A. As in ever situation like this, one either has trust in one's Chief of Staff or one hasn't. Foertsch had supported me according to his best belief and knowledge.
Q. Do you consider Foertsch a man of extremely high intelligence?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he initiate measures, did he come to you and say this ought to be done on many occasions?
A. It was part of a chief's task sometimes to suggest measures. I certainly want to emphasize that Foertsch was never what you call an instigator. He never tried to instigate sharp measures.
Q. Did Foertsch have a great deal of influence on you?
A. Foertsch had no influence on me, and I had to receive his suggestions and his proposals at first, but I remember that we had differences of opinion later on, not on the questions mentioned today but rather in the tactical field.
Q. Did you ever have the feeling Foertsch was dominating you, that he, rather than you, was the power in the Southeast?
A. No.
Q. Did you consider Foertsch next to you the most powerful man in the Southeast during your tenure?
A. A chief of staff has no power to order actions. For that reason he cannot be the most powerful man.
Q. But in the sense of having influence and respect for his judgment wasn't Foertsch a very powerful man at the Armed Forces Southeast Headquarters?
A. That one has to agree as Chief of Staff is clear. That one has to discuss some measures of a general measure is clear. I can only answer the question so far there is no question of power as mentioned here, because the Chief of Staff is advisory, but is not a commander.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: No further questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE CARTER: Any redirect examination?
DR. MENZEL: Yes.
Menzel for General Kuntze. Your Honor, before I start the redirect examination I want to make a short observation regarding the following point. On Friday we received the German transcript for the cross-examination before the recess. I have ascertained that some mistakes have occurred in this transcript, which are probably due to the fact that General Kuntze has taked somewhat fast, and not very clearly, and that for this reason the interpreters and court reporters could not follow him. Today I received the English transcript, and I found there that in general that the English transcript is correct. If it should turn out that the English transcript too contains mistakes the court will, I hope, allow me to rectify this at a later date.
JUDGE CARTER: Certainly.
DR. MENZEL: Thank you.
I will try to be as brief as possible in my redirect examination.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. MENZEL:Q.- General Kuntze, you will remember that before we went into recess in cross-examination the question of the executive power in the Balkan area was discussed.
You said that you would appoint and dismiss civil servents, that this was in the framework of this executive power. In this contention I want to put some questions to you.
A.- May I just say something to that? As far as I remember, I said that in peacetime -- that is, in Germany -- a dismissal of civil servants was in the hands of the commander to whom the executive power had been transferred.
Q.- Yes. You mean to say that during peacetime, for instance in Germany, if a high commander had been given executive power?
A.- No. That was actually the case. Field Marshal von Rundstedt received executive power when the Prussian government was removed and I remember that in this position he removed the police president of Berlin as well as the Commander of the Security of Berlin on the strength of his executive power.
Q.- How, what about executive power for you during your tenure of office as commander? Could you, for example, dismiss Serbian or Greek officials?
A.- I personally would not have done that because the appointment in the intercourse with the government was a matter for the local commanders for Serbia; for the Plenipotentiary Commanding General for Greece it was out of the question because the Greek government worked together with the Minister von Altenburg.
Q.- Could you dismiss German officials of the German Wehrmacht?
A.- No.
Q.- Could you dismiss officials of the German Civil Service?
A.- I could not do that either.
Q.- Could you, for instance -- would you have, for instance, been in a position to dismiss Thurner?
A.- If Thurner could have been dismissed this would probably have happened before my time. I have stated here that during my time representations were made to the OKW on account of Thurner and finally by me personally in March of 1942 to Jodl as well as to Keitel.
Q.- Now, another point in the redirect examination. The tactical tasks in the Balkans were discussed and you said that this unrest had to be suppressed. What was your chief tactical task in the Balkans?
A.- My task was not of a tactical nature but of a strategical nature. My chief task as Commander in Chief Southeast, according to the Fuehrer directive, was to defend the entire area and to safeguard this defense, especially the front against the Mediterranean.
