A. I lead the corps from the beginning of the Russian campaign from the 22nd of June until the beginning of October. I cannot give an exact date.
Q. Was the 61st Infantry Division ever subordinate to you during that time?
A. The 61st Infantry Division was subordinate to me during an operation near Koon and Oesel.
Q. And the 217th Infantry Division, do you recall that being subordinate to the 42d Corps?
A. The 217th Infantry Division was subordinate somewhat earlier, as far as I can recollect from the beginning of August onwards until October.
Q. Now, you said, General Kuntze, that General Strauss received the Commissar order, but that he did not pass it on in the form in which he received it, he changed it to read "Political Commissars among the Russian troops were to be treated as prisoners of War and not to be executed out of hand," and you also stated, that Strauss was not to pass the order out of form, namely that he was to pass prisoners of war on to you?
A. Strauss did not receive the order in this way, but rather he passed it on in this shape to us as his subordinate generals.
Q. Did he pass it on to you in writing?
A. No, the order was communicated verbally.
Q. How did you pass it on to you subordinate units.
A. I passed it on verbally to the three divisions subordinate to me.
Q. The way you passed it on was to the effect that political commissars were to be treated as prisoners of war?
A. Yes, they were to be treated as prisoners of war.
Q. That was because, I take it, the political commissars who were with the Russian troops were possibly uniformed and were garbed as troops of Soviet Russia?
A. It is to be assumed that they belonged to the troops and were completely uniformed.
Q. Did Strauss tell you that the order he received was to treat the political commissars not as prisoners of war, but to execute the mout of hand?
A. I cannot of course say now what the order read in detail. As far as I remember it said Commissary are not to be shot but are to be treated as prisoners of war.
Q. Did you ever hear of the commissar order in the form in which it was sent out by the OKH?
A. No, I only read the commissar order here.
Q. You didn't hear about it before you came to Nurnberg?
A. In the version as it is here I only learned of it here.
Q. General Kuntze, will you look at this document, please.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: We offer this NOKW 1533, as Prosecution Exhibit 592.
Q General Kuntze, you will note that this is an enclosure to the 1-C Activity Report, the War Diary of the 217th Infantry Division. Will you look under the entry for 4th July 1941? "4 July 1941, So far 4 dead Politruks, 1 captured alive was handed over". Do you know what a Politruk was?
A I am sorry. Can you just tell me which report you are referring to? I have here the report of 27 June and the 1 July.
Q Will you look under 4 July 1941? Do you know what a Politruk is?
A A Politruk is a political commissar. I don't know what his tasks are, what his position is.
Q He corresponded to the political commissar, except that he was connected with a battalion -- lower, isn't that correct?
A I cannot tell you. I don't know anything about this.
Q General Kuntze, will you look under the entry for 27 June 1941 -- I beg your pardon, under the evening report for 1 July 1943: "The advance of the Division proceeded according to plan and, for the time being, was continued as far as the area of Jocava. During the advance the woods were searched. 30 prisoners were taken. These Russians all belonged to the dispersed 90th Division. Gradually, after days of wandering about and persuasion by the civilian population, they became certain they will not be shot any more. Partly they already turned themselves in voluntarily. The 389th Infantry Regiment shot a Political Commissar." Then will you look down at the final sentence of the entry, "Political Commissars were shot by the 1st Battalion of the 389th Infantry Regiment. Detailed reports about the prisoners follow." Does this refresh your recollection at all about the execution of political commissars by units subordinate to you when you were commander of the 42nd Corps in Russia?
A The 42nd Corps, you mean?
Q Yes.
A I may refer to my statement that from the beginning of June until July I was in the 9th Army to which this division did not belong, rather the division I Can only designate it by the names of its commanders, the division von Studnitz, the division Rittau and Division Ansorge.
The 217th Division was with the 18th Army: The division only became subordinate to me when I was used in Estonia. I may briefly repeat that after I finished my first task in the East I was withdrawn from the Army at the beginning of July, as far as I remember, that then I had to lead the Reserves of the 16th Army, and after we had crossed the Duena I received the order to march off to the 18th Army, I was resting there for a few days and then I was used again for covering the attacks which had started in the middle of Estonia against Reval, and only at that time the 217th Division became subordinate to me.
