A Because there was no general uniform and equipment, our intelligence had to find out, as far as possible, every time what kind of bands we would probably be faced with in this area or during the next operation, in order to give the German soldier at least something to go on in the imminent fighting and it can be explained in this way that in this document it is repeatedly they especially stressed that the bands probably looked like this or like this or that they probably wore black uniforms or bore these and these insignia. If I am facing a regular army then I don't need every eight days or when fighting is just beginning to say to my own troops, "Your opponent will probably look like this," and then as I describe because he knows that, but every 14days I have to deal with another kind of band, which is under different leadership which has ether conuictions, and I have to fight three enemies in the same area, then as responsible commander I must take care that our own troops before the fighting know as much as possible about the enemy they are going to face.
Q And what about wealing the insignia of a Soviet star?
A That certainly happened in many cases, but if one has not seen the figures and the uniforms of such band members one's self, then one has to look for the Soviet Star through,--I would like to say through dirt and patches and holes; and quite often they took the Soviet Star away in time before we go there, in order not to be recognized as Communists partisans but to appear as the peaceful churchgoer or the herdsam or the farmer who was coming back from the cornfields or the tradesman who was going from one village to another.
Q And di you yourself see much band members?
A Oh, yes, I saw them for the first time in May 1942, I saw dead band members in Bosnia and observed a fight with bandits at a distance from about 400 to 500 maters.
Q Now, please take Exhibit 122. This is on page 45 in the German document book, page 60 in the English document book. This is a teletype in which there are several reports. Do you know about these reports?
A Yes, I know about these reports until I left, but also not in the mutilated form which is again presented here.
Q When were you absent?
A Until the 27th of September.
Q And to whom did these reports go?
Q These are reports of the Plenipotentiary Commanding General in Serbia to the Wehrmacht Commander Southeast.
Q You just said that the reports were incomplete as they are portrayed here in the document beck. What is missing as far as you remember?
A Here, too, as in the documents dealt with this morning, all those statements are missing which were the reason for the fighting and for the counter measures of the German troops.
Q Witness, I will now give you the original, or rather, the photostat copy which was submitted by the Prosecution. I would now ask you just to find perhaps a few of the most characteristic passages which are not contained in the document book but which, however, give the reasons for the measures taken by the German troops.
AAt the moment it is very difficult to do this because, first of all, I have to find out the difference. I am locking at this document for the first time.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: We will take our afternoon recess and in the meantime he can check up on the document.
THE MARSHAL: The court is in recess until three-fifteen.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACK:
Q. Witness, before the recess I gave you the original Exhibit 122, and I asked you whether the teletype messages contained in the document book were complete or what was lacking in them. Now, meanwhile you have had the opportunity of looking at them, at least superficially. Can you tell me of some particularly characteristic passages which are not contained in the German and English document books, but which serve to prove why the actions against the partisans were taken? What are such passages?
A. I looked over this book just now. What I did find is correct. That is to say I found some which are not contained in the document book of the Prosecution. For instance, on 23rd September in the Daily Reports in actions at 10 Km NW of Lapovo and in Slot where the local inhabitants took part, 146 insurgents were captured. In the Daily Report of 27th September recruiting by force of insurgents near Cacak.
Q. What does that mean? What does it mean, "recruiting by force?"
A. That means that the bands were taken from the population, and they were taken by force, and in most cases they were threatened with being shot, and that is how they got their recruits. It goes on to say typically in the neighborhood of Cacak chain gangs shanghied into armed service rebelled against the insurgents. Then here we have a report of the 29th of September where it says insurgents terrorized the parishes of Mockovo North of Alecinac and Popovac NW of Paracin. Cetniks near Krusevac proved their worth against the Communists. In the report of the 1st of October, the following figure is given coal mines. Jelasnica, East of Nigh, has been destroyed by the insurgents. At the hemp factory at Basaid two hundred wagons were burned. In a report of the 3rd of October, led mine Kapaonik, attacked; power station blown up, three employees killed. Then in a report of of 7th of October I find attacks on railways at a locality named Gleisnic has been destroyed; another at a place called Globoda, the railway conductor wounded broken dead.
