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.
I think he is familiar with the method to be followed in asking questions.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I remember quite distinctly that the Prosecution, when submitting this document, maintained that this inquiry was addressed to the defendant Field Marshall List. If the Prosecution maintains this then, I must be allowed to question the person concerned regarding this matter.
JUDGE BURKE: In the interest of brevety, Dr. Laternser, you may proceed.
A The Chief of Staff would not direct an inquiry in this form to his superior officer. He addressed his inquiry to the 1-C, as I have already said, in order to get some clarity about these matters.
Q In Exhibit 22, which is in English Document Book 1, page 76, and in the German Document Book 1, page 55, this is a report of the Chief of the Security Police of the Security Service, and this report says that 32 communists, jews and band members have been shot. Did this report ever come to your knowledge?
A This report is not known to me, because this is from the office of the Chief of Security Police in Berlin and was not received by my office.
Q From Exhibit 23 in the English Document Book 1, page 80 and the German Document Book 1, page 58, we see that 52 communists and no jews were shot, what do you know about this?
A I don't know this detail.
Q I am now turning to Exhibit 39 of the English Document book 2, on page 10, and in the German Document Book 2 on page 6 -- English Document Book 2, page 10 -- this exhibit 39 shows that Col.
von Stockhausen on the 10th of August, because of an attack on German Police Forces ordered the shooting to death of 81 Serbs, from the neighborhood by Serbian gendarmes, according to this report, is supposed to have led to a ministerial crisis; did this case become known to you?
A The case would not have come to my knowledge at that time, because at that time, the 10th of August, I was absent. I was absent from 23 July to the 23 of August.
Q Was this incident reported to you after your return from leave?
A I could not say that now. Today, I cannot recall it.
Q I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that this case is further dealt with in Exhibit 40-A. In the English Document Book 2, page 20. Now, I turn to Exhibit 31, Exhibit 31 may be found in the English Document Book 1, page 111, and in the German Document Book 1, on page 86. From Exhibit 31 it follows that on the occasion of an incident the Zagreb, apart from 98, an additional 85, and another number which is not exactly known, of insurgents were shot. At that time who was commanding in Croatia?
A Croatia was an independent state. It was not subordinate to me.
Q Who possessed executive power in Croatia?
A The head of the State.
Q Why was this incident reported to the Wehrmacht commander southeast?
A On the part of the Plenipotentiary Commanding General in Agram, for information purposes.
Q. We now come to exhibit 39 which may be found in the English document book 2 on page 8 and in the German document book 2 on pages 11 and 12. In this exhibit we see that after an attack near Skela an, officer and a sergeant major were found dead, and three other sergeant majors were missing; in the report follows the reprisals which were taken, and I should like to ask you, Field Marshal, did you have any knowledge of that case at that time?
A. No, that took place in the middle of my leave on the 14th of August.
Q. The witness Kiessel asserts in the document, which the prosecution has submitted under No. 100-B 27 that this action Skela took place on the orders or with the express consent of the Chief of Staff; could General Foertsch issue such an order?
A. No.
Q. Did your yourself issue an order in this matter?
A. I could not do that because I did not know of this incident.
Q. I should like to point out the Tribunal that the same case is dealt with cumulatively in the following exhibits, in exhibit 59 English document book 2, pages 91 and 92, the German document book 2, page 74, further in exhibit 127 of the English document book 5, wage 33, the German document book 5 page 37; exhibit 128 of the English document book 5, page 132, German document book 5, page 87 and in exhibit 527 of the English document book 24, page 11 and the German document book 24, page 8. The case appears altogether five times.
We will now turn to exhibit 40, which is on page 20 of the English document book 2 on page 18. From this exhibit 40 we see that on 2nd September 20 Communists were shot for three German.
soldiers killed. Was this case reported to you; it is a case which took place near Rtanj, I will Spell it R-t-a-n-j?
A. I have only to repeat that it is no longer possible for me to tell you what were the individual reports which I received at that time. Today I cannot recall this incident, even though at that time I may have received it.