Q Do you believe -
JUDGE BURKE: Just a moment, please. I am a little confused. Apparently it purports to be a report from the 22d June to 13 July 1941. Your question has just referred to an evening report of July 1, 1943.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I am sorry I didn't call Your Honor's attention to this earlier. It is a typographical error which can be seen from the original document. It should read 1 July 1941.
Q You say General Kuntze, on 1 July 1941 the 217th Division was not subordinate to you?
A No.
Q General Kuntze, let's turn for a minute again to the subject of reprisals - very briefly. What is your definition of a reprisal?
AA reprisal measure is a measure which has to be taken and may be taken if warnings addressed to the population are constantly disregarded. That is warnings which were issued in order to prevent illegal actions against the occupational power.
Q Reprisals are to be used only as a last resort, are they not, General?
A Yes, as a last resort after the warnings which were issued in Serbia by the Commanders during my time were ignored.
Q They are to be proportionate to the act for which the reprisal is to be taken, are they not? That is to say the act of reprisal must not exceed in violence the act for which the reprisal is taken?
A There is no provision to that effect. It is obvious that reprisal measures must be applied in such a way that they reach their aim. That before my time such measures were taken is universally known, and is not denied. But that these harsh measures fulfilled their purpose is not only proved by the reports which are in existence about them, but also by reports to the effect that in the Serbian area around about 1941-1942, peace and quiet was restored, and that this lasted in general until the summer of 1942, - that is as far as I can judge it.
Q You never heard that reprisals taken must be proportionate to the act of violence for which they are taken?
AAs far as regards my own attitude, - as far as they were carried out by me, - they were always in the proper relation. I have only stated that I remember the case of General Bader in January 1942. General Bader had issued a very harsh reprisal measure, but this reprisal measure had its justification in the fact that in the case in question it concerned a communistic band of murderers, we had located several murderers already - and that in this case we had first of all applied mild measures, and then he had to apply sterner measures in order to stop the activities of this band.
Q You don't need to go into all those details, General Kuntze, I just wanted to find out if you agree that reprisal measures must be proportionate to the act for which they are taken in reprisal, do you agree to that?
A That depends on the situation. Now, one cannot make a statement of a general nature. If you imagine yourself to have been there at that time -- the main thing was to justify the contrary, and I can agree with the opinion which was given by Bader at that time that as far as possible we should act mildly, but if the situation demanded it we would have to be exceptionally stringent.
Q Do you believe there are no limitations to what a commander can do in reprisal for an illegal attack upon his troops.
A I don't put it that way. The limitations may be found in the general laws of humanity.
Q Isn't one of those limitations the fact that reprisals must be proportionate to the illegal act?
A I have already stated that this depends entirely upon the situation. One can not generalize about this. In Serbia situations arose which had been caused by the other side which cried to High Heaven not only were our soldiers murdered in the most beastial manner, but the inhabitants were also murdered in the same way. Terror and terrible ferocity was rampant, and the population was ordered to work at factories where there occurred sabotage, and all of these are conditions which have their effect on the reprisal measures which had to be taken.
Q. Now do you agree that reprisal measures must never be taken out of vengeance, but must always be taken with an idea of deterring the population from Committing similar illegal acts in the future?
A. If we had wanted to take revenge, We could have done so, because then we could have become really violent.
Q. Do you mean you murdered these partisan , not motivated by vengeance?
A. No.
Q. You also had the idea of deterrence in mind?
A. We wanted to warn the population to desist from participation in the activities of the partisans.
Q. You mean by taking severe reprisal measures attacking of homes, by taking of hostages, you could deter the partisans from attacking your troops?
A. That has happened. I have repeatedly stated that after the fighting near Uzice in November, there was a complete cessation of insurgent activities so that we restricted our reprisal measures. I may repeat again that in December, the reprisal order issued by Boehme was altered in its essentials, and that in the last resort the compilation which was made, proved that the ratio of the reprisals to the losses, was a very restricted one.
Q. General Kuntze, please try to answer my question. I asked what your motive was in taking reprisal measures. I asked you especially whether you took reprisal measures out of vengeance, or whether your motive was one of deterrance?
S. No, it was a reprisal. The population was to be deterred and the aim was to make it desist from participation in and acts of sabotage.
Q. General Kuntze, would you look at Exhibit 161 in Document book 6. page 100, in the English, and page 81 in the German -
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat that again, please?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Exhibit 161, Document book 6, page 100 in the English and page 81 of the German.
