Q You say, witness, in other words, if there was a possibility not to report an act of terror, that was done frequently so that retaliation measures might be avoided. Is that correct?
A Yes, that is quite correct.
Q Now, who was the person who made efforts in that direction? Who was the man who was at the bottom of this? Was it Herr von Geitner specifically who made efforts of that sort or was it other officials who did this?
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, I certainly don't want to make it a practice to object to the defense's direct examination of the witness merely not to interrupt the progress of the trials but occasionally it becomes incumbent to do so when Dr. Sauter steps entirely outside of the direct examination by not only suggesting and leading the witness but by giving him the answer on a silver platter. I object to that kind of questioning by Dr. Sauter.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness was asked as to his knowledge of certain facts. If he knows he may answer it; otherwise, of course, he cannot answer. The objection to that extent will be overruled.
Q Witness, what I asked you was, what official, what officer was the man who was at the bottom of these efforts to report terror acts as infrequently as possible to higher up?
A I could not say that it was only one officer who was at the bottom of these efforts but I know from my personal experience that Herr von Geitner was mainly the man who took part in that an act of terror would not be reported. I might perhaps, in order to make it quite clear for the uninitiated, say briefly how these things were handled quite generally. Whenever such an act of terror had occurred-
THE PRESIDENT: I believe the witness has answered the question and I do not believe it is necessary for him to make a further explanation. You may proceed to some other questioning, Dr. Sauter.
Q Witness, do you know whether Herr von Geitner ever had discussed with the Commanding General at the time, that as little as possible should be reported to higher up?
A Yes.
Q How do you know that?
A I know that from my own experiences.
Q Were you present?
A Yes, on frequent occasions -- also quite a few times.
Q Witness, do you know also of other methods used by your agency in order to limit the retaliation measures as much as possible?
A Other methods to keep retaliation measures as low as possible in order to save Serbian blood were e.g. the following: for instance, whenever in a certain area an act of terror had occurred, then all men killed on the side of the enemy, if one can call it "enemy" in this general way -- I mean the bandits of both parties -- in other words, all the enemy dead left behind by the enemy in that area at the time -- they were first of all gathered and listed as part of the quota of the ratio or retaliation. That happened on thos occasions that thereby the ration orders had nearly been met. However, later on the practice was started to have what was known as sham shooting.
Q What do you mean by sham shooting?
A In the case of those shootings, sham shootings, the situation was that from the ratio ordered of perhaps 50 retaliation prisoners, who should have been shot, only some of them were shot. That is to say, 5 or 10, whereas the others were not shot at all.
Q But what was it that was reported to higher up?
A What we reported was "50 retaliation prisoners have been shot."
Q Witness, how was it done in the case of these posters? Is it true that all these retaliation measures were always announced by public posters to the population?
A Most of them, yes, were announced to the population by public posters.
Q Why was that done?
A In order to deter the population from further acts of terror.
Q But now when these sham shootings had occured if in your case, witness, only 5 were actually shot and not 50, what were the names which were listed on these public posters?
A The names of the five who had actually been shot were listed. It said, for instande: for this or that attack "the following persons have been shot" and the names of the five who were actually shot would be listed and then it would be, say "another 45".
Q Those names were not given?
A No, they were not given because they had not been shot.
Q You told us that to order the retaliation measures was up to the commanding general.
A Yes.
Q Now, who actually worked on the retaliation measures? Who worked out the details? Who was that on your staff?
A That was an A.D.C. who had this duty assigned to him.
Q What was his profession?
A He was a legal expert.
Q A legal expert? I see. I believe he was a 1st Lieutenant, wasn't he?
A Yes.
Q Did Herr von Geitner have anything to do with working out the details and preparation of retaliation measures and orders as far as you could see?
A May I, Mr. Counsel, say something about the 1st Lieutenant, perhaps first?
Q Yes, by all means.
A I think I said something which might be misunderstood.
Q You want to make a correction?
A I want to add something.
Q Yes, please do.