Q. I am now turning to exhibit 114-C. This is a supplement at the end of the 3rd document book in the English document book, and in volume 3 of the German edition on page 113. From this exhibit we see that on 19 September in Uzice that 154 band-members were shot there; during this case did you issue any orders?
A. No.
Q. What do you know about this case?
A. No details.
Q. I should like to draw the attention of the court of the fact that the same case is further dealt with in exhibit 45, English document book 2, page 42 and the German document book, 2, page 35. It is dealt with the third time in the English document book 24, page 28 and in the German document book 24 on page 21.
I will now turn to exhibit 61, which can be found in the English document book 2 on page 103, the German document book 2 on page 82. From exhibit 61 you see that the order of the plenipotentiary general Serbia of 23 September was sent to the Wehrmacht Commander Southeast for information purposes; do you know this order?
A. I don t know. If it had been sent to me for an acknowledgement I must have initialed it at that time.
Q. Let us assume that you received it; what could you have done then?
A. This is a teletype of the Plenipotentiary Commanding General addressed to the 342nd Division. This teletype was sent for information purposes to various offices.
I must assume that it reached them in the written form since the action which was ordered for the 23rd was arranged for the 24th. If I had received this order I could not longer have intervened.
Q Where was the Chief of Staff, General Foertsch at that time?
A. Foertsch was at that time on leave.
Q. Who was his deputy?
A. Colonel Kuebler.
Q. How were you informed about things at that time?
A. As I learned later, in an insufficient manner.
Q. With whom did you discuss this?
A. With my Chief of Staff after his return from Belgrade.
Q. From exhibit 115...I would like to be excused for a moment. I want to find out the English page numbers.
THE PRESIDENT. Very well.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. From page 115, volume 4, page 6, in the German, volume 4 on page 6, it follows, from a report from the 342nd Infantry division addressed to the Plenipotentiary Commanding General in Serbia, that in the course of a mopping up action 830 men were shot and 8,400 were arrested; were reports of such a nature known to you.
A. That is possible, even if I don't remember then today.
Q. Now, supposing that such a report was made known to you what would you think when you received such a message?
A. This was an extensive operation. I was also of the opinion that the lesses took plane during the actual fighting. I assume that the people were actually killed in combat or were franc tireurs who were shot by a summary court martial.
Q. Why shot by a summary court martial?
A. Just because they were franc tireurs or guerillas, had taken part in the fighting, or had been caught with a weapon in their hands.
Q. What did the German regulations state regarding the treatment of guerillas?
A. After the Guerilla order of the year 1939, guerillas could be shot during the actual fighting, or if they had taken part in the fighting with weapons, or if they had been captured carrying weapons.
Q. You say by summary court martial; what does this mean - a summary court martial?
A. A summary court martial can be convened by the regimental commander and comprises one officer and two associate soldiers, enlisted men of any ranks.
Q. I now turn to exhibit 62 in the English document book 2, we find it on page 107, in the German book 2 on page 85. In this exhibit we see an order of the Plenipotentiary Commanding General of Serbia for an evacuation of the Save Bend; did this order come to your knowledge?
A. No.
Q. In connection with this evacuation of the Save Bend; did you issue any order?
A. No, General Boehme had the general order from me to conduct the action and was completely independent in this respect.
Q. We now come to the case of Crabovac. This incident is dealt with in Exhibit 107 of the English document book 3, pages 103 to 118 in the German document book 3, pages 76 to 78; can you recall this case?
A. Yes.
Q. It follows from this exhibit that you ordered the investigation of this incident on the 6th of October; why did you issue such an order?
MR. DENNEY: I suggest that the witness testify and not Dr. Laternser. The witness was there, Dr. Laternser was not. He knows how to answer questions and tell us what he did, or didn't do.
JUDGE BURKE: The Tribunal will attempt to distinguish between the testimony of Dr. Laternser and the witness. You may proceed.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. Why did you issue the order for the investigation of this incident on the 6th of October?