Q. General Kuntze, this order outlines the procedure by which German losses are to be avenged. Will you look at page 83 in the German, page 102 in the English, under paragraph 5, "Reprisal prisoners and hostages may from now on be shot only on my previously given written order, which is to be obtained for each individual case. The principle is that the unit is to avenge its losses itself, if at all possible."
The language there is that of vengeance rather than of deterrance. Can you explain that?
A. This is a mistake in the language which can unfortunately be found repeatedly in orders relating to reprisal measures.
Q. Do you think that kind of language is improper?
A. No.
Q. Do you agree that that language is a correct statement of the motive which had moved German troops in their conduct of reprisal measures?
A. The motive was not vengeance, but it was a motive of reprisal of retaliation.
Q. And retaliation must have as its end deterrance rather than vengeance?
A. Yes.
Q. You disagree with the Plenipotentiary Commanding General in Serbia who used the language of vengeance here with respect to reprisal measures?
A. No.
Q. Do you agree that the language is perfectly proper?
A. No, that is not correct.
Q. You disagree with the language which the Plenipotentiary Commanding General in Serbia used?
No.
Q. I don't quite understand. Do you agree that this language is perfectly proper? That is, that the language of vengeance should find its way into an order with respect to reprisal measures?
A. Pardon. I have said the opposite.
Q. You believe that this language is perfectly proper?
A. No. I have said the opposite.
Q. In other words, you disagree with the Plenipotentiary Commanding General in Serbia who used this language; you would not use this language yourself?
A. No, I have already said that this expression is wrong, - incorrect.
Q. If you had heard about the Plenipotentiary Commanding General instructing his troops in this manner you would have called him to task would you not?
A. I must say that I have read this report here repeatedly. This word, "revenge" I have -- this word has struck me for the first time today, because the whole tone, the whole tenor of this order seems to prove to me that it was not aiming at vengeance. If Bader had wanted to take his revenge, he would not have so clearly the reprisal measures as much as he has done in order to prevent excesses.
Q. Your victims in these reprisal measures were of two types as I understand your testimony. They were hostages who had previously been taken from all classes of the population and held in certain camps, and they were also captured partisans. Now directing your attention/ first to the hostages. It is true, is it not? that hostages must only be taken before an attack occures?
A. Yes.
Q. Now when attacks did occur in villages from which you had previously taken hostages; your troops executed those hostages, did they not?
A. If an attack originated from a village, these hostages which are reported by the troops, were not hostages at all; they were prisoners.
Q. Now general Kuntze, weren't persons taken from all classes of the population, civilians arrested and gathered together in certain camps, and weren't posters put up in the village saying that if an attack occurred in this village, then "the hostages which we have previously taken will be shot?"
Wasn't that "practice followed in the southeast during your tenure?
A. No, in general they were not. This taking of hostages was continued, of course, and it served as a means of pressure in order to restrict acts of sabotage so far as possible. In the first reports from November shootings of hostages wore reported, but in this case, this is probably not a matter of hostages, because at the beginning it says, "Shot in combat, so-and-so many; shot as hostages so-and-so many; taken prisoner in combat, so-and-so many, and it cannot be a case of hostages merely, but of prisoners. I have also established that the language used for these reports is not clear either.
For instance, in a case which was submitted by the prosecution, that the 3rd Battalion of the 697th Division, had shot 130 men; a later report says, -- I must correct "later"-. I must correct the word, "later"-I mean to say, it was reported by another office that in the same case, it was a matter of hostages, either of hostages or of prisoners.
Q. General Kuntze, you are familiar with Field Marshal List's order of 5 September, stating that hostages should be taken; you are familiar also with Keitel's directive of 16 September 1941 stating that hostages should be taken from all classes of the population; you are familiar also with Boehme's order regarding the arrest of hostages from all classes of the population, Nationalists, Communists, Jews and Democrats; now do you mean that there were no hostages of that type executed in the southeast area while you were Deputy Armed Forces Command for the Southeast, and that the only persons shot in reprisal were captured partisans?
A. I could not establish from the documents that these were really shootings of hostages.
Q. Will you look at -
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Fenstermacher, I believe we will take our morning recess at this time, due to outside circumstances.
(Court in recess until eleven o'clock.)
