A Until the party was dissolved.
Q When and how did this happen?
A I believe it was in the spring or the summer of 1933, when all other parties were dissolved, apart from the National Socialist Party.
Q Who dissolved all parties at the time, including your party?
A Hitler.
Q Were you also a member of any other party or organization?
A Yes.
Q Which one?
A In 1929 I joined the Stahlhelm.
Q What sort of an organization was that--the Stahlhelm?
A The Stahlhelm was based on the principle s of the veterans, and it wanted to emphasize the comradeship among Front line soldiers and bring it into ordinary life.
Q What was the political tendency pursued by the Stahlhelm? What was its political attitude?
AAs far as the party politics were concerned Stahlhelm was more or less neutral. There were among its members, members of many parties.
Q Essentially it was composed of war veterans I take it.
AAs far as they were of the right age, yes.
Q Did the Stahlhelm of which you were a member have a definite attitude in religious questions, in any particular attitude towards racial questions?
AAs for the religious question the Stahlhelm did not take up an attitude of any sort. As for racial questions one might give this example, perhaps: The second man in charge of the Stahlhelm, the former Major Buesterberg, was partly of Jewish descent. Also, the man who had been in charge for many years in my home province, at the time Dr. Welsch, was also partly of Jewish Descent.
Q In 1933, Herr von Geitner, Hitler came into power. Now, what were the relations between the Stahlhelm and your own relations towards the NSDAP--the National Socialist Party?
A The Stahlhelm lost its independence. The younger members were transferred into the SA, together with their leaders. They formed, as far as we were concerned within the SA, unit of their own. People whom I had under me up till then asked me to go there with them. I finally yielded to their wishes, not to leave them all to themselves. And I led this unit in the SA. We had been promised that this, our unit, would remain together as it was. This transfer occurred by the end of October, 1933. On the first of February 1933 this unit was dissolved. The staff continued to exist, and I, as their officer, was removed.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me just a minute. I wonder if the defendant did not mis-state himself when he said September, 1933? Did you mean September 1934?
THE WITNESS: It was transferred in October 1933. In February, 1934 it was dissolved. I, as the officer, I was sacked and was given the reason that I was politically impossible as an SA leader of an SA unit. I was retired and, therefore, I had nothing to do anymore.
Q. Witness, if I have understood you correctly, in 1934 you were relieved of your position as the man in charge of this Steel Helmet Detachment, the reason being that your National Socialist outlook was highly deficient?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. What in the following period of time were your relations towards the NSDAP, Hitler's Party?
A. On the whole there were no relations at all. I looked on with interest to what was going on.
Q. Did you later on join Hitler's Party?
A. Yes.
Q. Why and when?
A. In the autumn of 1937 the man in charge of the local group of the Party came to see me, he came to my office. He asked me whether I didn't want to join the Party. He dropped a few hints that I was the man in charge of an enterprise, he said, and therefore it was only right and proper that as employer one should become a member of the Party. I deliberated on the point and finally declared myself to be ready to join the Party, and an important factor, ad far as I was concerned was the success in internal politics, namely the modern elimination of the official factor of unemployment. In January of 1938 I was accepted into the Party. I had to pay up fees for 10 months, and my date of entry was announced to be 1 May 1937.
Q. I should like to ask you, witness, when you joined the Party was it entirely voluntarily or were you, as it were, under duress?
A. Well, the local Nazi boss simply pointed to the fact that I was an employer, and of course he stated on that occasion that a large number of my workers, who were small in number, were also members of the Party, etc. He tried to apply a certain pressure, yes.
Q. Did you hold any office within the party after that?
A. No.
Q. Did you take part in any of the bigger occasions of the Party, such as the Reich Party Rally or training courses, or anything like that?
A. I never went to a Reich Party Rally, nor did I take part in a training course.
Q. How did the fact that you were a member of the Party express itself in actual practice?
A. By paying my fees and by occasionally visiting local meetings.
DR. SAUTER: If the Tribunal, please, I might in this connection offer a few documents to the Tribunal, which are concerned with that period of time in Geitner's life, and about the attitude which he took in the period of time. They are contained in Document Book I Geitner, Document II, which I shall give Exhibit No. 1. The Document III, which I shall give Exhibit No. 2, and Document IV, which will become Exhibit 3. Document II, which is Exhibit I in Document Book I, for Geitner, is an affidavit by the man in charge of the Liberal Democratic Party local at Schneeberg in Saxony. This affidavit has been duly certified by the Mayor and been sworn to by the man who signed it. It says:
"Herr Kurt v. Geitner is a person of whom all citizens of Schneeberg still speak with respect and in constant acknowledgement of the meritorious service he rendered our city.