Q.- That was protection against invasion?
A.- Yes, that was protection against invasion.
Q.- I now revert to the partisans quite briefly. We talked about their bearing insignia which could not be recognized at a distance. Now, I want to put two questions to you in this context. Did the partisans always wear these insignia or did only part of the partisans wear this insignia?
A.- According to the reports, as has now become known to me, the insigna were worn by most of the partisans. Some reports say that not all partisans wore these insignia.
Q.- Can you tell us something of the fact whether these insignia could be torn off by a partisan who was fleeing and could be thrown away?
A.- Yes, the difficulty was that at that time partisans wore apart from these insignia, no military clothing at all. They were just wearing peasants' clothing and they often appeared as fighters and then again as peasants and the removal of the Soviet Star still sufficed to make them peaceful peasants again.
The same held good for the Nihajlovic Cetniks who wore the Jugoslav crest as their insignia.
Q.- Apart from these insignia; you also said that the partisans were franc-tireurs because they also did not fulfil other conditions of the law -- that is, they would also have been set upon as franc tireurs if they had worn uniforms. You have given us examples, they did not openly bear arms and especially continued to fight after the capitulation,et cetera. Is a case known to you from German history which caused a great sensation at that time in Germany where German officers were shot who had continued to fight after capitulation in full uniform?
A.- No such case is not known to me when German officers continued to fight after capitulation.
Q.- You are probably only thinking of the more modern times but the officers of Schill would probably be known to you.
A.- Yes, I think the Schill officers are known to me, but they did not continue to fight after an instrument of capitulation but, exactly as in Serbia, they broke the instrument of capitulation. Schill, after the capitulation of the Prussian Army, marched off from Berlin with his regiment and opened the partisan warfare against Napoleon.
Q.- In this view, quite legally speaking, he was a franc-tireur in spite of his uniform?
A.- Yes.
Q.- As a soldier I want to put another question to you. Now, what is your opinion of the following case. If now in any area in Germany occupied by the Allied powers National Socialists gathered and started a kind of guerilla warfare from the woods, and if these people were the party insignia, for example, would you as a soldier look upon these people as franc-tireurs or as fighting troops?
A.- As franc-tireurs.
Q.- And why?
A.- Because they had started fighting again by breaking an agreement.
Q.- I must now return to one ether point which has been discussed twice, but which has not been cleared entirely. That is the removal of mines. Now, could you subdivide -- rather, in how many parts do you subdivide the action of clearing mines?
A.- The removal of mines takes place in the following way: first of all, the mines have to be found. This can only be done with the help of special operators and only engineers or pioneers who are skilled in the use of these instruments can use these instruments. Once we have ascertained where these mines have been laid, special pioneer removal corps have to pull out these mines; that is to say, these mines have to be dug up and the detonators have to be removed; but since one never knows what kind of detonator is used in a mine and where these mines do not have detonators, - apart from those on the surface, whether or not they have others underneath, these mines are exploded; and since every mine contains a lot of dynamite, large craters are caused by the blasting of mines, and these represent great obstacles on roads; and then the second act begins in the removal of mines -- or, rather, the craters are filled in again. Anyone can do that. This is what is meant by the removal of mines.
Q.- I understand you like this. - If in your order you talked about the fact that the civilian population may be used for removal work of mines, you only meant the filling in of craters?
A.- Yes, this is quite definitely so and it is also proved by the fact that we go on to talk about the removal of barbed wire obstacles, etc.
Q.- You meant the second part of the operation?
A.- Yes.
Q. In cross examination a deportation of captured partisans was discussed. The deportation of captured partisans into the German Reich for labor employment. Apart from the consequences was this a harsh measure against the imprisoned partisans?
A. This was not a hard measure.
Q. And why not?
A. Because the partisan were, according to regulations, to be treated as franc-tireurs; that is, they would actually have deserved death.