Q. General Kuntze, returning how to the matter of reprisals, and particularly the persons who were the victims of the reprisal measures of your troops, is it your position that the persons executed in reprisal for German losses, were captured partisans in every case, and not hostages?
A. I have already stated that according to what I could ascertain, that generally speaking, people were concerned who had either been recognized as active partisans or actively helped persons from bands, and had thus been found guilty, and accordingly had to be treated as franc-tireurs.
Q. Well, what about the orders of List and Keitel and Roehme and Bader to the effect that civilians of all classes of the population were to be arrested as hostages and to be shot if attacks took place in the village from which they were seized? Were those orders unfamiliar to you?
A. Those orders I do not know now in detail, but in my memory it is very difficult to separate what I know at that time and what I know now from the order of Field Marshal List. It can be seen, in my opinion, that he, in order to avoid spilling the blood of people who were not guilty, that is to spare the hostages, he ordered that for reprisal measures primarily people should be taken who had been recognized as helpers of partisans and had then been brought to camps. The order of Boehme of the 10th of October says that as reprisal, hostages or prisoners were to be shot.
Q. There is a difference, then, between a hostage and a retaliation prisoner?
A. Yes, in deed, but a retalitation prisoners had to be considered as hostages at the same time because the order by Field Marshal List says that, first of all, these people were to be taken in case a retaliation incident occurred.
Q. Now, let us think only now of those persons who were taken from all classes of the population as hostages. They were persons who had nothing to do with partisans.
They were not members of the partisan units, They were simply innocent civilians who were rounded up and held as hostages in order to deter the rest of the population from attacking your troops and installations. Were persons of that nature hostages executed so far as you remember while you were Deputy Armed Forces Commander Southeast?
A. No, I cannot remember that such people were executed.
Q. General Kuntze, will you turn to Exhibit 204 in Document Book VIII, which is on Page 30 of the English and Page 28 of the German, This is an order of General Bader for the 21st of June, 1942. Page 30 of the English, Document Book VIII. This is an order of General Bader. Its subject is "The Taking of Hostages." And in the course of this order he outlines in a very detailed manner the procedure for the taking and the executions of hostages. Will you turn to Page 31 of the German, and Page 33 of the English, under Paragraph 2, preparation the last paragraph under Paragraph 2: "The hostages are to be taken from all circles of the population. In the first place, men from 16 years upwards are to be considered." Now, this order says nothing about captured partisans. It talks about hostages taken from all classes of the population. Do you believe that none of these persons were ever executed?
A. I cannot recall any subject case where such hostages were executed. He says further on in Paragraph 3 that the arrest of hostages is permissible only in case no other means are available, and he further says that these hostages have to be closely connected with the circles of persons who are to be intimidated and that hostages are not to be captured indiscriminately, otherwise loyal people who have up till now been inactive would be driven over to the enemy, etc.
Q. Do you believe that persons from all circles of the population , and particularly men from 16 years upwards are always somehow connected with the insurgent movement, and, therefore, they are not hostages at all, but suspects, or in fact, partisans themselves?
A. No, these hostages which Bader means in this order, they were not people who were connected with the partisans. They were just pure hostages.
Q. Were people of that kind ever executed so far as you know?
A. Now, of course, from the documents I know that there is always talks about the shooting of hostages, but it doesn't say clearly whether they were must hostages, these hostages or whether they were retaliation prisoners.
Q. General Kuntze, do you believe that so long as you were Deputy Armed Forces Commander Southeast the only persons who were executed in reprisal for attacks on German troops and installations were captured partisans and not persons who were innocent and hostages who had previously been taken from all circles of the population? Is that your position?
A. Yes, that is my opinion.
Q. General Kuntze, these partisans, after you captured them, you executed those partisans because they had taken up arms against you illegally. That is to say, they were war criminals. They had breached the laws of war.
A. According to the orders which were binding for us they were to be treated as franc-tireurs.
Q. It was illegal for them to take up arms against you?
A. Yes, because they took up arms against us.
Q. You could have executed them for that reason only? It had nothing to do with reprisals?
There were other reasons too because these partisans fulfilled all the orders which are prescribed by the Hague Convention and which made them franc-tireurs, and they were not proper belligerents.
