Q. Do you remember to have learned of this case at that time?
A. I remember this case rather obscurely.
Q. In Exhibit 80, the prosecution -- that is Exhibit 80, volume 3 of the English text and pages 4 to 10 ; volume 3, pages 3 to 8 in the German text. The prosecution has submitted a report regarding the shooting by way of reprisal. Did you gain any knowledge of this report?
A. No, the report was received by the Army High Commander on the 15th of October, and it was addressed not to the Armed Forces Commander Southeast but to the Army High Command 12. And the sender was the second battallion of the Army Signals Regiment 521. That means that in this case it was directed to the office in the staff of Army High Command 12 to which the second battalion of the Army Signals Regiment 521 was subordinate. That was the army signals Officer. But even if the report had been immediately dispatched to me, I could not have received it, because from that day onwards, I was no longer acting in my official capacity.
Q. I have just been told that "Nachrichtenfuehrer" was translated as the "intelligence" -- that is not the correct translation. It is not the person who collects news but who is responsible for the technical transmission of news. That is, the person who is responsible for having telephonic communications established.
THE INTERPRETER: The correct translation for "Nachrichtenfuehrer" I see, is staff signal communication officer.
Q. Do you know whether, in this case, actually 2,000 persons were shot?
A. I do not know that. I can only draw the conclusion from this report and this report says that a number of slightly over 400 were shot. A conclusive report on the part of a unit I did not find here.
Q. We now turn to Exhibit 83. We find this in the English document book 3, page 18, in the German document book 3, page 15.
That is the case of Kraljovo. What did you learn about this incident, at that time?
A. I did not learn anything about this incident.
Q. Why not?
A. These attacks took place between the 14th and 17th of October at a time during which I was no longer active in my official capacity.
Q. When were you operated on ?
A. October 17 .
Q. When did you go to bed?
A. On the 15th.
Q. Now regarding Exhibit 84 which contains the case of Valjovo, that is in the English document book 3, page 22, and German document book 3, page 19. What do you know about this incident?
A. I can only repeat what I said before, nothing. It took place even later than the other incident mentioned.
Q. Now as regards Exhibit 87, which we find on page 32 of the English document book 3 and the German book 3 on page 26, this is the case Cragujevac regarding which we had here a witness of the prosecution. Was this incident reported to you?
A. No, it couldn't be reported to me because it took place between the 19th and the 21st of October when I was absent.
Q. Now a few individual cases concerning Greece. In Exhibit 111; English document book 3, page 142; German document book 3, page 97, in this exhibit an operation is mentioned against eight localities which I need not enumerate separately. Was this incident reported to you?
A. I can no longer tell whether this happened or not. If so, then this incident would not have been very conspicuous to me. Apparently this is a case of a fight with bandits.
Q. In the same exhibit on page 141 of the English document book and page 96 of the German, a mopping up operation in five localities is mentioned, during the course of which 27 Greeks were shot during resistance or in fighting. What do you know about this incident?
A. That incident too I cannot remember; according to the report it is beyond question a fight against bands.
Q. The next three incidents in the same exhibit I can summarize in one question I am sure. This is a case on page 90-- I correct myself -- on page 144 of the English document book against the villages Amokatokerzillio and on the 19th and 20th of October against further localities near Evangelistria and on the 23rd of October against two further localities, among others Celli. What is you attitude to these three incidents?
A. I can only say here that I could not gain any knowledge of those three incidents.
Q. The prosecution has submitted Exhibit 59, which we find on page 79 of the English document book 2 and in the German document book 2 on page 63. From this exhibit 59, we see that in connection with the finding of explosives, 10, Communists and 3 Jews were shot. Were you informed of this incident at that time?
A. I can't tell you today whether I received this message or not. If I received it, I had to assume that the sentence and the execution took place because of the attacks against the occupation power, after a summary court martial or as a reprisal, but not because of racial reasons.