Attempts on a long-distance train-Vienna-Semlin without success. Another example on 10th October the mine at Dobraseca raided; explosives captured. 14th October, as a result of railroad tracks blown up near Aracicevo, the long-distance train #867 was derailed. Attack by the train escort was repelled. These were armed soldiers on leave. You could change the train, and the line was repaired in twenty-four hours. 15 October, peasants in Krusevac have been forced to commit acts of sabotage. Twelve telephone lines in Belgrade were destroyed. That is what I found so far.
Q. Witness, in the report of the 26th of September 1941, which is on Page 5 of the document and comes from Page 7 of the original, there is a remark under Figure arabic 4, "Colonel Foertsch 27/9/41--12:00 hours CACOI." What does that mean?
A. That is the announcement that I have returned at the Tatoi Airfield near Athens on 27th of September after my leave.
Q. And when did you take up service again?
A. On 28th of September. After that my initials become recognizable again.
Q. And you always initialed everything you saw of these papers and documents.
A. Yes, I always did that. May assistants, if they wanted to be in the right, could only contradict me by saying, "Here are your initials; you signed this."
Q. In some of the Daily Reports which are contained in this exhibit differences are made in the cases, when the enemy had losses, between "people killed" and "people shot." Why was this difference made?
Q. Quite generally, one may say that the designation "killed" meant people killed in battle, whereas the designation "people shot" meant that in connection with the battle they were shot.
Q. Were these shootings done after sentence had been passed?
A. I assume so.
Q. How did you explain that?
A. I can explain that by two orders. The one is the order mentioned today, by Field Marshal List, concerning the treatment of the male population in the mopped-up areas, of 4 October. And the other is the order by Boehme which has also been mentioned today, dated 9th October, concerning the participation--I believe it's called, of the courts martial when fighting insurgents. This is the last document in Volume II.
Q. Did you hear anything from a member of Department III or an Army judge about these things, namely, whether those shootings were done after proper sentence had been passed by court martial?
A. General Kuntze--I don't remember the exact date, but I think it must have been about the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942-appointed the Army judge, Colonel Gruen, and sent him to Serbia to join the divisions there, telling him that within his supervisory powers about the divisional judges etc., he should examine and to find out whether with the divisions there existed clear knowledge of all the regulations. And I know that Colonel Gruen, at the time when he returned, reported to General Kuntze that all was well.
Q. Were these shootings concerned with reprisals?
A. No, shootings as reprisals or retaliations had nothing to do with sentence by court martial. They are reprisals carried out without sentence by a judge.
Q. And, according to what procedure were those people dealth with who were not shot as a retaliation but connected with the battle, as it was called?
A. According to the procedure under court martial.
Q. Did you yourself hold summary courts martial?
A. No, I never was a commander of troops in the Southeast. I did not have the authority as a judge or could I issue orders, but later on when I commanded troops I never was faced with that situation.
Q. Were you ever present at a summary court martial of this type?
A. No, never.
Q. Did you know the general decrees covering summary courts material?
A. By and large, yes.
Q. Do you think that your assumptions, namely, the shooting on the basis of a summary court martial, that is to say that shootings were proceeded by a summary court martial, was always possible for the troops in combat?
A. I can only express an assumption on this. The assumption is this: I can imagine a situation where the troops--let me say used a simplified procedure, although every precaution had been taken to have summary courts martial ordered by the commanding officers concerned. But I can imagine and I would like to state again, namely, assuming now that in the event of its being entirely clear that--lets say three bandits were coming out from the forest with guns--it was found before witnesses that these three men had just been fighting and that thereupon a summary court martial passed its sentence. As I say, this is what I find myself in a position to assume, if I'm trying to feel with the troops at that moment as it were.
Q. Now, if the troops found themselves in a position where they were also being attacked at the same time, did they have time in that case even to have an extremely brief summary court martial, or would it be possible under those circumstances, which are so obvious, that the shootings were carried out immediately without further ado?