Q. There was no question of reprisal involved in the execution of captured partisans because.....
A. No.
Q. Well, then all the language in the documents saying that partisans were executed in reprisal is wrong because these partisans were executed not in reprisal but simply because they were franc-tireurs.
A. That is difficult to say too. It is just the same as if the losses which the partisans suffered during combat were also counted as retaliation.
Q. By executing captured partisans do you expect to deter other partisans and other members of the occupied countries from attacking your troops? What was your purpose in executing captured partisans?
A. In order to spare innocent blood. This was commanded by Field Marshal List, I believe it was in the order of 10th of October.
Q. Do you expect by executing captured partisans to deter other persons in the occupied countries from attacking your troops?
A. The best proof is the fact that in Serbia after the rigorous measures which, in my opinion, were justified, the country became pacified and that people were detered from going over to the partisans. I know much more now than I knew at that time. Now, I know exactly that Mihajlovic, before the insurrection on which we had to count according to my order of the 19th of March 1942, desisted from starting anything because he told himself that the losses of the insurgents would be so great, for one thing in combat, and for another in reprisal measure, that he couldn't do anything of this kind.
Q. General, perhaps you could give shorter answers to my questions. I asked whether by executing captured partisans you intended to deter future attacks, and your answer is, I take it, "Yes." Did you make sure that in executing these captured partisans....
A. I beg your pardon. I didn't understand you clearly. What do you take for my answer?
Q. That you did expect to deter other partisans and other members of the occupied countries from making future attacks on your troops.
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. Did you make sure in executing captured partisans that you executed those partisans who came from a village in which an attack on your troops had taken place? Or was not that important to you?
A. That was, of course, an important factor, which was also pointed out in all orders also -- in that of Field Marshal List of the 4th of October, that partisans or that these retaliation prisoners had to be taken if in their village or in their district sabotage acts had occurred.
Q Now, suppose there was a band of about a thousand members operating in North Serbia and after combat you captured certain of those partisans. And then an attack upon your troops took place in South Serbia. Would you execute, in retaliation for the attack in South Serbia those partisand whom you had previously captured in North Serbia, no matter whore those partisans originally came from?
A I have never given any orders for executions. The responsible commander was the Commanding General in Serbia and acted according to the principles as they have been mentioned here, which can be seen from the order which he gave.
Q General Kuntze, I'm asking you to take yourself back to that period of time and try to remember what your information was then. If an attack took place in Village "X" would you execute in reprisal only those captured partisans whom you knew lived in Village "X"?
A I have never had to give any orders for execution. That was the concern of the Commanding General, and I am convinced that the Commanding General in Serbia ordered, -- he always made these measures himself, -- that people were taken who were in some way connected with sabotage acts or surprise attacks or anything like that.
Q Bearing in mind, General Kuntze, the fact that reprisal should be proportionate to the act for which they are taken, can you give me a "yes or no" answer as to whether you believe a 50 to 1 ratioris proportionate?
A I have already stated that it depends entirely on tho situation whether a high ratio had to be ordered or not. During tho first days it surely necessary to take harsh measures and that we endeavored to mitigate whenever the situation allowed it. I think I have proved that.
Q Can you imagine situations in which a 100 to 1 ratio would be considered proportionate?
A That figures sounds terrible now. I doubt, if in Serbia it was ever actually carried out, It says so on paper.
Q Can you imagine situations in which a 50 to 1 ratio would be considered proportionate?
A I have already said that I remember one case concerning Bader where he ordered such measures again Communist bands or murderers, and that such measures were ordered.
Q General Kuntze, are you in favor of a flat ratio of 50 to 1 for all cases of attacks upon German troops?
A It is difficult to say that generally. That depends on the circumstances. If a troop like you said just now was attacked in normal combat, nobody would get the idea to take a reprisal measure of 1 to 50 for the losses. But if people are murdered as had been described, in a bestial manner, and, later on, we captured such a band, in that case it is quite justified to take harsh measures. How can we otherwise achieve a deterring effect?
Q Do you believe that the 50 to 1 reprisal ratio is too harsh?
A I said for normal combat, as undoubtedly happened, it is too harsh. However, if a bestial murder occurred and later on, I managed to capture such a band, then I can well imagine that in a difficult situation such harsh measures have to be taken just in order to deter.
Q Would you be in favor of ordering a flat ratio of 50 to 1 for all cases in which attacks upon your troops took place?
