This is on Page 19 in the English Document Book, the last paragraph. I shall start again under Arabic figure 4, contained on Page 19 in the English text of Document No. 8. The affiant, General Halder, the former German Chief of Staff, says the following:
.....
"4. As to the significance of the Chiefs of Staff signature that was usually put under drafts and final copies that were to be presented to the commander there was no uniform official interpretation. But if there was no other agreement between commander and chief of staff the following may be considered as having been the rule:
At the presentation of a draft to the commander for his approval the signature of the chief of staff meant that in his view the proposed draft corresponded to the intentions of the commander as well as to the orders from higher sources, and that the chief agreed to the wording of the draft. If there were any double as to the intentions and the will of the commander, or discrepancies between him and the directives of superior offices, then it was customary to present the latter orally prior to the presentation of a written draft.
By presentation of a fair copy, of which the draft had already previously been approved of, the signature of the chief, as the man responsible for office procedures, merely meant, according to common usage, that the fair copy corresponded to the draft already approved of and could be signed without rereading."
That is the end of the quotation.
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, I'm discovering a discrepancy in the translation, and I would like to ask the Tribunal that we may hand one paragraph of the original affidavit to the Interpreters to have this straightened out.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: That may be done.
MR. RAPP: For the Interpreters, I'm referring to the first two lines in Paragraph 4 of the original, which you now have.
If Your Honors are looking in the English Document Book, it is not paginated. It is Document No. 8. It says on top "Page 17 of the original" and underneath is a "3", and way at the bottom of this page is Paragraph 4. I'm taking exception in the first few lines appearing under Paragraph 4.
(The English-German Translator begins to translate into German).
I'm going to ask you to translate this into English.
THE COURT GERMAN-ENGLISH INTERPRETER: I believe the error in translation concerns the German word "Signum", which is translated as "signature", but which should be translated as "initial". It is merely an initial.
MR. RAPP: That was the change I would like to make, Your Honors. It appears as "signature" in the English, and it should be "initial". There is quite a difference.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: That is in the first line?
MR. RAPP: Page 18 of the original. That is on the next page on top in the second line, the word "signature" -- the second word from the left. That should be "initial" rather than "signature". Thank you.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q.- Witness, does this conception of the former German General Chief of Staff also correspond with your opinion?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Now, concerning the question of initialing, witness. There are three documents which I would now like to show you. They are three documents which have already been mentioned previously, and I am going to show the photostats to you of the following documents: NOKW-915; that is Exhibit No. 248 of the Prosecution; it is contained in Prosecution Document Book X, on page 14. Then the second document will be NOKW-1413; this is Exhibit No. 216, which we find in Document Book X of the Prosecution, on page 44 and the following pages. And the third document will be NOKW-1395, which is Exhibit 271, found in Document Book XI of the Prosecution, on page 26.
On these documents we find several initials or signs, and the documents have already previously been dealt with concerning this question. I would like the witness to state whether it is his initial or somebody else's, and also what the significance of the initials is. Perhaps, witness, you look at Exhibit No. 248, NOKW-915, first and give us an explanation.
A.- This Document NOKW-915 is an order dated the 12th of January 1943. It is an order by Bader and addressed to Administrative sub-area Headquarters 809. This order contains the following initials: "H" for "Henry"; then there is an "Sch"; and there is a "G" for "George". This "G" is undoubtedly my initial. But I would like to say here that I have doubts as to whether I initialed this document before it was submitted to the Commander. I cannot prove it, but when we look at the document after next I shall refer back to this case. This order, dated the 12th of January 1943, contains also an "Sch".
Q.- Is that the second document? Maybe the first photostat can be shown to the Tribunal so that the Tribunal can have a look at the photostat and observe the initials. Those are the very documents which at a previous date have been discussed and previously the Tribunal has voiced doubts concerning the initials, and that is why I am submitting this to the Tribunal now.
Now, to the second photostat.
A.- The second photostat contains the same.
Q.- Is it your initial or isn't it?
A.- Yes, it contains my initial, but I would like to point out that I do not believe that, at the time, I initialed such orders before they were submitted to the Commander.
Q.- Why don't you believe that this is the case?
A.- You'll hear that in a minute. I shall now turn to the third document.
