment all came back to me, but only very calmly. It is impossible for me to say that I really read this message, because I got a lot of messages, and the totality of experiences which happened everyday. It is impossible after six years to say I have definitely read this, and such or such a newspaper is definitely known to me, and after all I, as I said before was chiefly interested in how the situation had developed, what development it had taken. The American Commander in Chief in this zone will not be able to know all the details which happen in the course of six years, well the area down there is far greater than Germany is today, and that has to be considered.
Traffice conditions were far worse, the lines of communication were far worse. One was constantly under the pressure of what happened every day, and in the meanwhile I have experienced six very hard years, and among them 2-1/2 years imprisonment and 8 months in solitary confinement. These are conditions which are not suited to strengthen one's memory.
Q. Do you remember, Field Marshal, that at that time, conspicuous or rather conspicuously high shooting ratios were reported to you? Do you remember that?
A. I have not the impression, looking back at those years, that at that time a conspicuously high shooting ratio was reported to me at that time, that is figures exceeding the standard required by military necessity.
Q. Well, what was your mental attitude during the last two years regarding a trial?
A. My mental attitude was that if I was ever arraigned it could only be ascertained that nothing had happened which could form the basis of proceedings against me.
Q. Have you expressed this view of yours to other people?
A. Yes, in camps when these matters were discussed; I have repeatedly said that a trial against me would be welcomed by me in one respect, because it would have to be ascertained that I had done nothing in violation of international law.
Q. Field Marshal, we have deviated a bit from what we set out to do. We shall assume now that a company commits an excess which requires intervention. What way does a message, or news, regarding such an excess take?
A. When the company leader has noticed this excess himself, he will make a report regarding the facts of the case.
Q An intermediate question; what do you mean by report regarding the facts of the case?
A. Report concerning the facts of the case means giving a report regarding the incident which points to a criminal act. Together with it the proceedings are opened or rather are requested against the culprit.
Q. Now, what way does this news take?
A. This message is posted from the company leader to the battalion leader.
Q. Now, supposing the battalion commander does not pass it on. What action must he expect if he does not pass it on?
A. Well, he makes himself punishable. That is a dereliction of duty, definitely.
Q. And what further way does the message take?
A. Then it reaches the regimental commander, and from the regimental commander to the divisional commander. The divisional commander is the judicial authority.
Q. Has the division commander got a court?
A. Yes.
Q. Supposing a message arrives at the Army High Command from which it is learned that a unit has committed an excess. At what time now does the highest military officer, that is, the commander in chief of the Army, interfere or intervene?
A. If he gets the impression that the subordinate officer, that is, the court, there is the judicial authorities have not interfered although they should have done so.
Q. Now, what can you presuppose in such cases as supreme commander of an army?
A. This report from below has gone through the judicial offices of the first instance and of the second instance, one has to assume that everything was in order, that nothing illegal has happened.
Q. You mean, in other words, a supreme commander cannot, unless he established something extraordinary, assume that all the subordinate instances have failed in the case and that an excess has been committed.
MR. DENNEY: Your Honor, I object to that as a leading question. Let the witness testify. We are dealing in vague hypotheses now anyway, but I think this goes too far. I object to the form.
THE PRESIDENT: Sustained.
Q. (By Dr. Laternser) As supreme commander can you assume responsibility for all the excesses of your troops?
A. No. For the excesses of the troops which I don't know of, I can assume responsibility as little as the head of a state for the murder which has been committed in his country.
Q. Now, a few questions of a general nature before we come to the individual cases. To what extent did you at that time know the contents of that material which the prosecution has submitted here?
A. The contents of this material was known to me only to a very small, to a fractional extent.
Q. Now, a few questions in order to explain things. From when till when were you supreme commander of the 12th Amy in the Balkans?
A. The supreme commanders of the 12th Amy, I was from the beginning of the campaign there until I was appointed Armed forces commander.
Q. And from what date to what date were you armed forces commander Southeast?
A. I became armed forces commander Southeast with the Fuehrer directive number 31, and I exercised these powers from the 23rd of June, 1941 onwards.
Q. Until when?
A. Until the 15th of October 1941.
Q. In other words, from the 23rd of June, 1941 until 15th of October, 1941 you had territorial powers in the Balkan threaten of war; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you exercise these powers yourself?
A. These powers were exercised by the plenipotentiary offices or intermediate offices.
Q. Which were subordinate to you?
A. Which were subordinate to me.
Q. Did you have an area in which there was no intermediate authority, no intermediate office?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, we will adjourn at this time until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 18 September 1947 at 0930 hours).