A Whether I ordered such a thing? Do you ask mo whether I ordered such a thing? I didn't understand.
Q I'll ask you two questions. First: Did you ever order a flat ration of 50 to 1 for reprisal measures in cases of attacks against your troops?
A No.
Q Do you know whether troops subordinate to your command ever did execute reprisal measures at the ratio of 50 to 1?
A No, I don't know that either.
Q You don't know that? And if you had heard that your troops were executing persons at the ratio of 50 to 1 would you have issued orders for them to stop doing it?
A I have already said that again depends on the situation. In such a situation.
Q General Kuntze, let me interrupt. I thought I made myself clear. If you found out that troops under your command wore executing at a ratio of 50 to 1 in all cases of attacks upon German troops, would you have issued orders prohibiting them from doing that in the future.
A Yes, I would have done it, if General Bader, through the fact that he restricted orders of reprisal measures for himself, had not prevented me from doing any such thing.
Q General Bader prevented you from taking measures against a 50 to 1 ratio? General Bader was subordinate to you.
A No, you misunderstood me. I said I would have taken restrictive measures if General Bader, on his own initiative, had not ordered that reprisal measures were not to be ordered by the troops but only by him. Through this he alone had the power to restrict the extent of reprisal measures.
Q So you don't believe General Bader over permitted the executions at a 50 to 1 ratio?
A I have repeatedly said that General Bader, in one case, himself ordered that such reprisal measures should be taken. That was an exceptional case, the case of that Communist murder band. Other cases arc not known to me.
Q General, you yourself, in your order of 19th of March 1942, suggested a reprisal ratio of 100 to 1. Do you mean that ratio should be applied in case of every attack upon German troops?
A No, that was not an order at all; it was a decree which begins with "May", and it mentions examples. One can see it's a flexible measure. The whole order, which is very sharp, was issued at a time when one had to assume that in the near future there would be considerable unrest in Serbia, with the consequences well-known to us, and for that reason this order contained those sentences, and even today I do not know how it happened because all these directives which contained this ratio are a summary of orders issued by the OKH.
Q What do you moan, General Kuntze, in mentioning 100 to 1 reprisal ratio in your order of 19th of March 1942? Did you moan that that ratio would be applied in all future cases of attacks upon your troops, or did you leave it up to your subordinate commanders whether they should apply that ratio or not?
A In connection with the previous questions, I have to say the following. We are here concerned with the deterring measure, in view of the sabotage acts of the bands which were to be expected at that time, and it contains, and I think I remember it almost literally, "If the guilty are not captured, then retaliation measures of a general nature may be applicable. For instance, shootings ratio may be ordered; for instance, 1 to 100"
Q And if that ratio had been applied by troops subordinate to your command, you have not have been surprised and you would not have objected?
A No. That again depended on the situation. I say thank goodness that the situation on which we counted in that time did not, however, occur. The situation remained peaceful in Serbia, and the reports also show to what extent retaliation measures became necessary. Fortunately there were only a very few cases.
Q Now, General Kuntze, your troops also took reprisal measures against certain villages. Suppose a village quartered partisans for single night. Would you have permitted your troops to burn down that village in retaliation for the quartering of partisans?
A That is a purely theoretical question which I answer to the effect, just as theoretically, of course not; because if, as happened frequently, a village had to quarter bandits, because otherwise they would have shot all the inhabitants, then of course it would be wrong to order such retaliation measures against this village. However, as happened frequently, if villages were nests of resistance of bands-that is, bands were quartered there, they gave them food, they got munition for them, they looked after their communication, If it had been ascertained that the majority of the inhabitants voluntarily went over to the partisans, then I can well imagine a situation where the responsible military commander had to order retaliation measures of that kind.
Q Suppose the Partisans forced themselves on the inhabitants of the village and under duress made the inhabitants furnish them with food and quarters, would you then have been in favor of burning down the village in reprisal for the furnishing of food and the quartering of those partisans?
A No.
Q Did you ever hear of cases in which the partisans did force themselves upon the population?
A I did not hear of such individual cases, of course. I only know from the reports that partisans also issued a number of terror measures just in order to frighten the inhabitants and to get recruits.
Q Suppose, General Kuntze, there was a combat action between your troops and partisan units in the vicinity of a given village. Would you have been in favor of burning down that village in reprisal for the attack which had taken place near it?