A. Well, I can't give you an answer on oath about that, because this hypothesis is not entirely exhaustive. Of course, I can imagine that a situation like this might arise, but I couldn't say that it has actually occurred. I cannot tell you is how I would have acted.
Q. Why were these bandits shot?
A. Because they were franc-tireurs. And this was a decree covering franc-tireurs. Under that decree there was only the possibility of acquittal if they were innocent or a death sentence if they were guilty.
Q. From these Daily Reports it becomes clear that in some cases it's been reported that a certain number of men had been shot, and on other occasions it was reported that a certain number of men were shot after a summary court. What is the difference there?
A. Well, in my opinion the difference is simply in the form of reporting. The report had to be made as briefly as possible. Anyone who ever drew up a report, particularly for wireless transmission, knows how very important it is to save ever word possible. And there were special decrees covering the possibility that, for instance, the people in charge of Signal Service, the LDN's, had orders to have every wireless message, before it went out, scrutinized as to whether it could not be cut down further. I know from my own experience on my own staff that as far as the man in charge of the Signal Service was concerned I had given him full powers to cut down these reports as much as possible. And I know then that the experts working on these things came along with complaints to the effect -"Now, he's cut something out which was particularly important to me." But the necessity for cutting down existed, and, therefore, in the case of many reports, the term "by summary court martial" was left out if these messages were passed on by wireless or on a teletype line which have overworked staffs. In the case of written reports it was then made up later on. From my knowledge of the documents there is one example I recollect at present, and I happen to know the Exhibit number. It is Exhibit 208. There it says in the Daily Report of 18th of July, that 250 partisans have been shot. This report was passed on by wireless or teletype, and the Ten-days reports concerning the same period of time, which usually was delivered by courier because it was lengthly, contains exactly the same figure in exactly the same period of time with exactly the same formulations, but it adds the words "summary court martial." This is but one example which I happen to be struck by.
Q. The omission of the words "summary court martial" in these reports does not mean, in other words, that the summary court martial had not been convened?
A. No, I said before, as a general rule it's simply the manner in which these reports had been formulated. For tactical reasons they had to be abbreviated.
Q. Witness, you mentioned just now the so-called LED, the man in charge of Signal. Did he have anything to do with enemy communications?
A. No, he was the officer or NCO of the technical corps who was in charge of the technical side of passing on news of the staff. In other works, he is the man who supervises telephone lines, teletype installations, the wireless installations, etc. And he was responsible for the fact that one of those instruments was always available and in order. It was also his responsibility that a report coming from I/a should be passed on more quickly then one coming from the Catholic Army Corps priest.
Q. That's enough. Thank you very much. I simply wanted to make this quite clear because in connection with LDN, the term "intelligence" was used by the Translator which I think is wrong. In one of the reports contained in Exhibit 122, from which you have quoted, it says that an express train had been raided and travellers plundered. Were we here concerned only with German soldiers?
A. No, it says in this report further 17 killed, including one German NCO; 15 injured (one German soldier). There must have been included civilians too.
Q. You mean native civilians?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, let us turn to Exhibit 124, which is the last document in Document Book IV. It's on Page 80 of the German and page 132 of the English book. These are reports by teletype. Are these reports to your staff?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you receive knowledge of these reports?
A. Apart from the ones which came in during my absence I probably did. I think almost certainly, but I cannot say with actual certainty from my initials whether I did or not.
Q. Do they offer anything new in new in their contents as compared to the previous ones and the things we discussed in connection with the previous document books?
A. No. most of these things are repetitions which had occurred at least three or four times in the other document book. Only the Ten-days reports at the end of the document are new in this case.
Q. Are these reports complete or are they again mutilated?
A. Here again we have only small paragraphs which have been taken down.
Q. Among these reports there is one dated the 30th of October. Did you receive that?
A. I could not say that with certainty because in the days between the 30th of October and the 1st or 2nd of November the staff changed its position. It went from Athens to Saloniki.
Q. How was this done?
A. As usual this was done in stages by staggered movements.
Q. How is that to be understood?
A. What I mean is that one part of the staff went ahead to the new GHQ, whereas the other part remained behind in the old one so as too long interruption of work could be avoided.