In this respect is not worthy that he possessed, while he was a member of the local city council, not only the confidence of the Right but also the esteem of the Left, as a result of his frankness and clear thinking.
It was left to the NSDAP to slander this deserving man, as can especially be seen from a declamatory pamphlet. The reason for this was the way in which Herr v. Geitner carefully undermined the lying propaganda of the NSDAP, whereby he first of all pointed out, as a result of his great knowledge of history, the errors of former times and warned against a repitition.
The local representatives of the NSDAP recognized the danger of this man who was mentally and morally superior to them, and therefore turned against Herr von Geitner.
Even if he later on gave in to the pressure of circumstances and joined the NSDAP, he nevertheless remained, as before, an enemy of National Socialism.
In the last war he was called up as a reserve officer and remained a reserve officer.
We prized the frankness, geniality and respectable personality of Herr v. Geitner and gained this esteem during the period which he was active in Schneeberg. We are not in a position to judge what happened after that.
Signed Liberal Democratic Party of Germany Local Group Schneeberg i.S.Alfred Steinbach" And I hand the original duly certified to the Secretary General.
The next document which I have announced is document III, Exhibit 2, a duly sworn and certified affidavit by the Union of Christian Democrats of the Local Group of Schneeberg, and I don't think it is necessary to read it in detail. I would ask that note is taken of it, but in order to save time I have not read it because it is more or less the same as the one read just now of another party, and my next offer concerns Document IV, which is Exhibit 3. This is a duly sworn and certified affidavit by Hans Maeftig, also a resident of Schneeberg, who is an attorney, and he says as follows:
"I have known Herr Curt von Geitner for about 25 years. As a result of our social and personal relations we were so close that we expressed our political opinions openly to one another. In the years following 1933 Herr von Geitner was often attacked in the local pamphlets of the NSDAP in an extremely men and unjust manner, because he was an opponent of National Socialism.
In June 1946 I found a copy of such a pamphlet among some old papers which I immediately placed at the disposal of his wife because I know that Herr von Geitner never was a National Socialist by conviction, although he was finally forced to become a member of the Party.
Since his wife has asked me to give an opinion about Herr von Geitner so far as politics are concerned, I take the opportunity to say that I even consider it necessary, not in answer to a personal request but from honest conviction, to acknowledge that Herr von Geitner was neither an active Nazi nor a propagandist, that he exerted no pressure on his staff to join the Party, that he was raging mad about that criminal breech of promise when the pogroms of the Jews began in autumn of 1938 after the Godesberger Conference, and that he rejected the persecution of Jews with indignation, as being entirely unworthy of a cultured people; that he derived no personal advantages from the NSDAP, had no connections with higher Nazi circles and rather expressed the fear that he might be arrested some day for his frank opinions.
Herr v. Geitner also remained faithful to the old Evangelical Lutheran Church and expressed his disdain of the opportunists who could not leave the church quickly enough, in order to gain favor in the NSDAP. Naturally his children were also baptized and confirmed.
I need not read the next paragraph. In the last sentence Maettig says:
"Herr v. Geitner told my father as late as in the winter of 1944/45 that he too thought Hitler was seriously ill mentally.
"Since I am not implicated in Nazi activities, I am practicing my profession as attorney as before, belong to the LDP (Liberal Democrat Party) and the local city council and wish Herr v. Geitner who personally, at an earlier date, applied himself so discretely and effectively for the benefit of our city, the best of luck for the future."
This affidavit has been sworn to properly and has been duly certified.
Q Herr von Geitner, following up these documents from a few political parties and residents of your native town, I would like to ask you what was your position in Schneeberg towards the population, and particularly towards the National Socialist elements among the population?
A In Schneeberg, as is usual in a small town, I had contact with all elements of the population. Actually I did not know any difference concerning class or profession, and I believe that I was well liked by many people. One realized that I was interested in the welfare of all classes. I had no sympathy for, shall we say, intellectual or material pride and on the whole I had no difficulties. After the first intoxication had passed in 1933 our people who were National Socialists found themselves compelled to work and they gradually approached me again and again wanting to use my services. In 1933 I was a town deputy and that was to last until 1934, the beginning of 1934. The members of the Socialist Democrat and Communist parties in the town council and also the Democratic parties were removed and without an election were replaced by Nazis. I looked on for a while, and then I realized that as a non-National Socialist town deputy one had simply to toe the line, and wasn't even in a position to express one's opinion openly. Thereupon I resigned from my position as Town Deputy on 31 December 1933, and I resisted all the invitations to change my mind.