Q. Now, let us leave the franc-tireurs aside and let us talk about regular prisoners of war of a fighting army. Were these to be sent from the combat area to the home country of the victor and to be used for work?
A. This has happened repeatedly in this war.
Q. Is this admissible?
A. It is admissible.
Q. If I may ask you who may be used for work, what restriction does there exist about who may not be used for work? Enlisted men can be used and non-commissioned officers can be used for work?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, something about the collection camps: was that a polite measure or a military measure?
A. The guarding of the camps?
Q. No, the installation of the measures.
A. That was a police measure.
Q. Was the Higher SS and Police Leader subordinate to you?
A. No.
Q. If this man received directives, for instance, from Himmler, or from the quartermaster general, did he not inform you of these directives?
A. No.
Q. Now, coming back to today's cross examination, we want to put a few questions to you. The prosecution asked you whether at that time in the Balkans all Jews were collected, in collection camps or not.
I am now asking you, at the time when these collection camps were already in existence, were many Jews in the Balkans still at liberty?
A. That may be assumed. I cannot say that in detail.
Q. You cannot give us any figures but can you tell us whether in Salonika, for instance, many Jews were still at liberty?
A. I have already stated that Jews were in Salonika and that nothing had happened to them and that in Serbia the figure mentioned in one report, the figure of 5,000 which was read, proved to me that this was a far higher figure.
Q. Is it known to you whether, for instance, in Salonika German officers lived with Jews?
A. Yes, I know that.
Q. Now, something else: we have discussed whether the reports which were directed to you as Armed Forces Commander Southeast were always submitted to you. Were all reports and all measures submitted to you?
A. The reports and messages were only submitted to me when they were especially important generally. All the messages and all the reports which were sent to the OKW were told to me in summary in a verbal report and only the most important individual reports were given to me.
Q. You are just talking about reports to superior headquarters. Now, about the reports which reached you from lower headquarters.
A. It was like this. All these reports were summarized in a verbal report before they were sent to the OKW and in the verbal report especailly important messages were read to me and were submitted to me.
Q. Do you remember a War Diary which was shown to you this morning as a new document, as Exhibit 593? That has something to do with the Field Gendarmerie unit which had shot commissars in Russia. Were war diaries submitted to you by lower units?
A. No.
Q. That never happened in practice?
A. The war diaries wore kept and when they were initialed they were sent home.
Q. Without being shown to you?
A. Without reaching me.
Q. Now, another question: the prosecution asked you this morning if and why you, during your tenure of office never asked for your release from office. Did the fact also play a role here that you had only been Deputy Armed Forces Commander Southeast and during that whole time had reckoned on being relieved at very short notice?
A. Yes, that was an added moment.
Q. You did not think that you would have to stay for such a long time?
A. No.
Q. Now another question regarding the responsibility: the prosecution has quite expressly asked you whether you took the responsibility for everything that happened in the Southeast, and you stated that you did assume responsibility as far as your power of command was concerned as far as your tenure of office was concerned and as far as you knew what was happening, and I want to ask you whether you want to restrict this statement in the following way or not; that is to say, do you want to restrict it to the effect that you don't feel yourself responsible for orders which were issued by the OKW and which you looked upon as binding for you. Do you want to assume responsibility for those orders, too, or do you want to state that these orders were binding for you?
A. I have stated that I am responsible for all acts which were carried out on the strength of my orders and also, in the opposite sense, those orders which came to my knowledge.
Q. All right, if you say you were responsible for those orders which you yourself issued, how about responsibility of such an order from you as complete conformity with an order of the OKW -- that is, if it only repeats what the OKW ordered you to do, who is then responsible?
A. The OKW.
Q. I am now coming to the last point. In cross examination you stated that the shooting of reprisal prisoners is a reprisal measure, or the shooting of captured partisans took place after they had been sentenced, by courtmartial. I now want to submit a document to you, not in the version as it was submitted by the prosecution. It is Exhibit 111. I don't submit the prosecution's version because this exhibit was submitted by the prosecution only as an extract, and important parts were not reproduced. I, therefore, submit the photostat which we have now received from Washington. That is Exhibit 111 which in the document books. There is not much point in looking for it because it has been given in a very abbreviated form. Can you toll mo from this exhibit something regarding a summary courtmartial? I refer to two reports, one to the report of the 27th of October 1941 --. I am sorry -- the 7th of October 1941 -- that's page 2 at the bottom.