Q. In the Ten day report of the 30th of October it is reported that 72 Britishers have been sent off as prisoners of war. Was any difference made in the treatment of these persons and members of gangs?
A. Yes, members of the regular enemy armies were treated as prisoners of war.
Q. Even if there soldiers of the Allied Army were captured with the partisans?
A. If it was easy to identify them clearly and unequivocally then yes.
Q. And if you could not identify them as Allied soldiers?
A. Then they were simply members of bands and treated as such.
Q. Witness, in Document Book V, I believe you know all the documents in that volume did you?
A. At any rate I have become acquainted with parts of the document. I did not know all the documents but some of it I did, so that I could not say that I did not know the documents.
Q. I shall begin with Exhibit 125 which is on page 1 of both the English and German Book. On the first 7 pages there is a memorandum of Commissioner of State Dr. Thurner. Who was Thurner?
A. Thurner was the Chief cf the Administrative Staff with the Commanding Officer in Serbia.
Q. Did that letter come to your knowledge at the time?
A. No.
Q. Did you know Thurner personally?
A. Yes, I met Thurner once or twice at a conference.
Q. What was your opinion of him?
A. I personally did not have a very high opinion of him. He was on some occasions somewhat autocratic.
Q. What sort of ideas would he express?
A. As I see it he represented SS ideas. Then as a Prussians Civil Servant, a state councillor he of course was up to a point dependent on Goering.
Q. You said, or at least hinted, that Thurner would not subordinate himself. Do you wish to say thereby that he would take steps beyond his position?
A. Yes, he was inclined to do so.
Q. How do you mean?
A. Because he believed that he, politically speaking, was well backed. For instance, the formation of the Nedic government, without the knowledge of the Wehrmacht, the Armed Forces Commander Southeast, is entirely due to Thurner in my opinion.
Q. Was anything done to eliminate Thurner's influence?
A. Yes, on repeated occasions. I suggested that he should be used somewhere else.
Q. Who by?
A. By my Commander in Chief.
Q. With what success?
A. At first we were unsuccessful but later on, unless I am mistaken, at the beginning of 1943 he left, was used somewhere else.
Q. Was the OKW in agreement with this transfer?
A. OKW as I see it prevented Thurner's transfer.
Q. Why.
A. Because in the OKW, that is, in the case of Keitel, one did not wish to commit oneself to a Party fuss.
Q. How did you know that?
A. I know that from conversations with officers.
Q. Witness, in this Exhibit 125 there is also an order by the Plenipotentiary Commander in Serbia concerning mopping up operations. This is on page 8 to 10 of the document and on the later pages there are order concerning mopping up operations and the evacuation of Sabac. Did you know those orders by Boehme?
A. Perhaps I know the order about the evacuation of Sabac after the event after I came back from the East, but as I said I knew it was intended to evacuate the Sabac area.
Q. On page 13 of this document there is an order by the Commanding General Plenipotentiary in Serbia addressed to korwettenkapitam Sekel officer with the Hungarian Danube flotillo. It says the localities of Novo, Selo, Debrec, which are to be destroyed by fire. Did you know that order?
A. No, I did not. First of all I assume that this is an order concerning tactics of a certain military action but I am not sure.
Q. Exhibit 126 which is on page 21 of the German Document Back and page 18 of the English Document Book, we have reports to the Armed Forces Commander Southeast. Did you know those reports? They are all reports about raids and attacks and they also concern losses suffered by the enemy.
A. I think probably I knew them but essentially these are reports which have been dealt with already, repeats I mean.
Q. Does the same apply to Exhibit 127?
A. Yes, quite.
Q. Now, let us turn to Exhibit 128 on page 70 of the German and page 102 of the English Document Book. Again they are daily reports. Let me ask you one question, who drew up this report?
A. There reports came from the Armed Forces Commander Southeast to the OKW and also for the information of OKH.
Q. Who drew them up?
A. The reports were drawn up from the reports by the commanders and compiled by I-C, later on by I-A. Then they were checked up on by me.