Q. In the same exhibit on page 79 of the German, and page-I am sorry I am not in a position to name the English pages. No, I correct myself -- on page 98 of the English. This contains a report to the Wehrmacht Commander Southeast from which it follows that parts of the male Jewish population in Belgrade were sent to a transit camp near Belgrade. Were you informed about these intentions before they took place?
A. No.
Q. Did you obtain knowledge of this report?
A. I cannot remember it.
Q. I am now returning to Exhibit 64 in English document book 2, page 117; in the German document book on page 91. This exhibit contains a report of the Plenipotentiary Commanding General Serbia addressed to the Wehrmacht Commander Southeast dated the 26th of September, and it follows from this report that in Smederovo and the neighborhood Jews were arrested and, as stated in the report, they were arrested as instigators of the revolt. Did you obtain knowledge of this report?
A. This too, I cannot say today whether I received it or not. If I had received it-- I would have to draw the conclusion from this report that the arrest took place exclusively because these were the instigators of the revolt.
Q. I now turn to Exhibit No. 127 in the English document book 5. We find it on page 27, and in the German document book 5 on page 34. According to this report, as a reprisal measure for a surprise attack against a German motor car on the 29th of July, a hundred Jews were to be shot. Do you know whether this shooting took place?
A. I beg your pardon, I don't have this report before me.
Q. It is on page 33 of the German document book 5.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: What page in the English document book?
DR. LATERNSER: In the English document book on page 27. I am told that it is on page 39. I beg your pardon.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You have been correctly informed.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. What date does this report bear?
A. It bears the date of the 27th of July.
Q. Where were you on the 27th of July.
A. In Vienna.
Q. Do you know whether this shooting was carried out?
A. No.
Q. We find -- and now this finishes my concluding questions. I want to deal first with Exhibit 100-B 27. This is a supplement to the third English document book and we find it behind, after page 78 and in the German document book 3 as a supplement behind page 57. This Exhibit is a statement by Kiessel which was made on the 24th of March, 1947, in Belgrade.
MR. DENNEY: Your Honors, I believe that exhibit we put in a separate folder.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I don't find it in mine.
MR. DENNEY: Well, if your Honors recall, we put them -- we took the Yugoslav exhibit and put them in a separate folder and kept them separate from book 3 because I don't think they fit in that book. The Yugoslav report, pictures, the tiessel affidavit, various newspaper clippings.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: They referred to as 100-B-item 27?
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honors recall, there Is 100-B, then 100B 1, etc. This part is 100-B 27.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: If you'll pass that for the time being we'll request the messenger to secure a copy for Judge Wennerstrum and a copy from my office. I think Judge Carter has his. Judge Carter?
JUDGE CARDER: Yes.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honors, may I be allowed to suggest that this be completed during the recess, and then we can continue after the recces.
JUDGE BURKE : It is the thought of the Tribunal that we will continue until 11:30, and then adjourn until after the noon. Is it possible without interrupting the continuity of your examination to proceed with some other matters at this time until the document books are brought in by the messenger?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: If you'll pause at this moment, Dr. Laternser, because of the necessity of the adjustment -- not an error, but a readjustment because of the additional length of time to make the film continue until 11:30. So, if you will discontinue (Pause) until the Tribunal notifies you?
Your may proceed, Dr. Laternser.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
This Exhibit 100-B 27 is a statement by Kiessel, which he made in Belgrade. Who was Kiessel?
A. As far as I can see now from the documents he belonged to the staff of War Administrative Chief.
Q. In which capacity?
A. He worked on administrative matters -- police matters.
Q. What were his further functions subsequently?
A. From the press I learned later on that he was one of the chief prosecutors of the conspirators of the 29th of July.
Q. Kiessel says on Page 21 that the Military Commander Serbia, a few days after the 29th of April, was subordinate to the AOK-12. Is that correct?
JUDGE WENNERSTRUM: Pardon me, which document is Page 21?
DR. LATERNSER: That is the first page of Document 100 B-27. which is numbered 21 at the bottom of this document. I assume that the same page number is found in the English text.