A The 1st Lieutenant worked out the details and dealt with the retaliation orders in the sense that when an act of terror had occurred and had been reported to us -- and if the act of terror had been reported to us -- and if the act of terror had been reported to the higher agency in the daily report -- then this 1st Lieutenant would go to General Bader and report to him orally what had occurred. The channel then, in other words, did not as was usual otherwise, go to the First General Staff officer and the Chief of Staff, but in these cases and only in these cases the extraordinary thing would be done that a simple 1st Lieutenant or A.D.C. would go to the Commanding General directly to report to him orally. The Commanding General would then decide whether or not retaliation prisoners should be shot because there again, despite these rigid orders from higher up, cases occurred where retaliation measures could be avoided, although the case had been reported to higher up.
Q Did, in cases of that sort whenever an act of terror had been reported, the Chief of Staff ever make a certain suggestion to the Commanding General -- namely, to have this or that retaliation measure applied -- or was it the Commanding General who decided independently without taking the Chief of Staff into consultation?
A The Chief of Staff did not make any suggestion in that direction. The Commanding General acted entirely independently after he had heard the oral report by the A.D.C.
Q If the Commanding General was not present, if he happened to be on leave for instance, who was it that deputized for the Commanding General on your staff in the question of retaliation measures?
A Should the Commanding General be absent for a longer period of time -- that is, let us say, for more than two or three days -or if he was absent on leave, then in these cases a deputy was officially appointed. This was at least usually the most senior Troup Commander. The Chief of Staff was on no occasion the deputy of the Commanding General; he could deputize in other matters, of course.
Q Ho could deputize for him in other matters? In what matters could he deputize for him?
A In current official business which was not of fundamental importance.
Q What about retaliation measures?
A Never at all.
Q I see. Witness, did you over see any orders concerning retaliation measures which had been signed by Herr von Geitner?
A I saw orders for retaliation on which the name of von Geitner appeared.
Q How do you explain that in view of your knowledge of the organization of your staff?
A Well, that's quite simple. There were cases where the Commanding General for one or two days was absent on an official trip. He was somewhere in Serbia and one always knew where he was to be found. And in cases of that sort it was not usual to appoint an official deputy for so short a period; the Commanding General was contacted on the telephone. He was told all about the cases, and the Commanding General would then, over the telephone, give his decision and his order to our office in Belgrade. Now, since a retaliation order, as a matter of principle, must always be sent in writing or at least on a teletype to the person concerned, who had to carry it out, because otherwise he would not have carried it out at all, there had to be somebody who would then confirm by his signature that this order in writing or in teletype was actually an expression of the will of the Commanding General.
Q And who was that? I mean the one who confirmed that by his signature?
A Well, that, of course, was the Chief of Staff. In other words quite generally Herr von Goitner.
I could imagine also, but it never happened, although it might have happened theoretically, that if and when Herr von Geitner had to go on an official trip and General Bader had to make an important official trip that the deputy of General Geitner had to put his name there.
Q Now, if a retaliation order of that sort was signed on behalf of the absent Commanding General by the Chief of Staff, Herr von Geitner, or by another officer entrusted with it by the Commanding General, what did you see on a letter of that sort? You as officer? Was it, in your opinion, an order by the man who had signed it, or what was expressed by these orders?
AAs I saw it, it was an order from the Commanding General, and I do not think that any German officer who is familiar with the manner in which orders are issued in higher staffs could look upon it differently.
Q Who was it, in your opinion, who was responsible for an order of that sort?
A The responsibility in these cases was indubitably of the man who held executive power, and in this case it was General Bader. Or perhaps if an official deputy had been appointed, it would have been the deputy.
Q Witness, did you and Colonel von Geitner, as he was at the time, or did you and the 1st Lieutenant, the legal expert man, discuss the question whether or not these retaliation measures were permissible under International Law? Or did you talk with General Bader himself perhaps about that?
A No, I do not think that General Bader and I or the Chief of Staff and I ever discussed that.
Q Did you and tho legal man discuss that problem? Did you discuss retaliation measures with the legal man directly -- that is, the 1st Lieutenant?
A Retaliation measures? Yes, of course. Although I myself was not connected with retaliation measures our two desks were facing each other.