Q. Did you see whether or not the facts reported therein were correct?
A. I wouldn't have had the time for that.
Q. And in how far were you responsible for these reports?
A. I was responsible for the fact that the reports contained everything important. One of the things which had been reported to us and they were formally speaking correct.
Q. To whom were you responsible to this?
A. To my commanding officer.
Q. When these reports contained also measures of retaliations, for instance, if you report a certain number of Jews and Communists and National Serbs have shot, were you also responsible for the matters as such?
A. It was not I who had ordered these measures. I would not have been in a position to do so. I did not have the authority. My responsibility was for the fact that these things were contained in the report in the same manner as they had been reported to us.
Q. Were these reports shown to the Commander in Chief before they left your office?
A. If and when he was present, yes, they were submitted to him pending their importance of course.
Q. They were not shown to him verbatim. He was informed about it, wasn't he?
A. That depended, for instance, General Loehr would read these reports in great detail.
Q. Who deputized for you when you were away?
A. As a rule the most senior office on the general staff. In case of the leave we mentioned before it was I-A
Q. In the Exhibit 129 on page 143 of the English Document Book and page 92 of the German we have reports of the 164th Division. Did you obtain knowledge of these reports?
A. Yes.
Q. It also says in these documents, initialed by Foertsch. Are these your initials?
A. Yes.
Q. In Exhibit 130 which is an appendix document Book IV there is a report on the first page, special detail Rosenberg directs action against Jews, reported by the local commander in Salonika.
What action was that?
A. I am unable to tell you that because I don't know.
Q Should one not start from the fact that in the case of this action we had an action concerned with deportation of Jews?
A No. As from November 1941 until the end of August 1943 I lived in the immediate vicinity of Salonika, and at least once a week at some or another point went through the town, and I know very well that until the spring of 1943 roughly -- I cannot commit myself to the exact date -the Jews in Salonika were entirely left at peace.
Q And later on?
AAs I said before, in the spring of 1943, at least this is how I remember it, the Jews all of a sudden were given either a yellow start or yellow armlet, and were gathered together in a part of the town of Salonika.
Q Who ordered that?
A I don't know. The order did not come from a Military agency. I assumed at the time it came from an SS agency of the Reich.
Q Were military agencies taking a part in this gathering together of Jews?
A No, not according to my observations.
Q Not your staff either?
A No, on the contrary I know very well that somebody, some agency or another approached me telling me that the field police, which was attacked to myself, should help in this and at that time I expressly forbade that such help would be given. Namely, the men who were attached to my staff I told not to take any part in it.
Q Who carried out the measure in the end?
AAs I said before either they were SD agencies or SS, I am not sure.
Q Would you have been able to prevent that gathering together?
A I? Certainly not.
Q Not even your commanding officer?
A No.
Q But surely the Commander in Chief had full executive power?
A Yes, but executive powers find their their limits as it was laid down at the time in the will of the Fuehrer, and against orders coming from Central Reich Agencies a man who held executive power was completely helpless.
Q What was done to these Jews?
AAll I know is that one day they were deported.
Q Where to?
A I don't know.
Q Did you not have any influence on that either?
A No.
Q Did you hear later on where these jews were taken to?
A I heard rumors to the effect that they were taken to a special area reserved for jews in Poland, as it was called at the time, the area of Lublin was mentioned, and it was said that it was intended there to establish a sort of Jewish state where they could have self-administration up to a point in this special area.
Q Did you know anything at that time about concentration camps, Auschwitz for instance?
A Until the end of the war I heard only two names of concentration camps, Dachau and Oranienburg. Auschwitz I never heard mentioned.
Q Just a moment, please, the witness has also said I knew these places as names; would you please repeat the answer?
AAs far as the concentration camps were concerned I only knew the names of the camps at Dachau and Oranienburg. I emphasize "name," because I didn't know the camps.
Q Did you know the names of any other concentration camps?
A No. No other name became known to me during the war.
Q Before you went to the Southeast did you hear anything about the camps in Sabac and Semlin?