JUDGE WENNERSTRUM: The first page is numbered 24.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honors please, the reason for the difference in the pagination, the figure 21 appears at the bottom of Dr. Laternser's copy in the German and 24 at the top of the English. The document if Your Honors recall, originally was in Serbian -- Yugoslav, and when it was translated into the German and English the pagination was different. That's the reason for it.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. The matter to which I refer is on the first page of this extract from the record of the interrogation. I asked whether it was correct if Kiessel says that the Military Commander Serbia a few days after the 24th of April was subordinate to Army High Command 12.
A. No.
Q. Kiessel goes on to say on the next page that a police battalion was subordinate to the operational department instead of Thurner and was, therefore, misused. What do you know about that?
A. The Chief of Staff reproted to me at that time that the Military Commander Serbia had telephoned whether this police battalion could be subordinated to the Command Staff by him, whereupon I answered him. that the Military Commander might act in the way he deemed suitable. It was quite convenient for us because in this manner this police battalion was not delivered into the hands of Thurner who had the intention of trying to build up a sort of body guard for himself.
Q. Kiessel continues on the 4th page of the extract that it was typical of the conditions that you, during your first visit in Serbia, landed at Nish, and that you first asked for Bader and not for the Military Commander. How did that come about?
A. I did not land at Nish. I arrived by train in Nish, and the line from Salonika to Belgrade goes via Nish. It was, therefore, understandable that I first went to Nish. There I was received by General Bader who was at the same time the deputy of the Commander Serbia. The Commander Serbia had been prevented by an air-craft accident to come to Nish. Otherwise he certainly would have been present.
Q. In the next paragraph Kiessel maintains this: Contrary to the report of Field Marshal List, dated 23rd of August 1741, in Belgrade, the OKH has, after Nedic was made Premier in September, 1941, sent GeneralBomehme with a staff, of one Mountain troops, which were in Greece, to Belgrade with the order to quell the rising. Is that correct in the way Kiessel represents it here?
A. No, it's quite impossible that on the 23rd of August I could have made such an utterance, because a t that time I had just returned from my leave, and I found completely changed conditions in Belgrade. And the thought that Boehme could have been appointed Plenipotentiary General in Serbia was not considered at that time at all.
Q. Kiessel further states that reprisal measures took place between the 28th of June and the 20th of July, 1941, because of an attack on a grandstand. He says that these reprisals which had been ordered had been ordered by General von Schroeder with your consent. What do you say to that?
A. I have never talked to Schroeder either by word of mouth or by telephone.
Q. Finally Kiessel says in his statement that the Chief of Staff Gravenhorst with the Commander Serbia maintained that he had the power and the authority to take ten reprisal hostages for one victim on the German side. What do you know about that?
A. I've never given such authority.
Q. You know that the prosecution also charges you with the responsibility for the Commissar Order which is in Exhibit 13 and Exhibit 14. We find it in the English Document Book I on page 49 and in the German document book on page 34.
JUDGE CARTER: Which document book?
DR. LATERNSER: Document Book I, page 49.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. Did you receive this Commissar Order?
A. No.
Q. Do you know whether the Commissar Order was distributed in the Southeast?
A. No.
Q. Is one case known to you in which the Commissar Order was applied in the Southeast?
A. No.
Q. We now come to the concluding questions. When did you conclude your activities in the Balkans?
A. It was the 15th of October 1941.
Q. What was your illness then?
A. I had an appendicitis operation.
Q. And when did you go into the hospital?
A. On the 16th of October.
Q. You said before that you were operated on on the 17th of October.
A. Yes.
Q. Who was your deputy for the initial period?
A. On the 18th of October the OKW appointed General Kunze as my deputy, but he only arrived on the 26th of October in Athens.
Q. When did he take over the duties of your office?
A. On the 27th of October.
Q. Who managed matters in the meantime?
A. What the arrangement was in detail is not known to me.
Q. During your sickness did you have any official connection with the Staff of the Army High Command 12, or the Armed Forces Commander Southeast?