Q Witness, I shall now talk about the 2nd World War, and arrive at the period of time and such matters for which you have been indicted here; how old were you when the 2nd World War broke out?
A I was 55.
Q How was it, that, old as you were, you were still called up?
A In the new Wehrmacht I had become a member of the Reserve. I was appointed on 1 October 1935. I heard that as late as January 1936.
Q One question, were you appointed to your position because you asked, for it, or was it done automatically?
A No, I had made no application to that effect.
Q Now, when in the 2nd World War were you called up?
A On 3 September 1939, during the Polish Campaign I was called up and entrusted with the Command of an Infantry Reserve Regiment at Zwickau, which is about 25 kil. from Schneeberg. Then in December 1939 I was asked by the General Command in Dresden whether I wanted to become a general staff officer again, since after all I had been one before. I thereupon asked them not to ask me to do this, that I thought I was too old to assist a commanding general. If they had any use for me they should make me the officer in change of a small unit, of an infantry Battalion or perhaps an Artillety Detachment. Nevertheless, I believe by February 1940 or perhaps the 1 of March 1940 I was ordered to go and join the General Staff and in order to learn my new job I went to Dresden and then as I-A I joined the Military area command in Breslau 8, and in August 1940 I was transferred to the General Staff, and in October I became Chief of General Staff of a corps in the West. By the summer of 1941 I was used in the East for about 6 months with the Army Group Center (Mitte) as a general staff officer, and after that I was transferred to the officers' reserve, the Fuehrer Reserve, and in the Spring of 1942 I was at home looking after my enterprises, and by the beginning of July I was appointed Chief of General Staff of the Commanding General and Commander in Chief in Serbia. According to the documents I arrived in Belgrade on July 10.
Q Now, about your appointment to the General Staff, I am interested whether or not you endeavored to obtain that appointment, or was it against your wishes?
A No, when I was ordered to go to the General Staff, but had not yet been transferred, I sent the Chief of General Staff and by the ordinary channels another application asking him not to transfer me to the General Staff.
DR. SAUTER: If the Tribunal, please, in this connection I beg to offer to the Tribunal from Document Book Geitner I, Document VI, which I offer as Geitner Exhibit 4. This is an affidavit by General (ret.) Friedrich von Kriebel, sworn to and duly and properly certified, and it says:
1.) In 1940 the then Lieutenant Colonel of the Deserve and Commander of a reserve unit R. v. Geitner was transferred to the military Area Headquarters VII as Ia, the chief of which I was. This meant to Geitner a prospect of a further assignment as a General Staff Officer in the Replacement Training Army. But Geitner preferred an assignment to a front unit. Therefore he submitted me an application to the Chief of the Army General Staff for an assignment as a troop commander in the field, which I forwarded with my support. Still, the application bad no success. Geitner had to remain in the position as Ia and against his wish was transferred to the General Staff.
2.) In this capacity Geitner submitted me in summer 1940 the proposition to continue the employment of an efficient, but not fully Aryan temporary civil servant of his department, Fraeulein Knuth, the dismissal of whom had been insisted upon by the representative of the German Labor Front in the Area Headquarters. This application I forwarded with my backing to the General Army Office which approved it. Thus, Frl. Knuth retained her position thanks to Geitner's intervention.
signed: Friedrich K. v. Kriebel, Major General (ret.)
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, upon inspection of the original of this document I merely wish to state for the record that the statement by Dr. Sauter that this affidavit was sworn to does not correspond to the facts as I see them; although the affidavit is called an affidavit it merely bears a jurat certifying to the correctness of the signature, that is all. It doesn't say it has been done under oath, that the witness knows the oath or its meaning, and for that reason I would like to have that stricken from the record, and in order not to hold up the proceedings I am not insisting that any change be made at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: You are asking for what portion to be stricken -
DR. SAUTER: Herr President:-
MR. RAPP: Only that portion Dr. Sauter referred to that this particularly affidavit had been properly sworn to and signed. It has not been properly sworn to, and has only been properly signed.