A. A report by a sergeant major was submitted to me. It is unusual that such a report without giving the attitude and view of the intermediate officer, reaches the supreme commander. We will have to assume therefore that the senior signals officer had submitted his report to the chief of staff and that the chief of staff had passed it on to me. The senior signals officer had probably done that in order to justify himself regarding the frequent reproaches directed at him because of the failure of the lines of communication. At the same time he probably asked that the army should take care that more extensive security measures were taken.
Q. What was the importance of the telephone communications in the Balkans?
A. The importance is of a decisive nature as the area was very large and communications were bad. As such the troop units were separately disposed, had long lines of communication and in the case of a crisis they must have the possibility to support each other.
Q. When was a case of sabotage on telephonic communication lines especially effective?
A. Especially, of course, when there was tense situation and when unrest appeared here and there.
Q. Why did you now direct that an investigation of this case should take place; why were you of the opinion that in the case in question wrong measures had been taken?
A. From the report it is clear that the troubles in communications were of a considerable nature. About 100 telegraph or telephone poles had been cut down or sawed down and a number of kilometers of wire had been cut off. In the Balkans this is, of course of great importance, because there was no subterranean cables there and because of the great distance and bad roads and then because of the small forces available the repair of such cuts took considerable time. From the report I gained the impression that in this case they had dealt with it only in a superficial manner and the person should be arrested for a time until a further clarification took place.
Q. Now General Boehme reported to you in his letter of the 13th of October that he ordered every fifth house to be burned down; did you receive this message?
A. I could no longer receive this message because it was only written on the 13th, it was sent by letter and because on the 15th I was no longer in office.
Q. And finally in the Crabovac case, General Boehme reported on the 20th of October that the village of Crabovac was burnt down and 73 residents were shot because the troops had been shot at from this village; did you receive this message or did you obtain any knowledge of its contents?
A. For the reasons already mentioned, I could not know of it.
Q. We now turn to Exhibit 78, that is the case Topola of the Signals regiment exhibit 78, which may be found in the English document book 3 on page 1 and also in German document book 3 on page 1. Before I put a few questions regarding this case to the witness, I should like to draw the attention of the Court to the fact that this case is dealt with eleven times.
I want briefly to give you the page numbers in the English document books. It appears again in exhibit 79, volume 3, page 3; in exhibit 80, volume 3, page 4, in exhibit 81, volume 3, page 11; in exhibit 82, volume 3, page 16; in exhibit 113, volume 3, the supplement at the end of the volume ; then in volume 4 on page 93 and exhibit 122; then exhibit 124; volume 4, page 153.
MR. DENNEY: Can you give the page numbers and the volumes a little slower? We find it difficult to keep up with Dr. Laternser. I would appreciate it if he would give them a little slower.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I think that you --
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, of course.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I simplified the matter myself. I'm simply noting the exhibit numbers and will follow with the rest later.
DR. LATERNSER: Volume 4, page 93, Exhibit 122. Your Honor, only to mention the number of the exhibit would not suffice because they are usually a rather voluminous number of reports.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may follow your own procedure.
DR. LATERNSER: Exhibit 124, volume 4, page 143 , Exhibit 127, volume 5, page 56; Exhibit 128, volume 5, page 117; and Exhibit 527, volume 24, page 38.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. We see from Exhibit 78, volume 3, page 1 of both document books -- that on the second of October between Belgrade and Obrenovac, 21 soldiers, German soldiers, were murdered in a cruel manner by communist bands. When did you learn of this report?
A. The first report addressed to the Wehrmacht Commander Southeast is dated the 9th of October, 1941. On that day, I was in Crete and I returned on the 11th of October, and so the earliest I can have learned of this incident was on the 11th of October in the evening.
Q. What were the connections between the Army staff and yourself during your presence in Crete?
A. I had no connections with the staff during that time.
Q. How were you informed after you returned from official trips?
A. The chief of staff reported to me about everything that had happened in the meantime. During an absence of four days, that amounted of course to quite a number of things, so that the individual incident did not gain so much prominence as if it had been reported separately.