A. I had no official connection.
Q. Was your illness so serious that you could not be bothered with official matters?
A. Yes. General Kunze, too, could not come to me at once because my state of health did not allow this at the time of his arrival.
Q. How long did you remain in the hospital?
A. Until the 6th of December 1941.
Q. And where were you in the hospital?
A.. In Sismanoglion, in the immediate neighborhood of Athens.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The Tribunal will stand adjourned until two o'clock this afternoon.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1400 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1400 hours)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, may I first of all announce that I, in my capacity as defense counsel of Field Marshal List, and my colleague Dr. Menzel, as defense counsel of the defendant Kuntze, after Field Marshal List has been examined as a witness, we will produce a witness, the former Lt. Colonel Wenning. I am announcing it in order that the 24-hour limit be kept to.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Have you any comment at this time, Mr. Denney.
MR. DENNEY: I would just like to know that if defense counsel are able to advise us who the man is and how he spells his name.
DR. LATERNSER: The witness is at the moment in Nuernberg. His name is spelled as follows: Dietloff von Wenning.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: And at what time do you expect to produce him?
DR. LATERNSER: We shall produce him after concluding the examination of the witness who is on the witness stand now. That will be in the course of tomorrow.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
DR. LATERNSER: After the 24-hour limit has passed.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. Shortly before the recess you had stated that on the 6th or the 8th of December 1941 you had left the hospital and that you had been in a military hospital in Sismanoglion.
A. Sismanoglion.
Q. Where did you go after you left the hospital?
A. After I left the hospital, I went to Vienna, and then to Partenkirchen.
Q After you were discharged from the hospital, were you being medically treated?
A I was being treated for some time as an outside patient.
Q After you were completely recovered, did you again become Wehrmacht Commander Southeast?
A No.
Q Why not?
A Because, as Keitel told me, I had given the impression to Hitler that I had not crushed the insurgent movement in Serbia energetically enough.
Q After your recovery did you undertake steps to be employed again?
A No.
Q Why not?
A I had an opportunity during my stay at home to gain a better insight into the conditions at the time and into the activities of the Party.
Q Were you used again in an official capacity?
A Yes.
Q How did that come about?
A In the course of June I was asked to see Hitler at the Obersalzburg and he told me that he intended to use me in the East as Commander-in-Chief of an army group. This army group would be newly formed out of the Army Group von Bock, at a date and time when the offensive intended by him of a rather extensive nature had taken its start. I asked him at that time whether sufficient forces were available for such an extensive offensive, whereupon he told me yes, that would be his business and I shouldn't worry about it.
In reply to my further question about how the supply lines were secured in this rather difficult case, he answered quite briefly. I had the impression that he did not want to deal with all these things in detail.
Q When did you take up this command?
A. During June and the end of June I went to Poltava and I got the command on the 17th of July, and the time previous to that Hitler had been in Poltava for discussion with Field Marshal von Bock. There it was expressly pointed out to him that I was present; I was not called to attend this discussion.
Q. What course did the operation then take?
A. I advanced with the army group in the general direction via Rostov towards the Black Sea and against the passes of the Caucasian range. After I had reached the shores of the Black Sea in the neighborhood of Novorossisk, and the peaks of the Caucassus, Hitler asked that I attack with the forces of approximately one mountain corps across the Caucassus down to the Black Sea.
Q. Did you execute this order with the partial forces at your command?
A. I objected to this order because, though it probably would have been possible to carry it out, it would have brought the troops into a position for which I could not take the responsibility. Several times I asked by telephone to be allowed to report to Hitler personally about this, but I did not succeed in that. Therefore, I asked Jodl to come and see me. He arrived the next day by plane and agreed with me, and he promised, on the same afternoon, to bring me an answer from Hitler as I wished. This answer arrived after about one day and a half. This agreement of Jodls' with me had caused sharp controversy, as far as Hitler was concerned, which affected all the generals at the headquarters.