Q Your desk and tho 1st Lieutenant's desk you mean?
A Yes, and, of course, we could scarcely avoid, in most cases, whenever a retaliation order was issued to know about it because I knew when the first aide-de-camp would formulate what the Commanding General wanted to have done, in words, and I heard him when he dictated these things to the typist. It also happened that the first aide-de-camp had let me know of tho fact that the Commanding General had refused to have any retaliation measures carried out. And in that sense, of course, I have discussed retaliation measures.
Q Did this legal man who shared your office over express any doubt as to whether these retaliation measures violated International Law?
A I could not finish what I wanted to say before because you started on a new question.
Q Well, you can do so now.
A What I wanted to say was that was the extent to which I discussed retaliation measures with the first aidede-camp. That was your question, was it not?
QQuite. Dr. Bub, I have now asked you -- this 1st Lieutenant was a legal expert, wasn't he?
A Yes, he was.
Q And that's why he was entrusted with this task, because he was a legal man?
A I suppose that must have been the reason why he was entrusted with these duties.
Q Did this legal man ever discuss the question with you whether or not retaliation measures were compatible with International Law?
A I don't think so. I can't say so with certainty because I am not a legal man, and I never dealt with any matters relating to International Law. As an officer I did not have the opportunity to do so, and, therefore, I would hardly have been a suitable partner in a conversation of that sort, unless I wanted to learn from the first aide-de-camp and be enlightened on these matters, and, of course, we didn't have the time for that.
Q Did you not think in your own mind about these retaliation measures and whether they violated International Law?
A I assumed, personally speaking, that orders of so far-reaching effect, at least far-reaching for individual human lives, which came from the highest agency would have been examined by the highest agency concerning their connection with International Law.
Q Well, let us talk about something else, Witness. Did Herr von Geitner, as far as you know conditions, have anything to do with concentration camps, as we understand the term nowadays.
A Concentration camps, as we understand the term today, did not exist in Serbia at that time. There were places where Serbians were kept as prisoners. This was mainly the prisoner camp in Semlin, under the Higher SS and Police Leader.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me. The Witness has said that he -- the witness has said that the Defendant von Geitner had no knowledge or was not responsible for or connected with any of the concentration camps, and I believe that should limit the nature of the questions and the answers, unless it could be briefly handled.
I don't want to limit you, but I don't see any necessity for any lengthy discussion of the question.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Witness, do you know that General von Geitner wanted improvement of certain conditions in the Semlin camp, although it was not part of his competence, in the interest and for the benefit of the inmates?
A Yes, that I know. When a medical officer came and called one day -- it might have been the aide-de-camp of the senior medical officer or of one of his experts under him -- when this officer visited the Semlin camp certain faults in the hygienic arrangements were reported to our agency. The Chief of Staff was highly interested in these reports and he discussed them with Department IV-B as to how these faults could be remedied.
Q Was he at all responsible for what Department IV-B did as Chief of Staff?
A Yes, he was.
Q What is Department IV-B?
A Department IV-B is the department of the senior medical officer.
Q Medical Department you mean?
A Yes, quite.
Q What did he do -von Geitner- in order to have these faults remedied?
A He discussed the problem, with Department IV-B -- I believe it was the senior medical officer himself with whom von Geitner talked.
This was Colonel Doctor Hammer at the time. And he discussed ad to how these things could be remedied. Having heard the opinion of the Department, von Geitner ordered it to do all they could, and the details were entirely up to Department IV-B.
Q Now was Herr von Geitner competent at all as far as this Semlin camp was concerned, in his capacity as chief of staff of the Commander in Chief in Serbia?
A Of course Herr von Geitner could not decide whether or not the camp should be dissolved or whether any fundamental changes were to be effected in the camp, that, for instance, it should be transferred to a different locality; but equally or just as much to the Commanding General was the Commander in Chief in Serbia, and as such the top man in Serbia, in the same way he was the responsible medical officer who at the same time held the position of corps physician, was competent for all hygienic arrangements which became problems in Serbia.
Q I have understood you, Witness.
