I myself shall be present during the afternoon and, of course, guard the interests of the defendant von Geitner. The medical certificate is at the disposal of the Tribunal.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Any objection on the part of the prosecution?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: No objection by the prosecution, your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well. It may be done. The court will stand in recess until one--thirty this afternoon
THE MARSHAL: The court is in recess.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
AFTERNOON SESSION The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
HANS von GREIFFENBERG - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION-- Continued
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed, Mr. Fenstermacher.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Okeh, your Honor.
BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q. General von Greiffenberg, prior to the luncheon recess we were speaking about the character and temperment of Field Marshal List as far as you were acquainted with him. Do you believe that Field Marshal List was the type of person who would permit any insubordination by SS or Party functionaries who were within his territorial or executive jurisdiction?
A. No. I am convinced that Field Marshal List would not permit such measures.
Q Perhaps, you didn't quite understand. Maybe I better make myself a little bit clearer. Do you believe that Field Marshal List as a man and as a Field Marshal would have permitted any insubordination by SS or Party functionaries who were under his territorial, tactical or executive jurisdiction?
A. No. I have the view that Field Marshal List would net have suffered insubordination of any man or any units under his command.
Q. Did Field Marshal List impress you as the type of Commander who was always well informed of what was happening within his command area?
A. Field Marshal List was a very keen man and he often visited his troops and was very well informed about what was happening in his area.
Q. Do you know whether Field Marshal List has a good memory or not?
A. Yes, at that time he had an excellent memory.
Q. Then I believe you said that in January you and Field Marshal List came down to Nurnberg together and that he intended - withdraw - and that at that time he anticipated that he would be called as a witness in one of the trials here. Did you ever discuss events in Serbia with Field Marshal List at that time?
A. No, we did not discuss Serbain incidents at all. We merely discussed the incidents in Greece.
Q. General, what was your rank at the end of the war?
A. At the end of the war I was a General of the Infantry.
Q. And that, I believe, corresponds in the American table of ranks as a Three-Star General or Lieutenant General.
A. I believe it is so.
Q. Thank you, General.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: No further questions, your Honors.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Are there further questions, Dr. Laternser?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. LATERSNER (Counsel for defendants List and von Weichs):
Q. General, it was put to you that Field Marshal List could only have become a Field Marshal if he had also been a National Socialist; it would only then have been possible. When did General von Witzleben become a Field Marshal?
A. You mean General von Witzleben? The 20th of July----?
Q. Yes.
A. I can't say that.
Q. Could you reflect a bit about it? When was it that several generals were promoted to Foeld Marshals? On the strength of what?
A. On the strength of their services in the Polish and in the French campaigns.
Q. Do you remember that after the conclusion of the campaign in the West many general were promoted to Field Marshals?
A. Yes.
Q. We always want to make a short pause after every question.
A. Yes.
Q. When did Field Marshal List reach this service rank?
A. For the same reason, after the conclusion of the Western campaign.
Q. And when was General von Witzleben promoted to Field Marshal?
A. I cannot tell you exactly. I couldn't tell you.
Q. Could you kindly try and think, General, about when he was promoted to Field Marshal? Was it on the same day?
A. I believe he belonged to the group who became Field Marshals at the same time.
Q. General, I must ask you again to wait a few seconds after each of my questions. What was the attitude of Field Marshal von Witzleben to National Socialism.
A. Field Marshal von Witzleben had the most critical attitude towards National Socialism. That is clear from his whole career.
Q. What happened to Field Marshal von Witzleben?
A. He was executed.
Q. What was Field Marshal von Kluge's attitude toward National Socialism?
A. Field Marshal von Kluge, as far as I can judge, was also an opponent of National Socialism.
Q. And when did he become a Field Marshal?
A. At the same occasion when the other generals of which we have just spoken became Field Marshals.
Q. That is when?
A. After the Western campaign.
Q. And when was the Western campaign concluded?
A. In the summer of 1940.
Q. General, Exhibit 3 was submitted to you. This is an extract from the so-called service record, and in one of the columns it said, as was submitted to you by the prosecution, that Field Marshal List became a member of the Fuehrer Reserve on the 10th of September. What did the concept, "Fuehrer's Reserve," signify?