Q. Now, what was the end of this business?
A. After I had received the teletype, which in its essentials agreed with my views, Hitler did not insist on the attack. Field Marshal Keitel came to see me the next day and told me that the Fuehrer no longer had sufficient faith in me. For that reasons he asked me to resign my command of this Army Group. Keitel saw me between about 10 and 11 o'clock in the morning; at 12 o'clock I resigned.
Q. Where did you go then?
A. The next day I went by plane to Vienna.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: What was that date, please?
DR. LATERNSER: Which date was that?
DEFENDANT LIST: That was on the 10th of September 1942.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. And when did your discussion with Keitel take place?
A. On the 9th of September 1942.
Q. Well, how did it happen that you were allowed to resign from your post?
A. That was only possible because Hitler wished it. If I had not fulfilled this wish I would probably have received the order to do so.
Q. Were you personally injured or offended when you were asked to resign?
A. For an higher officer, during war-time, it is not particularly pleasant if he has to resign from his post, but , on the other hand, in this case, I looked upon it as quite a comforting situation because I told myself that in this manner I evaded quite a number of conflicts which would have had to come.
Q. What did you do after you left the Service?
A. After a short stay in Vienna I went to Partenkirchen; as soon as my treatment was no longer necessary in Vienna.
Q. And what did you do chiefly in Partenkirchen?
A. I lived a purely family life, and I spent some time on history and the history of art, and as long as it was possible, I did a lot of work in my garden.
Q. With whom did you have social contact?
A. In Garmisch-Partenkirchen I was a friend of General von Adam, who had left the service in 1938; I was also friendly with the General of the Artillery, Kuehlenthal, who , before the war, had to leave the Service for racial reasons. And then there were some other people, who did not, however, become intimate friends of mine.
Q. You said General Kuehlenthal had to leave the Service for racial reasons. What was your attitude -- we have not discussed this yet, -- regarding the Jewish question?
A. My attitude to the Jewish question is quite obvious from my behavior during the Jewish Programs in the year 1938 in Vienna. Apart from that I had a number of acquaintances who were Jewish themselves or who were married to Jewesses.
Q. Even during the war?
A. Yes, even in Partenkirchen.
Q. Was it know to you during the war that the majority of the Jews had been taken to concentration camps?
A. In the course of the war, the first time about 1941 or 1942, I heard of individual incidents that Jews were put into concentration camps.
To a greater extent about this I only learned after leaving the Service, and I learned of the total extent only after the end of the war.
Q. From then on that is from your resignation in 1942, what was your attitude to the Party circles in Partenkirchen?
A. I had no contact whatever with Party circles. I did not even know the Kreisleiter or the Ortsgruppenleiter of Partenkirchen.
Q. With whom did you have contact at that time, apart from those people mentioned.
A. I only had a very little contact outside Partenkirchen. There was an old friend from my university days. I also had contacts with the Infantry General of the Infantry Olbricht. He had been my former Chief of Staff in Dresden while I was Commanding General there.
Q. Did he often visit you?
A. He visited me about every two or three months.
Q. What did you talk about during these visits?
A. He always gave me a picture of the general situation and the military situation, and I had the impression that he was bothered by a lot of cares which he wanted to get rid of by talking to me.
Q. What was General Olbricht's fate?
A. General Olbricht was a leading conspirator during the 20th of July 1944, and he was shot in the Reich War Ministry.
Q. Were you informed about the plans leading to the attempt on Hitler's life in July of 1944?
A. No, I was not informed about these plans.
Q. Did you yourself suffer from the after-effects of the plot of July 20th?
A. Insofar as very early the next day a post office employee told me that my telephone communications were being tapped by the Gestapo, that is, they were being connected with the Gestapo line.
And insofar as during the next weeks, which I could easily recognize I was shadowed by some SS men in civilian clothes who were quartered in a nearby SS hospital.
Q. How and where were you when the war came to an end?
A. I was in Garmisch-Partenkirchen when the war enede, and I was able to make a small contribution in an unofficial way, to have GarmischPartenkirchen declared an open city, because in Garmisch -- Partenkirchen seventeen military hospitals were situated. Therefore, no fighting occured in Garmisch-Partenkirchen.