Official Transcript of Military Tribunal 3, case 7 in the matter of the United States of America against Wilhelm List et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 18 September 1947, 0930Judge Burke presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal V.
Military Tribunal V is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you will ascertain as to whether or not all defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the Courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Burke will preside at this day's session.
JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed, Dr. Laternser.
Just a moment.
It is the thought of the Tribunal that since the discussion was had at the session yesterday with respect to the order of presentation of proof that upon information coming to the Tribunal from Dr. Laternser, as spokesman for all the defense counsel, save one, Dr. Sauter, that the tentative rules suggested by the Tribunal with respect to the temporary withdrawal of witnesses at the conclusion of the direct examination and the delay of cross-examination on the part of the Prosecution will be abrogated, and that the Prosecution will have the opportunity to proceed at the conclusion of the direct testimony with such cross-examination as they may desire to make. This ruling on the part of the Tribunal is based upon the statement of Dr. Laternser, spokesman for the defendants.
As a matter of convenience for the Tribunal and for the orderly proceeding of the trial it is the wish of the Tribunal that at the earliest possible moment counsel will indicate the number of the defendants who will wish to testify, and the order in which they may be called.
This in order to prevent any delay with respect to the 24-hour rule, or for any other cause.
You may proceed, Dr. Laternser.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honor pleases, I might make a suggestion with reference to the other witnesses which the defense may at the present time plan to call. I think it would be helpful to the Tribunal, and while I am not trying to take any undue advantage of the defense and obtain a list of witnesses in advance, I would like to call defense counsel's attention to the fact that we have a list of a substantial number of persons whom they are going to bring here If they could find it convenient to prepare a list of proposed witnesses and serve it as much in advance as possible, there is nothing binding upon them at a later time to produce those witnesses but that way the Tribunal and the Prosecution will have some idea as to the numbers of those who are going to be called or who it is presently planned to perhaps call.
JUDGE BURKE: The Tribunal can see no objection to the proposal made by counsel, for the prosecution, and while it may not necessarily be an arbitrary rule it would be helpful to the proceedings now before the Tribunal.
MR. DENNEY: I make that merely as a suggestion, and of course appreciate the Tribunal is not making a directive on it , and I thought it if was called to the attention of defense counsel it might help.
JUDGE BURKE: Do you find any objection to the proposal as made by Mr. Denney?
DR. LATERNSER: As far as my own personal view is concerned, I certainly intend to name those whom I propose to examine, without binding myself, because only after the witnesses have arrived here can I determine whether I want to examine them in the court or not.
JUDGE BURKE: I think the justice of that position is apparent to the Tribunal, and I am certain that Mr. Denney's suggestion was made merely in the spirt of expediting the trial, and the Tribunal will cooperate with the efforts of both of you to that end.
It is the thought of the Tribunal that if convenient, before the morning recess we should be advised of the name of the witness to be called following the witness now on the stand. That would prevent any immediate possible delay, and the other matter referred to may be considered in proper time and the proper course of proceedings.
DR. LATERNSER: I may be able to do it right away.
Your Honor, I have inquired from my colleague, Dr. Menzel, and he has told me that after Field Marshal List has been examined General Kuntze will testify.
JUDGE BURKE: Very well. I am sure that information will be of some assistance to the Tribunal and also to counsel for the Prosecution.
You may proceed.
WILHELM LIST DIRECT EXAMINATION.
(Continued).
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q Field Marshall, we now want to come to a couple of individual cases; from Exhibit 19, which is in the English Document Bock 1, on page 68, and in the German Document Book 1 is on page 49, we see that on the 18 July General Lomschar was attacked and in this connection I want to ask whether you ordered anything in regard to this matter?
A In this matters I gave no orders.
Q Do you know what the handwritten addition on Exhibit 19, the "Counter-measures", is supposed to mean?
A That is an inquiry of the Chief of Staff directed to the 1-C.
Q The prosecutor now says that this must be an inquiry addressed to you?
A No.
Q Why wouldn' t it be that?
MR. DENNEY: Your Honor, I have to object to Dr. Laternser's interpretation of what we maintain. I don't recall that we ever said that. The witness has now identified that it is a communication of his then Chief of Staff Foertsch addressed to the 1-C, the Intelligence Officer, and I would suggest to Dr. Laternser that he refrain from leading the witness by telling him what he thinks we are contending.