DR. SAUTER: If the Tribunal, please, the Prosecution is making a mistake there. This affidavit, which I have just read, and the original of which I shall immediately submit, is called "affidavit", and the first sentence reads as follows, and I read verbatim: "By request from the Major General Curt Ritter von Geitner (ret.) I declare in lieu of oath:" That establishes that this statement has been sworn to properly.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I still insist on the statement I have made that this is not the proper way, and I am sure Your Honors have seen previously the correct way of having an affidavit properly put under oath, so I am still asking that that part be stricken from the record, and as far as bringing it up at a latter time is concerned, without prejudice, as far as other affidavits are concerned, I am not insisting or pressing on that at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand you, Mr. Rapp, you are merely making an objection for the record and merely want to have stricken that statement by Dr. Sauter that it was properly sworn to and there is no objection to the affidavit?
MR. RAPP: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion will be sustained. The affidavit will be received in this form, subject to the statement made and for the purposes of the record. You may proceed. In other words, Dr. Sauter, he is making an objection for the record and is not objecting to the document. You may proceed with the examination and the reading of the document.
DR. SAUTER: If the Tribunal please, I must apologize but I am not quite clear on what this objection is to mean. If there is no objection to the document and if the court recognized the fact, which cannot be doubted, that this document has been sworn to properly, then I really don't see what this objection by the prosecution amounts to.
THE PRESIDENT: If is possibly technical and for the purpose of his not acknowledging this type of acknowledgement, but he has no objection to it being received after having made his statement. You may proceed with the reading of the document.
DR. SAUTER: Then I offer as the next exhibit document No. 10.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, had you completed reading all this document. I believe you had completed it all, had you not? Yes, you had concluded it, so you may proceed with the next document.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Yes, I have read it all, Now I shall come to document No. 10, which I offer as exhibit No. 5. This is an affidavit signed by General Franz Halder, former chief of staff of the German Army. It is duly certified by the officer in charge of the American camp, where it was sworn to. This document also deals with the question of how it was that General von Geitner as a reserve officer joined the general staff. I need not read the initial paragraph - it is the affidavit formula and he says in the second paragraph:
"I make the following statement on the basis of my 45 years of acquaintance with the personality of the former general Curt von Geitner. Geitner and I were officers of the Bavarian field artillery of the same year. Together we attended the War College and the Artillery School in Munich. From this common education developed a personal friendship, which in spite of the diversity in our roads of life never permitted the severance of contact between us. My statements are based on the knowledge of his person that I gained through this personal friendship, they are not based on our official relations.
"I know Curt v. Geitner "s a noble, pure character who remained guided by the austere views of honor and duty characteristic of the old German soldier caste, even during the many years after the first world war, during which he pursued a civilian profession. His excellent disposition and vivid temperament, together with an outstanding flair for practical matters, his untiring activity and pleasure in work have brought him recognition and appreciation everywhere. His thoroughness and unusual conscientiousness, which made it impossible for him to treat any thing superficially or lightly, or to evade discomfort, are just as characteristic of him as his frankness and courage with which he stands for his opinion without regard to advantages or disadvantages. Geitner is a man who believes in strict righteousness; selfishness or unhealthy ambition is foreign to him. He is a good--hearted person, who always helped others wherever he could. In the vast circles of his acquaintances I have never heard that he was spoken of in any other way, but in words of high esteem and reverence.
"The military re-employment of Geitner in the past war did not occur upon his wish or request. He accepted the tasks conferred upon him out of his sense of duty towards his fatherland. The shortage of older general staff officers was the reason why against his will he was put to service with the general staff. Von Geitner at that time approached me as the Chief of the General Staff of the Army with the request not to use him in the general staff.
For lack of available personnel this request could not be granted."
Then there is the signature by Colonel General Franz Halder, who was at one time chief of the general staff of the German army.
Witness, now that is how it came about that you found yourself on the general staff in Serbia. Did you in the following period of time become an active officer again or did you remain during the ensuing years a reserve officer?
A. I remained in the reserve.
Q. In other words you are the only reserve office in the dock?
A. Yes.
Q. When you came to Serbia what was your rank?
A. I had just been promoted to Colonel on the general staff.
Q. When was that?
A. I believe on the 1st of July or June of 1942.
Q. 1942?
A. 1942.
Q. When you came to Serbia who was commanding general in Serbia?
A. Paul Bader, general of Artillery.
Q. And how long did you hold the position as chief of the general staff with General Bader?
A. Until the end of August 1943.
Q. Over a year in other words?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you do in August of 1943?
A. In August of 1943 this staff was sub-divided one part became the general command of the 24th Mountain Corps under General Bader and the other part was transferred to the staff of the newly established Commander in Chief Southeast under General Felber, General of Infantry.