A. The concept, "Fuehrer Reserve," as we know it, means that officers who for any reason were not used at the moment may be for reasons of health or for any other reason automatically become members of the so-called "Fuehrer Reserve", in order to be available as officers in case of emergency or if they had become well again.
Q. Did this idea of Fuehrer Reserve mean that only Hitler could dispose of this reserve?
A. No, the Fuehrer Reserve was a reserve of the personnel office.
Q. People of which service rank became members of the Fuehrer Reserve?
A. I can't tell you exactly from which rank, I personally, at any rate was in the Fuehrer Reserve as a colonel and brigadier general.
Q. Even as colonel?
A. Yes, I was promoted during that time.
Q. Did even lower ranks become members of the Fuehrer Reserve?
A. I cannot tell you that now. I don't know it.
Q. In this Exhibit 3, General, which I submitted to you, is a note of Keitel's about which I want to ask you some questions. What kind of paper does this document represent?
A. I assume that this is a sort of card index of the Personnel office.
Q. Of which Personnel Office?
A. Of the Army Personnel Office.
Q. Is this judgment which is expressed here of a political or a military nature?
A. This is a military judgment.
Q. We want to leave that for the moment. General, what was added to military judgments, according to regulations? What would a military judgment also have to take into account?
A. Apart from the purely military services and achievements, it was regulation that there was to be a note something about if the person concerned was a friend of National Socialism or some words to that effect. I don't know exactly.
Q. Was that provision for every judgment?
A. It was a regulation as far as our military judgments in the Army were concerned.
Q. What was the usual addenda to such a judgment?
A. There was a stereotyped formula which read something like this: "He represents the National Socialist concept," one sentence only.
Q. How were judgments treated in which this sentence, which was a regulation sentence, was not contained?
A. I can't remember that that sentence was lacking in any judgment which I have read.
Q. Could we then say that this additional political judgment which was added to the military judgment was simply a kind of generalization?
A. One could say that with good conscience.
Q. Would it have been possible for an officer to continue in service if, for instance, a judgment on this point would have been negative?
A. No, then he could no longer be used.
Q. General, during your examination an interrogation of the 15th of January, was submitted, regarding which I want to ask you some questions -- where did this interrogation of the 15th of January take place?
A. Here in this building somewhere. I don't know exactly where.
Q. Who was present at this interrogation?
A. One interrogator in uniform was present, but I don't know his name, and a lady was present.
Q. What were you told before the interrogation regarding its purpose?
A. Regarding its purpose nothing was said to me. I was asked about my curriculum vitae in detail at the beginning.
Q. At the beginning--but of course that wasn't all?
A. No.
Q. What were you told about the purpose of this interrogation, as soon as the interrogator asked you about your career in detail?
A. After my career had been described the interrogator told me that I had not been in the Balkans at the time in question, and as a consequence of this he broke off the interrogation in this sense. And then he told the lady that this did not belong to the record. This interrogator only wanted to talk to me about a few questions.
Q. Did the lady then leave the room?
A. No, she stayed.
Q. Did you sec then that she wrote during this discussion?
A. I couldn't tell you. I didn't observe that.
Q. During the interrogation itself did you know how or against whom or for whom this interrogation was to be used?
A. I had no idea at all.
Q. During the interrogation did you expect that this interrogation might possibly be used or directed against you?
A. No, I never reckoned with this possibility.
Q. You then swore to this statement?
A. No, I did not swear.
Q. Did you receive the record of this interrogation later on?
A. No, I did not see it again.
Q. Was it given to you to look through it?
A. No, I did not get to look through it.
Q. Was the translation of this record into the English language submitted to you?
A. No.
Q. Did you sign this transcript?
A. No.
Q. After you had been told that an interrogation was no longer necessary because you had not been in the Balkans at the time in question, did you have the impression that this was no longer an interrogation, but just an ordinary conversation?
A. I had the impression that it had now become a conversation.
Q. Would you kindly look at this transcript in order to e establish when you were told that you had not been present in the Balkans at the critical time, and that your interrogation was no longer interesting? Could you kindly look through the transcript now and tell us about what period you were told that your interrogation was no longer necessary?
(WITNESS CONSULTS TRANSCRIPT)
A. I believe it started at about the fifteenth question, where the interrogator says, "I now want to put a question to you which you can answer impartially."
Q. You take it then that at about this point you were told, "We don't want to interrogate you; we now just want to discuss these matter s"?