A No, that was something entirely different. These were collecting camps, transient camps, or camps for hostages or people captured as a retaliatory measure. They wore called concentration camps. Incidentally it has occurred to me that even an SD report among these documents does not speak of concentration camps, but of a collecting camp and those camps had nothing to do with the term K.Z. concentration camp, such as we are using it these days.
These were concentration camps in the sense of the Boer War. I believe the term concentration camp originates from the Boer War.
Q You mean that people were being concentrated from evacuated areas, for example as hostages?
A Yes, or such members of the population who were locked up there for the reason of security of the occupied power and could not be left at large, such as is being done today again.
Q Witness, were you yourself in an internment camp recently?
A Yes, unfortunately I was in an internment camp, yes, in a civilian internment camp near Deggendorf, for 8 months.
Q Was that a prisoners of war camp?
A No.
Q But you were a general?
A No, this was a civilian internment camp, and when I asked why as a general, who was commanding an army was sent there I was not given any answer. And when then I on behalf of 24 generals who were there, and were later reduced to 16, on account of deceases when I attempted time and again to find out why were were there I was not given any answer.
Q Are you informed about the rights to which you are reserved as a prisoner of war, particularly as a general according to the Laws of War?
A Yes, whether I am completely informed about this I do not know, but I know that as a prisoner of war I should have been treated as a prisoner of war.
Q Was that not the case in this internment camp?
A No, it was not the case. To give you an example, I was not forced to work, but I had to work, which I liked actually, because otherwise I wouldn't have been given any lunch. For four months I worked at a timber sight, which didn't do me any harm, of course, and for another four months I worked in the gravel pit, in order to get a very inadequate lunch.
Q You mean in a proper P.W. camp this is not usual?
A No, before that I was in a prisoners of war camp and after the eight month I was sent back to a prisoner of war camp, and there was treated entirely correctly.
Q While you were in the internment camp were you told why you were there and why you were deprived of your rights as a Prisoner of War?
A No, when I was committed to this camp, and was physically examined, I had to sign a piece of paper concerning valuables which I was not allowed to retain, a watch for instance. I did not have a watch in this camp.
Q Did you have to give it up to the camp?
A Yes, it said underneath the paper, "Civilian internee", and I refused to sign this because I said I was not a civilian internee. Thereupon, it was pointed out to me I had to sign it otherwise -- and then there were a few dots and dashes, and leaving me to draw my own conclusions, and so I signed.
Q Did you hand over your watch?
A Yes.
Q Was it given back to you?
A The watch was given back to me, but 900 marks I did not get back.
Q Witness, to get back to the Balkans, did you ever hear anything about how the Jews were treated generally at that time?
A No, apart from the brief official trips when I was on leave I was always working hard down in the Southeast, and the question did not play any part at all in our vicinity, apart from such events as I described when one noted that the Jews were being gathered together in a certain area.
Q You said just now that you heard at the time that the Jews were to be sent to Poland to a certain type of Jewish state; did you believe that?
A Yes.
Q Did you yourself among your acquaintances include any Jews?
A I don't think this is very important, but just to give you an example I had a personal young administrative officer who had a Jewish grandmother.
Q As a German officer did that not get you into trouble?
A I personally made every effort to remain independent. I did not hesitate to shop in a Jewish shop as long as I was there.
Q Did you or your staff have any contacts with Jews in Salonika?
A Yes, my supply officer with my approval, which he expressly asked for, bought things from Jews quite deliberately. Officers were billeted in Jewish houses. The officers did not seem to mind.
Q Witness in the next exhibit 130, which we have mentioned just now, it says on the 3rd page on page 38 of the original, "Daily Report for the period of 2 to 3 October," there is a report that British prisoners of war had escaped, 27 of them, 2 of whom were shot to death; do you remember this incident?
A Yes, I do. This happened in the Salonika area, it was a railway transport. These men attempted to escape therefrom and as they possibly did not stop when called to on escape they were then shot.
Q Now look at exhibit 131, which is the last one in this document book, are these different reports; different from exhibit 130 I mean?