Q. Is that the same General Felber, who was heard here in this trial as a witness?
A. It is.
Q. And where were you after August 1943?
A. I became chief of the general staff with the commander in chief Southeast.
Q. What were the tasks of General Bader and after August 1943 of General Felber in Belgrade?
A. General Bader was the commanding general and military commander Serbia. His first duty was the maintenance of law and order, security in Serbia in what was then described as Serbia, the old Serbia, above all protection of the communications leading down south to Athens over Salonika, the railroads and the communications to the east, to Sofia, and very important the protection of the Danube, a line of communications which was highly important for German oil supplies and graim supplies from Rumania, due to what was known as the "Iron Gate". This was the nucleus of his duties as it were.
Second, until about the middle of November, 1942 General Bader was in charge of what was called the fighting group "western Bosnia' under General Stahl who was fighting the Tito bands in western Bosnia, in the Kossara, on the Unasana-bend, Samaritza in the Ksune mountains.
Third, General Bader was in charge of the administration of Serbia. These were the tasks of General Bader.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, we will take our afternoon recess at this time.
THE MARSHAL: The Court is in recess until 3:15 o'clock.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Witness, you told us just before the recess something concerning the tasks of General Bader. You said that they consisted foremost in the securing of the land and the combatting of the Croatians and, thirdly, in the administration of the country of Serbia. I should now be interested to know how General Felber in August 1943 took over the office which was then created, the office of the Military Commander Southeast. Was there any change with regard to these tasks and if so which ones?
A Yes, to begin with, I would like to add something. General Bader was at that time subordinate to the Commander in Chief Southeast who had previously been Armed Forces Commander Southeast. With the creation of the Military Commander Southeast which was the official designation of General Felber, the following changes occurred. General Felber was the Territorial Commander or the Southeastern area. As Territorial Commander he had the task of:
(a) Dealing with purely military tasks in the Southeast, (b) Dealing with the administration or, rather, the supervision of the administration in Serbia, in Greece and in Montenegro and, at the same time, the Plenipotentiary Commanding Generals with the Albanian and Croatian government were also subordinate to him.
(c) General Felber in his capacity as Military Commander Serbia, which office he held at the same time as well as holding the office of Military Commander Southeast, was responsible for security, peace and order in Serbia.
His relation of subordination was the following:
A Territorial Commander and as supervisor over the administration he was subordinate immediately to the OKW and in between was the Quartermaster General of the Army. Besides he as Territorial Commander was more or less equal to the Commander in Chief Southeast.
With respect to his commission of the securing of Serbia which coincided with the tasks of General Felber to look after the securing of Serbia, he was also subordinate to the Commander in Chief Southeast who was at that time General Field Marshal von Weichs.
Q Considering these complicated channels of subordination we have heard something from General Foertsch a few days ago. Do you share his opinion in all points concerning these difficult questions or do you have a different opinion concerning one point or the other?
A I agree with General Foertsch to the following extent: regarding the chapter of reprisal measures, I think they came within the circle of the Territorial Commander inasmuch as he was the holder of executive powers and besides he was the judicial authority of the area and this concerning reprisal measures as far as causing them was concerned. However, in my opinion, one cannot deny that the reasons for and the effects of reprisal measures were matters of security or at least could have been matters of security.
Now, shortly before these channels of command had been changed, an order had arrived at the office of the Commander in Chief Southeast according to which reprisal measures were measures of security. That was laid down in writing in Exhibit 306 contained in Document Book XII, page 94. It was only natural that the Military Commander Southeast just as before had certain interests as well as the Commander in Chief had certain interests in the conditions in Serbia. However, there is also a service regulation of the Military Commander Southeast. This service regulation of the Military Commander Southeast has so far not been submitted by the prosecution but we can find it in the original of the document, I believe it is 1471, NOKW-1471. It is Exhibit 423 and it is contained in Document Book 17 on page 89.
Q That's on page 123 of the English Document Book and on page 89 of the German text - and 123 of the English text.
A This service regulation of the Military Commander Southeast is not contained in the document of the prosecution which I have just described but it is contained in the original document and in the photostat of the original document.