A But I must explain in greater detail; otherwise nobody can understand me. Geitner, as I said before, was very much interested in anything that occurred in Serbia, and it was his endeavor to help the Serbian people wherever he could, which is the reason why, at least through that channel, he was in a position to avail himself of the opportunity to help. This was how I observed it myself with my own eyes. To give a detailed opinion as to the question how far Geitner as Chief of General Staff could do anything at all in the respect, I a little Ist Lieutenant, am in no position to do.
Q Well, I have only a few small formal questions to conclude this examination. We have reports and we have orders which show Herr von Geitner's initials as "G". ("G" for George).
A Yes.
Q You know conditions on your staff. What do these initials mean? What do they amount to, particularly concerning the question whether or not Herr von Geitner, had knowledge of such documents before he signed or after he signed. Do you understand what I mean?
A Yes, I do.
Q All right, go ahead.
A The question whether Herr von Geitner's initials were added before or after the Commanding General signed the document cannot be answered very easily.
You cannot see it from the document itself. The significance of the initials, as far as I know, is not laid down in any regulation, nor has it been ordered, as a matter of principle where on the document the Chief of Staff should put his initials. There are several places where he could put his initials.
Q Well, I'm anxious to know the following: Is it true that Herr von Geitner would once every week look again at all the documents in order to keep himself well informed and up to date? Do you know that from your own observations?
A Yes, that was so. As I was entrusted with superior of the files, I was the officer who was responsible to the Chief of Staff that he could not overlook anything.
Q Is it correct that when the documents were filed that it frequently occurred that Herr von Geitner would add his "G"? In other words, on documents which had been dealt with long since?
A That happened, yes.
Q I see.
A Yes, it happened that the Chief of Staff, in cases in which he saw a document subsequently and would have had to sign somewhere in the right-hand corner on top, as he did with all in-coming documents. That in such cases Herr von Geitner by mistake would add his initials at the bottom i.e. at the end of the text, although in general initials were added only before the signature by the man in charge of the office.
Q And, Witness, a final point: I shall have to read from what is known as the so-called War Diary. Are you familiar with the War Diary?
A Yes.
Q Did you yourself keep it?
A Yes, I did at certain periods.
Q In these entries in the War Diary there is a certain system of subdivisions.
A Yes.
Q If I can put it this way, it depends on what subject matter is being dealt with, and you frequently -- regularly in fact-saw the expression "Chief".
A Yes.
Q Does that mean Chief of General Staff?
A Yes, it does.
Q And that, at your time, was Herr von Geitner? I see. Now, if under the heading Chief, retaliation orders, for instance, or retaliation reports appeared what conclusion should one arrive at there from concerning what the chief of staff did?
AAll it means is that Chief would tell the aide-de-campe who was in charge of keeping the War Diary and who at regular intervals would see the Chief of Staff and the General in order to make notes and obtain directives for the War Diary, that aide-de-camp would be told by the Chief, in this case, that such and such a retaliation order, to take an example, had to be entered into the War Diary.
Q Let me specify my question in conclusion in order to get a very clear answer. If under the heading "Chief", in the War Diary it says something concerning retaliation measures ordered or carried out, is that supposed to mean that the Chief of Staff had ordered the measures, or at least suggested them? What did it mean?
A It cannot mean that because the Chief of Staff had nothing to do with that.
Q But why does it say so under the heading Chief of Staff?
A Well, after all the Chief of Staff was responsible that the War Diary would be kept correctly by his office and, therefore, he had to take care that matters would be entered with which he himself was connected. After all it's not a personal War Diary. It's the War Diary of the Department Ia.
Q I have no further questions, if your Honors please.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take our morning recess at this time.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any defense counsel who wish to interrogate the witness?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: (Mueller Torgow for General Felmy) CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY DR. MUELLER-TORGOW:
Q Witness, before the recess you said that for some period you were in charge of the War Diary?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Will you tell me, please, to whom was the War Diary of an agency directed, let's say for instance the War Diary of a Division, was it reported to higher headquarters, or what was the case?
A The War Diary, for instance of a Division, was after a certain period delivered to an archieve.