A. Yes. The expression, "You can answer impartially" makes me think that from this point onward we merely engaged in a conversation.
Q. Are you surprised that your conversation was taken down in shorthand after all?
A. I did not know that it was taken down, and I, in fact, believed that it had not been taken down.
Q. When you made the subsequent statements you were not aware that you were being interrogated?
A. I believed that the second was more in the nature of a conversation.
Q. I want to submit the record again to you in order to establish whether the order of the questions here corresponds to the order of the questions which corresponds to the conversation or the interrogation of that date.
A. I'm not in a position to say whether these questions took place in this sequence. I cannot tell. I am not in a position to do so. It seems that they took place in that sequence.
Q. Now, another point: When did you finally leave the Balkans?
A. In May of that year.
Q. Did any kind of fighting with bands take place during that time?
A. At that date band warfare which would have come to the knowledge of the Army if it had taken place, did not take place.
Q. And in the subsequent time, after you left the Balkans, did you have any official contacts with the Balkans?
A. No.
Q Did you get any information regarding the Balkans which could have given you a good picture of the Balkans?
A No, because the Balkans became a theater of war of the OKW.
Q Now, we come back to the contents of that interrogation. You said at question 18 of your conversation that you thought the shooting of hostages was not inhumane, but was completely wrong. Do you know or don't you know that the shooting of hostages is admissible according to international law?
A Yes, the shooting of hostages is admissible. I believe it is, at least.
Q Do you know the American rules of warfare?
A No, I don't know them.
Q Do you know that the American rules......
JUDGE BURKE: (Interrupting) He has already answered that he doesn't know.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q Do you know that the English rules do not prohibit the shooting of hostages?
A No, I don't know these rules.
Q. In the course of this conversation you said, and I quote now, Question 18 and answer:
"Q Would you answer the question respecting the justification of destroying villages in a similar manner?
"A Yes, when the villages were to be destroyed in Russia we, as leaders of units, turned against this because the measures were just as detrimental to our own leadership of units as to the enemy."
Do you consider the destruction of villages, if it is not detrimental to your own troops and if the destruction is caused by military necessity, do you then consider it admissible?
A Yes.
Q You then go on to say in your answer to Question 19:
"If villages were destroyed in order to meet out vengeance, then I see no reason for it. First of all, it has no sense and, secondly, the people of the neighboring village could not help it. I think that this is the general opinion."
Witness, I am in complete accord with you about this that if villages are burned down for vengeance that this is forbidden and should be forbidden. How is it, however according to your military experience, if, for instance, a village has served as a stronghold for a band? Then, the destruction of the village in order to exterminate this support and stronghold, is it then admissible?
A In my view, it is then a military necessity.
Q And what about the case of villagers shooting out of a village at passing troops? Would you judge this question as you have judged the previous question?
A That depends on the situation.
Q If you say "that depends on the situation", do you mean that it is dependent on whether it is dictated by military necessity or not?
A Yes, I mean that.
Q Now, a few supplementary questions.
You were chief of staff of Field Marshal List at the time when he was commander-in-chief of Army Group A. What kind of a staff was the staff of an army group?
AArmy group?
Q Army group, yes.
AAn army group is, according to German usage, the highest authority in the field which has to do with operational questions.
Q Do you mean operational questions of leadership?
A Yes, I mean operational questions. Questions of an operational leadership.
Q Han an army group only these operational tasks?
AAt the beginning of the war, those were its only tasks. Later, questions of supply fell within its competence.
Q We don't want to become that general. I'm just asking what was the situation with regard to the staff of Field Marshal List when he was in Russia. Was there the most essential tasks of the staff to deal with operational questions?
A The operational leadership was far and away the most important task.
Q Which departments did the Army Group A have at that time?
A The decisive departments were Department 1-A, Department 1-C, that is, the adjutant's office, and the Quartermaster. Apart from that, there were departments of a less important nature.
Q What was the staff of an army group of the kind which was at the disposal of Field Marshal List as compared with the strength of the staff of an army?
AAccording to my knowledge and according to my memory, the staff of an army was much bigger.
Q What do you mean by considerably stronger?
A Far more special departments.
Q And what was the channel of command from these special depart-ments to the superior headquarters?
A From these special departments, the channel of command led to the four big groups I mentioned before: 1-A, 1-C, Quartermaster, etc., end thus that is, only the most important things came to the knowledge of the commander-in-chief.