A.- This third document is an order dated the 14th of January 1943, and it is addressed to the Administrative sub-area Headquarters 809. This document was signed by General Bader personally. It contains his handwritten signature, and it also contains his name in typewritten letters. Under the typewritten name we find a long-drawn, rather cursory "G" ('G" for "George"). It would be contrary to the respect for the Military Commander to sign the document in this manner before it was submitted to the Commander, and I did not at all feel inclined to do anything like that. I can declare that I made that signature at a later time, probably before the document was filed away. And the very same fact applies to the document which is dated the 14th of January 1943. It is addressed to Administrative sub-area Headquarters 809. Here again we have a long-drawn "G". I would never initial in that manner if anything was to be submitted to my commander. Here again this initial was put on at a later date. Concerning the fifth document, we find a small "G" on the right spot. I believe this initial too was made at a later date --I mean when the document was to be filed, or at some other occasion.
Q Witness, if the Commanding General discussed reprisal matters with you would it happen on those occasions that you yourself would make certain recommendations to the General for such orders?
A No, it did not happen. I should say concerning discussions of a basic nature of these matters I would not leave the General in any doubt, that I would favor a milder attitude towards these matters. And on these occasions the General answered that in view of the enormous number of surprise attacks and sabotage acts, and in view of the orders which he received, he could not alter his point of view. May I say something else? I think it is important if the Tribunal were shown these initials which undoubtedly were made at a later date. I refer to the long-drawn, cursory "G's."
Q Perhaps it would be possible for the Tribunal to have a quick look at these documents. (THE COURT PAGE PASSES THE DOCUMENTS TO THE TRIBUNAL). Are those the two documents concerned?
AAgain and again General Bader told me that I was not to interfere in these matters, and that I was not to concern myself with them. I was to leave everything to him. As a frank, former soldier I must declare that this whole attitude of General Bader, concerning these matters, impressed me, so to speak. He took upon himself these difficult questions, on which orders from superior headquarters had been given. He took full responsibility for them concerning his own person. He did not want it to happen that any unit commander or any headquarters commander should be burdened with this responsibility. In the past he had experienced certain natters of which he told General Foertsch that he could not approve of them by any means or in any manner. He deliberately wanted to prevent the recurrence of such incidents, and it took upon himself the burden as a decent, honorable German soldier. This impressed me deeply, and I personally have the highest respect for General Bader just for this reason. I know how terribly he suffered under the situation. I know how, more than once, he considered his resignation, and I know how he had already prepared his request for resignation.
I know he discussed his resignation with General Boehr, and I know hoe he then came and told me that he had torn up this piece of paper because "I am a soldier; I have to obey; my units in the field to whom I have given an order have to obey too. I cannot try to get out of it; that would be desertion." That was how the situation actually was.
A The other documents have not yet been discussed. NOKW 1413.
Q Just a moment. Concerning the photostats which I have shown to the Tribunal with regard to your initials, have you anything to say about them?
A No, the Tribunal hasn't had this one yet.
Q Well, maybe we can submit them later.
A I think it is rather important.
Q Then, will you just add whatever you want to say regarding Document NOKW-1413?
A Now, concerning Document NOKW-1413...
Q That is also concerning your initials.
A Yes.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Dr. Sauter, I think if you would ask more questions and keep the answers a little more responsive we'd get along much faster. When you let the witness loose in an open field it's very hard to restrain what he has to say. Won't you please ask more questions and restrict the answer to some extent?
DR. SAUTER: I am endeavoring in any case to adhere to the rules of procedure in this respect, but I can also understand it if the witness cannot quite master his excitement concerning the experience of those days. Would you please excuse the witness in this respect?
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Witness, if you have anything more to say regarding Document NOKW-1413 in order to clarify the facts will you do that as briefly as possible?
A In discussing Document NOKW-1413...
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: What is the exhibit number?
DR. SAUTER: It is Document NOKW-1413, Exhibit 260. It is contained in Document Book X, and is on Page 58 of the English text.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q This is the second of the two photostats which I have mentioned previously concerning the initialing; so, witness, will you please answer as briefly as possible?
A Yes. When the Prosecution discussed this document the following was asserted. "We believe that the initial "B" should be changed to a "G" ("G" for "George"), and further that the "Y" - which actually is not a "Y" but "Sch", should be changed to "G". Then, His Honor intervened and asked for the basis for these changes, and he said "When Defendant von Geitner is on the witness stand, then he should deal with these questions." In the whole Document NOKW-1413not one of my own initials is contained. May I submit that as evidence?