A This is a report of the 164th Infantry Division, of the 7th of February, 1941, and it concerns a mopping up action of the 433rd Infantry Regiment, at the end of September, and the beginning of October, in the area-
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honor please, I don't think we should have any questions as of a document which is not in our possession, and which has not been translated into English.
DR. MENZEL: That is right, it has not been translated into English yet. It belongs to the material which we received from Washington, and we here state that as shown by this example, that in the part of the document which the prosecution has not submitted, very important parts are contained, which for judgment, regarding the specific points in question, are of great importance.
If the Court wishes us first to discuss this document after it has been translated, that can, of course, be done. I would then only have the possibility to do this later on.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I think he is entitled to use it on redirect; if at a later time, after translation, you find anything in it, we will give you an opportunity to point it out to the Tribunal.
DR. MENZEL: Thank you. I am now discontinuing -
JUDGE CARTER: You misunderstand the ruling. The ruling is that you may proceed to use it at the present time.
DR. MENZEL: I see. I am sorry.
Will you please read it.
(THE WITNESS:
AAs I said before, this is a mopping-up action of the infantry division for the 433rd, at the end of September, and beginning of October, in the area of Edessa, I will spell that, E-d-e-s-s-a. Such information successfully carried out these searches; resulted in three Greeks being shot after summary court martial, and 13 persons were arrested; arrestees are going to be given a hearing.
Q I refer to page 2 of the same report.
I have just heard that in the translation which has just been given an error has been made, -- a mistake has been made as translated, in saying that the arrestees were going to be heard, or examined. In the document it says that the arrestees were looking forward to their trial.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honors please, I think that we are going to have numerous errors of this kind when the interpreters do not have anything to go by. I should think it might be more efficient if we had the examination on documents which have come from Washington, after they have been submitted by the defendants in this document book, and after all parties concerned have translations of them.
JUDGE BURKE: It might have been more efficient, - Pardon me, Judge Carter, - If they were of any materiality, that they were included in the original exhibit.
JUDGE CARTER: If it goes in answer to the cross examination he is entitled to show it now; otherwise it loses much of its importance, if it is not brought in at the very time, so I think the objection should be overruled.
JUDGE BURKE: Would you indicate to the Tribunal at what portion of Exhibit 111 the insert to which you are referring applies.
DR. MENZEL: Exhibit 111, as Document No. 1,073, in Volume 3, and in the German Document Book it is page 96.
JUDGE CARTER: What is the paragraph from which you are reading?
DR. MENZEL: Here in the messages only part has been reproduced, and it is the report, -- it is a situation report No. 1 of the 164th Infantry Division. These parts which have just been read, and other parts as well, which are of great importance, are not reproduced in the document book.
JUDGE CARTER: We know that. But what page or what paragraph of Exhibit 111, or Document NOKW 1073, are they found.
DR. MENZEL: In the original document of the 7th of October, 1941, it is on page 2, at the bottom of page 2.
JUDGE CARTER: Is it paragraph 2, or paragraph 3, or are there any paragraphs?
DR. MENZEL: It is paragraph 2, little "c", - I am sorry, it is so difficult to read, I cannot guarantee what I am saying now, I can hardly read the figures.
JUDGE CARTER: Now that you have it -
DR. MENZEL: It may be on page 4.
JUDGE CARTER: If you have it identified so we may find it, in the record, you may proceed with the examination. Would you please, also, when you read something, give us the exact report, the date and the figure and the page. The bottom or the top, so that it can be entered in the record as accurately as possible, and so that it can be found later on.