Q Did the army group have territorial tasks? I mean the Army Group A.
AAs far as I remember, Army Group A later.........
Q (Interrupting) I'm not asking you later. I am questioning you about the time when Field Marshal List led this Army group. That is, unit 1 the 10th of September, 1942.
A Yes. As far as I remember, it, first of all and not later when it approached the Caucasus, had certain territorial tasks.
Q Which territorial tasks?
A They consisted of the administration of the country, through the commander of the rear area of that army, in maintaining order.
Q Now, a few questions regarding the Commissar Order.
You said today in cross examination that Field Marshal Bock, at the time at which you were attached to him, received the Commissar Order.
A He had already received it earlier.
Q What did Field Marshal Bock tell you about this Commissar Order?
A Field Marshal von Bock was shocked about this Commissar Order.
Q Did he establish any contact with any one about this?
A Yes.
Q Whom?
A With the commander-in-chief of the army.
Q How?
MY. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honor please, I object to these questions. I don't know why we are concerned with the actions of Field Marshal von Bock with regard to the Commissar Order.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I wanted to show that from many sides there was opposition to the Commissar Oeder at the time at which it was issued. Effective steps were taken which finally led to the fact that the Commissar Order was canceled.
JUDGE BURKE(Interrupting): The objection is over-ruled. You may proceed.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q How did he communicate with the (OBDH) Commander-in-Chief of the German Army?
A He told me and so it was confirmed to me, he got together with Field Marshal von Kluge and both made representations to their superior officers, that is, the Commander-in-Chief of the German Army.
Q How did Field Marshal von Bock go about this?
AAs far as I remember - that is how he told me - he did it by telephone.
I believe also he communicated his personal views in Berlin through his 1-C because he personally couldn't go.
Q Who was the IC at that time?
A The IC at that time was General Major (Brigadier General) von Gersdorff.
Q. Is that the same general who planned a bomb attack on Hitler?
A. Yes, that is the same.
Q. Now about the 11th Army, you were asked today how long the 11th Army was subordinate to Fieldmarshal List in his capacity as Commander-in --Chief of Army Group A. You said that this was only a matter of a few days. Could you give us more details about this, whether it was in your view four or five days or two weeks or could you give us some more details?
A. I assume from my memory that it must have been after about ten days but I cannot guarantee for this figure.
Q. Did Fieldmarshal List or Army Group A pass on directives to subordinate officers regarding the carrying out or the application of the Commissar Order?
A. No, that is not known to me.
A. And now one more question to the Commissar Order. Exhibit 13 was submitted to you, a document. Would you kindly look at the second paragraph of this exhibit on page 1 in the German book, page 35-A, and in the English Book on page 48-A? This second paragraph says, I am quoting now: "You are requested to limit the distribution to Commanders-in-Chief of armies or of air commands, etc." Page 33A in the German Book, the insert and page 48a in the English Book. No. page 35 in the German.
General, what does that mean? Does that mean the Commandersin-Chief in person or their offices.
A. I cannot give you any answer. I cannot find out by just looking at it.
Q. Now look at the top of this document. There it says "super top secret only through office." Does this "only through office" mean that this order was only intended for generals?
A. No, that has nothing to do with that.
A. Now we want to leave the Commissar order. I have only a few concluding questions now. General, you have been examined about Fieldmarshal List leaving his office and you said that not only the difference of opinions which had taken place then had been responsible for Fieldmarshal List leaving his post but that in your view there had been other causes as well.
What did you mean by that when you said that?
A. I meant that the aims which were given to the army group to fulfill and the impossible tasks and the constant intervention of the highest leadership which depressed the Fieldmarshal intensely brought him in sharp contrast to Hitler's leadership; not only this one local matter was the reason.
Q. What was Hitler's view regarding a general leaving his post?
A. Hitler in an order forbade generals to resign from their posts.
Q. You were asked today by the prosecutor and in his question it was implicit that this resignation of Fieldmarshal List was a voluntary resignation. Is that correct?
A. Fieldmarshal List resigned by his own decision.
Q. And why did he succeed to resign?
A. Because he objected to the directives and the whole ideas of the fuehrer.
Q. And why? Because this resignation corresponded to Hitler's desire?
A. I am sure that it corresponded to Hitler's wish.
Q. For instance, would a resignation have been possible against Hitler's wish?
A. I cannot assume that from my later experiences.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Laternser, I think this matter was covered to a very great extent yesterday and also this morning. It leaves nothing further for the imagination.
DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions then.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Are there further questions by defense counsel?
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Dr. Sauter for the defendants Lanz and von Geitner.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed Dr. Sauter.
Q. Your Honor, I want to bog your pardon for not appearing here in the prescribed robe. I haven't got it with me at the moment. Mr. Witness, I have only a few short questions which were caused by the cross-examination of the prosecution. One preliminary question. In the course of the examination; you said that you were not a prisonerof-war but that you were an internee. Did I understand you correctly?
A. Yes, you did.
Q. You know, as a general, that you are entitled to your rights as a prisoner-of-war which are based on the Geneva convention?
A. Yes.
Q. How is it that you don't enjoy these rights, that you are no longer a prisoner-of-war but a civilian internee?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If it please the Tribunal, I object to the question. I don't see that it is material or what relevance it has.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection is overruled. You may proceed.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Do you still remember this question; Mr. Witness?
A. Yes.
Q. I asked you how you at a time when no peace has been concluded you do not enjoy the rights based on the Geneva Convention but that you are looked upon as an internee.
A. All generals from our camp who were called prisoners-orwar until about two months ago have now been made internees.
Q. Were you at the same time released? Were you set at liberty when you were told that you were an internee?
A. No. Simultaneously we were not released but in the course of those two months, all generals, as far as they were not former general staff officers, were released.
Q. In your opinion did the general staff officers of the former German army, do they have no claim on the rights laid down in the Geneva Convention?
A. I don't know the provisions of the military government. I don't know that, how these things are being regulated.
Q. A change if I have understood you correctly, has not been caused in the actual conditions by your release, your so called release from being a prisoner-of-war. You remained behind locked doors?
A. Yes.
Q. Another question Mr. Witness, we shall submit document books to the Court which will prove the kind of warfare used by the partisans. I would rather put it at the end of our evidence but at that time you will not be here at our disposal. For that reason, I must now put these questions to you here. We shall prove, and please base your answer on that hypothetically, and we shall prove the following facts by document books.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I am sorry to have to interrupt but I object to the form of Dr. Sauter's question.
DR. SAUTER: First, I please ask Your Honor to wait until I have put the question and only then can it be decided whether this question is admissible or not.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well. Dr. Sauter, you may proceed.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Witness, I have said we shall among other things prove the following facts from the partisans were many of them killed and were often mutilated, and previous to that were tortured in a most cruel manner. German soldiers were often, after having been captured, castrated while still alive, and the genitals put into their mouthes of the corpses. German soldiers were nailed against doors of barns while still alive, with nails, and they were exposed to death by hunger or thirst. German first aid stations were again and again shot at. German wounded wore killed at first-aid station. I repeat German first aid station were shot at again and again.
German wounded were killed at these first-aid stations. German ambulances with large red crosses were disregarded and were shot to pieces. In those cruelties and these fights, women and children also took part and the partisans often were civilian clothes while fighting, and they disguised themselves as harmless peasants or shepherds.
That is a part of what we shall prove, and I am able to tell you this here because I have the proofs in my documents which shall be submitted in the next weeks. All these statements are sworn to; in view of these facts, which I want you to take into consideration.
First of all, I put the following question to you. Firstly, did you until now have knowledge of the fact that this kind of warfare was waged by the partisans on the Balkans? I am putting the question to you because during your interrogation on the 15th of January, 1947, because in your interrogation you said something about the partisans and their legal status. This is the first question perhaps I can put another question to you so that the Court can decide about these questions. The second question which I will put to you is this.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Perhaps it would be well to confine yourself to the first one first if you have in form now questions to submit to the witness.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. The first question is this, whether you had knowledge of this kind of warfare by the partisans?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honor please, I object to these long speeches by Dr. Sauter in form of a question as to what he thinks he is going to prove. I think if this is his question he could have asked it much shorter and could have asked it from the very beginning. In fact, he ought to know from the testimony of the witness so far that the witness left the Balkans in May, 1941, and never returned.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor -
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Just a moment, Dr. Sauter. It is the opinion of the Tribunal that if the witness assumes these facts to be true and if your proofs will sustain such facts then we will take the answer now.