Q Witness, you told the Tribunal that General Bader suffered under the pressure concerning these reprisal measures. I would be interested in this context to know whether any effects of this fact--or to put my question a little more positively--Did General Bader and his successor, General Felber, take reprisal measures for all sabotage acts and for all attacks in the manner as was ordered by the OKW, or were there cases for which there should have been reprisals but no reprisals were actually taken? How was the effect in actual practice?
A To begin with, the practical effects were that only the most necessary measures were taken concerning reprisals and that a number of quite heavy cases of sabotage or attack were not reported to superior headquarters, so that no reprisal measures should have had to be taken. In a great number of cases the OKW, and even our headquarters, was asked over the head of the Commander in Chief what had happened in a specific case. Besides we had to consider the rather obscure official channels which went to the Supreme Headquarters.
A surprise attack, for instance, on a mine had to be atoned for because the Plenipotentiary for Economy took every possible opportunity to make use of the channels to Goering in order to tell him the occupation forces did not protect him. This applied more in the case of the Higher SS and Police Leader.
In spite of this not everything was reported. In order to prove what happened concerning the higher SS and police leader in these cases may I point to two War Diary entries? One is under date of 24 November 1942. At that time I had attempted to have a friendly talk with the high SS and police leader. After all we had to get along with these people and I told him, "Would you please take care that these reports by dubious channels are stopped." His answer was, "We have to report everything, even if it is not true." A similar request was made in 30 March 1943. He spied on everything and he checked up on everything. He checked in factual matters and he checked impersonal matters. Now, I will give you an example -
MR. RAPP: May I inquire from the witness, are these two references he is making from documents the prosecution has submitted, and if so inasmuch as you are quoting will you give the document number or exhibit number, unless as is customary his defense counsel will help the witness in that respect.
THE WITNESS: No, these documents have not yet been submitted. They will be contained in Document Book Geitner IV, excerpts from War Diaries.
JUDGE CARTER: Dr. Sauter, it was my understanding that the witness was being interrogated about Exhibit 260. Now, I think you should confine his answers to that, and then ask him another question if you want to get into another subject.
THE PRESIDENT: I would like to make inquiry of the witness right here as to Exhibit 260. Do you have it before you, Mr. Witness?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Exhibit 260 has already been dealt with. The witness has now referred to excerpts from War Diaries which came from Washington, and which we have only looked at during the last few days, and these excerpts from War Diaries will at a later time be submitted to the Tribunal as documents for the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: I want to ask a question about Exhibit 260.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q You are being handed the photostat copy, and I want to inquire as to whether or not the initial at the bottom which was changed or suggested changed with the submission of this document, is a "B" or a "G", or whether that is your initial?
A No, in the whole of the document none of my initials are contained. This one is a "B".
Q And the statement that was made at the time of the introduction of this exhibit by the prosecution that this should be a "G" was not correct?
A No, that is not correct. As I see it, this assertion was contradicted by the prosecution itself at the time, and was shown as not correct by the submission of my affidavit concerning my curriculum vitae. On that occasion I had made a change and had put my own "G" on the margin of the document and this "G" was shown as an example of my initial "G", and it is quite a different sign than this "B" which we find at the end of almost all the documents of this exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
BY JUDGE CARTER:
Q Will you turn to page 5 of that Exhibit, page 5 of Exhibit 260?
A Page 5?
Q Possibly that is page 2 of the original, the way it is set up. It is the order of 9 February 1943.
A Yes, I have got it.
Q There are two initials at the bottom of that order, is that correct?
A The order of the 9 February 1943, yes, that is correct. There are two initials.
Q What is the first initial?
A The first initial is a "B".
Q And do you know whose initial that is?
A That means Bode.
Q Not General Bader?
A No, "B" for Bader is the lower one. That is the large "B". The small "B" is Bode, and the other initial is SCH for Schall.
Q I merely wanted to know if you knew whose initials they were.
A The Bode's and Chief and Bader's. On that day my initial could not even be on the document.