I am now talking of the report of the 7th of October, 1941.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I think we could simplify this if you would mark what you would offer in evidence and have it read into the record. Just mark what you want; mark it and have the translators read it into the record.
DR. MENZEL: Give it to the Interpreters?
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Yes, just mark the part that you want read into the record and have the Interpreters translate it into the record.
DR. MENZEL: Yes.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, may I just make one brief statement in this regard? The excerpt which appears in the English Document Book is taken from Paragraph 2-c of this particular document. The portion which Dr. Menzel is now asking to be read is also part of paragraph 2-C. This particular section which Dr. Menzel is referring to has always been in the hands of defense counsel. It is not an excerpt which has just coma from Washington. It was always in the hands of defense counsel. We did not choose to translate the preceding portion of this case for the same reasons that we have chosen not to translate many other portions of the documents because we haven't felt that they were material.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: There is no part of Paragraph 2 which appears in my document at all.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I think, if Your Honors please, there is an error on our part. We should have indicated in the excerpt that does appear in the English Document Book at paragraph--and is subparagraph 2. That is our error, but the missing paragraph which Dr. Menzel is now having translated has bean in the hands of the defense all along and is not something new which has just come from Washington.
DR. MENZEL: In the German Document Book it is not; whether it is in the English Document Book I cannot say at this moment.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Wall, let's proceed with the translation.
COURT INTERPRETER: This is on Page 2--no--yes, it is on Page 2 of the photostat, and it is Paragraph "d", and the last sentence of the first paragraph under "D" reads:
"Those accused were sentenced according to martial law and part of them were shot to death."
The next excerpt is also Paragraph "d" the end of the second paragraph, still on Page 2, the last two sentences at the bottom of Page 2, and it reads: "In the course of these investigations or searches three Greeks were shot while escaping; two Greeks were shot according to summary Court Martial. Altogether 14 persons were arrested and some houses were burned down. Those people who were arrested are looking forward to their trial."
The next excerpt is on Page 2 of a new document, Document called WB-1327/5. Yes, it is on Page 2, under "c"--little "c": "The Engineer Battalion carried out a public Court Martial on the 23rd of October, in the course of which one of the persons arrested was sentenced to death and was shot subsequently while the second accused was acquitted since he was not a member of the bandits."
The next excerpt is at the bottom of this page, the last paragraph: "The appearance of the German summary Court Martial and of the execution Commando in Efkarpia on the 23rd of October was welcomed by the population and by the Greek police. Before the sentence was pronounced the president of the Court Martial gave the reasons for the destruction of the villages Ano-Kerzilion and Kato-Kerzilion which had taken place on the 17th of October. After the reasons for the judgment had been given, the inhabitants of the village expressed their agreement by large shouts and justice."
This should read actually, "The agreement with the sentence." That is the end of this excerpt.
DR. MENZEL: I have now finished my re-direct examination.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I assume that you will have that part of Exhibit 111 translated and offered in evidence as a part of your redirect examination of the Defendant List?
DR. MENZEL: Yes.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I'm afraid I was a bit precipitous. I don't know whether the Court will have any questions to General Kuntze. I only wanted to continue with my submission of evidence for General List, and I had forgotten that the Court might still want to put questions to General Kuntze.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Are there any further defense counsel that care to ask any questions of this witness? Any questions by the Tribunal? The Defendant Kuntze will be excused from the stand.
I think this is a convenient time for us to take our afternoon recess. We will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed now, Dr. Laternser.
DR. LATERNSER: Continuing with presentation of evidence - Fieldmarshal List. Your Honor, already in my opening statement, I pointed out that the conditions in the Balkans played a decisive part regarding the measures which were taken and ordered against the insurgents, the situation which confronted the occupation forces, and on which the defense bases its case has to be proved by the defense. For this purpose, I shall now call a historian as a expert witness who during the occupation in the Balkans, dealt with circumstances prevailing there as a matter of his duty. He is Dr. Rudolf Ibbeken, whom I shall now call as expert witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will call the witness to the stand.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I don't quite understand what Dr. Laternser means by stating that this witness is an expert. It is my understanding that there can be no expert witnesses as to facts.