It says in this document that the Military Commander Southeast is to receive directives from the Commander in Chief Southeast concerning all matters. If I remember correctly, it says: "In all matters closely connected with tasks of combat and security". This service regulation is dated the 7th of October and was issued by the OKW.
Q Witness, this regulation to which the witness is referring here and which is contained, in Document NOKW-1471 -- I repeat NOKW-1471 reads literally under figure "8":
"The Military Commander receives instructions apart from the General Staff of the Army - the Quartermaster General, according to figure "Ia", also from the Commander in Chief Southeast in matters which are closely connected with combat and security measures."
I believe that is the provision, witness, which you are referring to.
A Yes, it is.
DR. SAUTER: This is NOKW-1471, Exhibit 423, and we find it in Document Book XVII on page 123 of the English text but, may it please the Tribunal, I would like to make the following remark concerning this: this part of the Document NOKW-1471 is not contained in the document book of the Prosecution and in my document book Geitner No. IV. I shall have to reproduce this part of the Document 1471 and submit it as a document. This is then the service regulation for tie Military Commander Southeast; that is for the agency where the defendant worked as Chief of Staff.
Q Now, witness, maybe you can continue.
A Now, we have the provision of the Commander in Chief Southeast which also refers to this problem. It refers to the channels of command in the Southeast Area. It says there that the Commander in Chief Southeast is responsible for the security in the country itself and for the combatting of sabotage acts.
It is, therefore, not surprising that the Military Commander Southeast was of the opinion that the Commander in Chief Southeast was considerably interested in the measures which he, for instance, would take for the combatting of sabotage acts because the very same band which today attacks a certain command may tomorrow attack a railway line and, therefore, the Military Commander Southeast must have been under the impression -- at least, under the personal impression - of being dependent from the Commander in Chief Southeast concerning these matters. I think, to say the least, the responsibilities overlapped here.
DR. SAUTER: May it please the Tribunal, this service regulation to which the witness has now referred, the one from the Commander in Chief Southeast for the Military Commander Southeast, is the service regulation of the 30th of October 1943 - that is, of October 1943. It is Document NOKW-1010. It is Exhibit 351 and is contained in Prosecution Document Book XIV on page 75 of the German text and on page 89 of the English text and the passage to which the defendant referred just now is obviously figure "4" of this document which reads, and I quote:
"Commander in Chief Southeast: As the Commander in Chief over the Southeastern area bears also the responsibility for the security within the country itself as for the combatting of the bands and the countering of sabotage acts " -- that is the end of the quotation.
Q Witness, is that the passage which you had in mind?
A Yes.
Q Is there any connection between this regulation and the question to whom you had to deliver your daily reports?
A Yes, we had to give our daily reports to the Commander in Chief Southeast. As far as I know, that was done in the original and for information a copy was passed on to the OKW Operational Department "Q" and to the German Quartermaster of the OKH.
Q Now, witness, up until now you have described the task of your Commander, your commanding officer. What were your own tasks concerning your work with your commander?
A I had the official position of Chief of General Staff and in the regulation it actually read, "Chief of the Command Staff." I was the Chief of that Staff which had to deal with the operations, supplies, training, organization of the troops.
Q That was the so-called General Staff or, as you put it, the Command Staff.
A Yes, the Command Staff.
Q In your agency - I mean the Commander of Serbia - were there anyother departments or staffs?
A There was one administrative staff which dealt with matters of administration of Serbia. The Chief of this administrative staff was at first State Counsellor, Dr. Thurner, and later the War Administrative Chief Boenner.
Q Boenner? Maybe you would like to spell it.
A B o e n n e r, Boenner.
Q He was in the Administrative Staff?
A Yes, the Administrative Staff.
Q And what other staffs were there with your agency?
A Then my agency also had a Plenipotentiary for the Economy.
Q And who was that?
A That was the NSFK Gruppenfuehrer or Obergruppenfuehrer Neuhausen. This Plenipotentiary for the Economy was subordinate to time Commanding General and Commander. Only concerning his own person. He received his directives concerning the direction of Economy from the 4-Year-Plan.
Q You have told us that you headed the General Staff and it was the task of this staff to deal with operations, training, supplies and organization of the troops. Now, what tasks did the Administrative Staff have?
A The Administrative Staff was to deal as a kind of supervisory administration for the Serbian administration, i.e. the administration of the country.
Q What did you have to do with the Administrative Staff?
A The Administrative Staff was not subordinate to me. It was subordinate to the Commander directly.
Q What units were at your disposal or, rather, of your Commander at the time for security in the country?