Q For what time or for what period was the War Diary kept before it was delivered?
A I don't believe there were any binding regulations in that respect, at least our agency did not have any. If I remember correctly we delivered it after three months.
Q You kept it for three months?
A Yes, it was concluded after every three months and delivered.
Q You mean to say then that the Division kept its War Diary and did not deliver it to the superior corps?
A That was not done on principle.
Q I see.
A It might have happened in some individual cases, that the delivering of the War Diary to the Army Archives was done through official channels, but that would only be an exception. It was the usual custom, and our agency always pursued it, to deliver the concluded War Diary immediately to the archives, so that the superior headquarters would not gain any knowledge of the contents of the War Diary.
Q Did this same apply to your activity reports which are supplement to the War Diary?
A In my opinion the activity report is not necessarily supplement to the War Diary. I believe I am correct in stating that a War Diary, in the Strictest sense of the term, had only to be kept by troop units and staffs who were committed before the enemy.
Q Yes, I know that, witness. I believe we don't have to discuss that. These units called it a War Diary?
A Yes.
Q And whether it complied with the prerequisites of the German regulations or whether it was in actual fact an activity report, is not the question we are interested in here. I only wanted to know whether the so called activity report, which was made, let us say, by a division, apart from the War Diary, whether the same applied to the activity report with respect to its passing on as was valid for the War Diary; that was my question?
A I don't know the concept "activity report" as a supplement to the War Diary; we did not handle it that way, but in my opinion if a War Diary had as a supplement an activity report, then this activity report would not have been treated in any detail defferent than the War Diary itself.
Q That is enough. I have now another question to put to you; how did you get your information for your War Diary, from which sources?
A The officer who was in charge of keeping the War Diary, had so to speak outside his official activity, knowledge of all events, all files, he knew all telephone calls, etc., and through this he had a kind of skeleton information which he could use. Now, our agencyhad the custom, and I believe that all other agencies had the same custom that the officer concerned with daily or from time to time, went to see his superior officer, be it the 1-A of the Chief of Staff, or be it the Commanding General or the Military Commander or the Commander in Chief, or whatever, it was and got certain information from him for the keeping of the War Diary.
Such statements or information would, generally refer to oral discussions which the concerned had, and might also refer to telephone conversations of which the official concerned could not necessarily know. On this occasion quite frequently the officer concerned would point out the important orders and regulations which were to be incorporated into the War Diary. However, that was generally just a matter of emphasis, because the ADC would, in any case, have all written instructions available, and during the course of time he would have a certain intuition concerning which material should be incorporated into the War Diary, or which material should not be used.
Q Am I correct in understanding you to the effect that the other men in the Corps staff to whom you then went in the war got their information from subordinate units through some channel or other, written reports, telephone conversations, oral discussion etc?
AAs far as what their own decision are concerned, that is correct.
Q Was the paper information which you received for your War Diary according to your experiences and opinion, all factually correct, or was it possible that there were mistakes and errors?
A It was possible that there were errors. Mistakes were even very probable.
Q And how do you account for that?
A I mean mistakes regarding the figures which were mentioned.
Q To which figures are you referring?
A Every unit attempted to exaggerate its successes, to put it generally, and tried to make its successes appear in a favorable light. No group that has had any successes in the past will in any report deny these successes, in fact they will be inclined to exaggerate them.
Q Do you refer in that answer as to whether successes refer to the prisoners or enemy dead?
A It will always be the same.
Q When you talk about enemy dead, you mean enemy killed in combat or reprisal prisoners shot to death?
A I am talking generally. I am talking about enemy killed in combat, and other enemy dead. It is difficult to count enemy killed in combat, and it is even impossible if your own troops do not completely occupy the terrain where the combat took place after the fight was finished, because in that case it would not be possible to cout the dead.
Q One last specific question, witness; how do you explain the fact that the figures of the reprisal prisoners shot to death would have been too high in some cases?
A Undoubtedly in many cases they were reported too high.
Previously when I was examined by Dr. Sauter I talked about the so-called mock shootings.