THE PRESIDENT: I assume that if there are any objections, you can make them as the evidence comes in.
The witness will be sworn.
RUDOLF IBBEKEN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q Will you tell the Tribunal your full name?
A Dr. Rudolf Ibbeken.
Q Witness, will you please pause before answering the question until the question has been translated and then I will ask you to talk into the microphone.
Will you please spell you name?
A The full name?
Q Only the surname.
A I-b-b-e-k-e-n.
Q When were you born?
A On the 23rd of July, 1902.
Q And where?
A In Schleswig.
Q What are you by profession?
A Historian.
Q What were you as historian?
AAcedemical lecturer at the University of Berlin for modern and ancient history.
Q And what are you now?
A I am in charge of an institute for t.b. Tuberculosis of Hanover.
Q Why did you change your profession?
AAfter the collapse, I took up connections with the universities of Berlin and Goettingen and connections which today still are in existence, but at the present time I do not want to return to my old professions because the subject of modern and middle history, because of the German collapse, needs a reconsideration and review on the part of a historian.
Q Witness, I ask you to talk a little slower. What were you during the war?
A During the war, I was an officer in the rank of Second and First Lieutenant of the Reserve and I was employed to begin with in France and subsequently in Russia.
Q Up to what time were you employed as officer?
A In Russia until the 20th of April, 1942.
Q And up until what date were you in frontline service?
A Until the date mentioned.
Q And why after that were you no longer at the front?
A On that date, I was wounded by a grenade splinter and I lost the eyesight of the right eye and therefore I was no more fit for front service.
Q You lost the sight of the right eye?
A Yes, my right eye.
Q What did you do then? After you were wounded during the war?
AAfter I had been cured, I was appointed by Military District III, to give lectures to the troops within the frame work of the troop welfare are program.
Q On what subject did you give lectures?
A The lectures were based on the knowledge of history and dealt with the basic features of the German and European history of the 19th and 20th century.
Q How long were you in that job?
A Until the end of the year 1943.
Q And why then did you not continue that activity?
A In summer 1943, I gave a lecture in Bonn on the basis of which a party procedure on the part of the then Reich Organization leader Ley was started against me. It was however stopped by the Wehrmacht and in a second clash at the end of 1943 with the office of Rosenberg there was a sharp difference of opinion on the basis of which I was declared as politically intolerable and unreliable and removed from my office.
Q Who intervened on your behalf?
A The chief of staff in Military District Command III-Berlin. That was Brigadier General von Ross who was informed of my lecturing activity and about my clashed with the party, and I assume that he took my part and placed me under the protection of the Wehrmacht. He contacted the staff of the Commander-in-Chief Southeast, and with the help of the Chiefs of Staff General Foertsch and General Winter, he achieved my transfer to the Balkans.
Q What was then, subsequent to that, your activity during the war?
A Within the staff and by the staff of the Armed Forces Commander Southeast, I was commissioned to develop an objective history of the Military historical conditions in Southeast Europe during the years 1941 till that time. That is 1944.
Q For this purpose, did you go to the Balkans.
A Yes.
Q When did you arrive there?
AAt the beginning of the year 1944.
Q Who did you report to?
A I reported to General Winter and I was closer acquainted with my commission and for this purpose I was sent to the Ic Oberstleutenant (Lt. Col.) von Harling --
Q What was your commission?
A My commission was to describe on the basis of all the files and material available to the 12th Army and army groups E and F, the developments from the year 1941 and, as was planned up to the time of the end of the war and to base this on historical facts in order to enable the responsible military authorities to hold such a description against any distorted descriptions regarding this period based on tendencies.
Q Witness, you must make your sentence shorter because it has to be translated and it has to be translated immediately and such long sentences are very difficult to translate. Was the last part translated?
What was put at your disposal for this activity?