Q I am now putting my last question. At the beginning of these proceedings you stated that you do not feel guilty.
A Yes.
Q Are you still of this opinion, after the Prosecution has submitted its evidence.
A Yes. During my forty four years of military service it had always been my principle to instruct my men, old officers and young officers, in the guilding principles of justice, humanity, and fairness; and I have followed these guiding principles all my life and have tried to apply them in every situation as energetically as possible. This guiding principle was valid for me. It was, of course, also valid for me for my activity in the Balkans. If, at first sight, some measures, in view of the very bad material available, look rather inhuman, these measures too have their origin. And I want to assure you of this; I want, your Honor, to know that they had their origin in military necessity, and they sprang from no other motives.
Q For the time being I have no further questions.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Dr. Rauschenbach for the Defendant Foertsch.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH:
Q Field Marshal List, I have only a few questions regarding General Foertsch. When did General Foertsch become Chief of Staff with you?
A Foertsch became Chief of Staff during the first ten days of May, 1941.
Q Did you ask for this change in your Chiefs of Staff?
A No.
Q Was this change a surprise to you?
AA complete surprise.
Q Was this change desired by you?
A This change was like every change of this kind, one had agreed with the predecessor, it was highly undesirable.
Q Did you know General Foertsch previously?
A I knew General Foertsch quite superficially from a few official meetings in the Reich War Ministry.
Q What was your opinion of him? From the personal papers of General Foertsch I have found no judgment concerning him from you.
A Foertsch has a clear intellect; he can talk well, and he can also write well. He was a very keen worker. He was adroit and showed himself so in intercourse with superiors, with equals, and with subordinates; in his social intercouse with our allies. The Staff had full faith in him. Summing up, I can only say that he was an excellent Chief of Staff.
Q Was he a so-called trouble maker?
A No; on the contrary, he supported me when I complained to the OKW, and we had, of course, no other aim than to occupy a pacified country. I mean we did not welcome the transfer of larger stretches of Greece and Croatia to the Italians and of further parts of occupied territories to the Bulgarians.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Just a moment, please.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH:
Q Did General Foertsch have any tendency towards transgressions in his office?
A I never experienced or saw him transgressing his powers.
Q Do you have the impression that he reported everything to you which required your decision as Commander in Chief and which you had to know?
A I had the very definite impression that he informed me regarding everything I had to know.
Q Did he ever transgress his powers as Chief of the General Staff?
A No case is know to me, and I never heard anything from subordinate officers that they complained about such actions.
Q What was the relation to the commanders subordinate to you? Did you ever hear any complaints?
A No, I always had the impression that the ************* very pleasant and satisfactory one.
Q And what was his relationship with the OKW?
A His attitude was very critical. Some of the directives we received he could not understand because they had been issued without sufficient knowledge of our conditions.
Q And how did he represent his and your views to the OKW?
A I had the impression that he represented our view in a very adroit and firm way.
Q What is known to you regarding the views of General Foertsch at that time towards the Party?
A His attitude became more and more critical and negative in the course of time.
Q Now, a last question. Even before the 31st of August was the employment of the XVIIIth Mountain Corps considered for Serbia?
A Nobody thought of it at that time.
Q Thank you; I have no further questions.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Any further questions by members of the Defense Counsel Staff? Mr. Denney?
MR. DENNEY: Your Honor, in view of the statement which was made yesterday, I would appreciate it if I could have sometime to go over my notes. The could adjourn until tomorrow morning, because I understand that this witness is not to be cross-examined until a later time.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: It is the view of the Tribunal that, in view of the quantitative suggestion of the Tribunal yesterday, with respect to the order of the testimony, your request is reasonable and will be granted. The Tribunal will adjourn until tomorrow morning at half past nine.
THE MARSHAL: The Court will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(Court adjourned at 1445 hours, until 0930 19 Sept 1947.)