Q Are you meaning to say that an important part would have been played by the fact that the units knew of the very high reprisal measures which were ordered from superior headquarters?
A No doubt that was known to the troops, because it was always contained in orders passed on to the lower units.
Q And taking into account the mentality of the German soldiers in general what would you say?
A Taking into account the mentality of the German soldier, it can be assumed that he would usually feel inclined to shoot rather fewer soldiers than were ordered to be shot and which were then reported. That was the meaning of my answer.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other defense counsel which wish to interogate this witness? Apparently not. Mr. Rapp you may crossexamine if you so desire.
CROSS EXAMINATION.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, you joined the Nazi party in 1933; is that right?
A Yes, that is correct, on May 1, 1933.
Q Did I understand you to say you had to join it; is that right?
A I was asked by my defense counsel why I joined, whether I did it because of professional reasons. I answered, yes, professional reasons may have played a part since in the dental press at that time it said something like: "The German dentist belonged in the party or something like that. I did not say I had to enter the party, and then there were some other reasons which made me join the party.
Q Just a moment, witness, I am just trying to establish the fact whether you were forced or whether you joined it voluntarily, your motives I care very little about; now you joined it voluntarily; is that right?
A Voluntarily is too large-scale a conception.
Q Now, just what word would you select without making a speech?
A The situation was at the time that a certain pressure was exerted on us, but pressure does not mean we were forced. From the circumstances of 1933, one could not see how matters would actually turn out; and at that time, I was quite young, about twenty five years of age.
Being nationally inclined, which in my eyes is no crime and since the party promised a better future for the German nation and because there were general proclamations, I eventually found myself persuaded to join the party.
Q Very well. Now, witness, you have quoted yourself, if I am not mistaken, during your time that you were in the southeastern theater, a first lieutenant; is that right?
A I was promoted a 1st lieutenant during my stay in the Balkans.
Q Now, witness, were you opposed to these reprisal methods which were carried out down there?
A I personally was not favorably inclined toward those measures.
Q But you were not opposed?
A I, for my own self, did object to them, but I could not do it officially. If I was asked about my personal opinion, I would say that I datest them, I detest a mess, I cannot think of the proper words, I detest collective measures.
Q Now, you got the impression, at least that is what you told the court, that the defendant von Geitner was opposed to these measures too; is that right?
A Yes, I had that impression. I believe we were entirely of the same opinion concerning this.
Q Now were other people opposed to the reprisal measures at headquarters of the military commander Serbia?
AAs far as I could gather a picture of this situation, in the whole staff of the Commanding General, no one who worked on these measures prompted or advocated them.
Q Nevertheless they were carried out; is that right?
A Well, after all they had to be carried out.
Q Very well, then how did the Commanding General himself feel about it?
A I know for certain that even the Commanding General was actually opposed to these measures and he suffered personally over the fact that he had to put his men under these detestable measures, as he put it himself.
Q Now did you ever witness or observe a friction between the defendant Geitner and the Commanding General as far as reprisal measures are concerned?
A No, I did not do that. I cannot imagine such a difference of opinion between the Commanding General and the Chief of Staff. The chief of staff had nothing to do with ordering reprisal reasons, but that does not exclude the fact that the Chief of Staff and the Commanding General discussed such measures in principle of course. In the final analysis they were of the same opinion, they both rejected them.
Q You're sure that you know that?
A I am quite certain
Q Now you told us that von Gertner was interested in everything that took place down there, is that right, including the welfare of hospital, medical treatment, etc?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Was that his immediate concern?
A Herr von Geitner was chiefly concerned with the tasks of a Chief of Staff. A Chief of Staff is the first advisor of his commanding officer in all questions of tactical leadership and supplies for the troops and that always remained von Geitner's main task.
Q Now, witness you also stated that these orders which forced the Commanding General Serbia to carry out these reprisal measures were received from above? Now just what do you mean by above, will you specify that?
A Or agency received orders at the time while I was with the staff from our immediate superior agency, that was the Comnander of Army Group E, which was at the same time the agency of the Commander in Chief Southeast, and which was stationed in Salonika. There was no doubt that the orders did not originate there, but I would have said....