DR. SAUTER: B for Bader, and the one here is SCH (indicating) for Schall. There was no initial of Geitner on that document.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Herr von Geitner, we had stopped when discussing the question concerning General Bader's basic attitude, and the effect of his basic attitude concerning reprisal measures; on that occasion you told us that for many cases no reprisal measures were taken, and I shall now submit to you a document that is contained Document Book 24 on page 142. This is Document NOKW 1757. It is Exhibit 540. I repeat it, NOKW 1757, Exhibit 540, contained in Document Book 24 on page 142. Looking at this document and looking at the entries in the War Diary can you tell us in detail whether these documents show that actually for any terror acts no reprisal measures were taken. Can you prove that and give us an example, can you give us an example with figures?
A Yes. The document mentioned shows it is on page 143 of the German text.
THE PRESIDENT: What is it in the English?
DR. SAUTER: It is on page 184 of the English Document Book.
A (continued) This document shows that during the period from the 6th to 25th of February.
Q What year?
A Of the year 1943, that is during those 19 days, or maybe 20 days there were 224 incidents. The evaluation from the War Diaries on the 27 of December 1943 -- I correct myself 27 December 1942 until the 15 April 1943.......
MR. RAPP: Just a moment please. I believe your Honor the witness, unless I have misunderstood, said this period covered a period of 19 or 20 days, that he is referring to. I can't quite follow him, how the period from the 16 to 25 February amounts to 20 days? At least in my Document Book it says "losses from the 16 February". I am referring to page 186. 16 February to 25 February. That doesn't quite figure out the way the witness presented it.
THE WITNESS: 16 of February to 25 February, there are 9 days and 99 incidents of losses.
MR. RAPP: That is 9 days and not 19 or 20 days.
THE WITNESS: And after that in parenthesis we have a further 10 days, so that altogether we have 19 days. In the 9 days which are first mentioned we have 99 incidents, and in the 10 days mentioned later in parenthesis concerning the period from the 6 February to the 15th of February we have 125 cases, which means altogether 224 cases in 20 days. During the period of 27 December 1942 up until the 15 April 1943 there were 1319 incidents altogether, and that in three and a half months. As the Document 1756, which is Exhibit 542 shows, contained in Document Book 24, on page 152 shows, during the first 5 months 80 reprisal cases, or shall we say 80 surprise attacks were taken reprisal for and these reprisals concerned human lives. If one considers these previously mentioned 1319 cases which occurred in a period of three and a half months, let us round up these cases to a period of five months. Let's say 1500 cases occurred during five months, instead of saying 1700 as would have been the exact figure. If one calculates these figures then one would conclude that only 5 to 6 per cent, of all figures were taken reprisal for.
Q Witness -
A I have to say something else. Concerning the period of 27 December 1942 until the 15 April 1943, which I have previously mentioned, the German Armed Forces and its allies, as can be seen from the War Diaries, it shall be shown in excerpts to the Tribunal, had losses amounting to 271 dead, 315 wounded, 828 missing.
If we ignore the wounded and the missing and only deal with the dead, and if we calculate this figure over five months, we will arrive at 380 dead. Reprisal prisoners shown for the period of these five months amounted to, according to the document previously mentioned, 2332. That is not counting the wounded and not counting the missing, one would arrive at a ratio of one to six.
Q Witness, the statements which you just made on the basis of the documents seem rather important to me, and in order to avoid any misunderstanding I would like to repeat the following, and please, would you then tell me whether or not I am correct; you established, as you are telling us, in the first three and a half months of the year 1943, there were roughly 1329....
A 1319.
Q.- In three and a half months there were 1319 terror and sabotage acts and in the first five months of 1943, that is covering a period longer by six weeks, there were only 80 measures of reprisal, is that correct?
A.- Yes, 80 persons killed.
Q.- All right, 80 reprisal measures, and that gives a ratio of about 5 to 6 per cent, of incidents which were actually retaliated, and you counted the German dead -
A.- I said German and Allies.
Q.- All right, German and allies, and if we count in the missing as well we find there were 1314 who were either killed or wounded or missing, as a consequence of such terror acts, and with these 1314 German losses during a time, over a period of approximately five months, we have 2332 Serbians killed?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Did I understand you correctly?
A.- Yes. And there is one more thing I would like to mention in order to clarify the matter completely. This also included losses during all combat action. That is why I left out the wounded and missing when I made my calculation.
Q.- Do I understand you correctly then 1314 German losses include all losses, that is German losses in combat actions?
A.- Yes.
Q.- How high would you calculate those roughly?
A.- That is difficult to say today.
Q.- I see.
A.- Not very much actually occurred in that time.
DR. SAUTER: May it please the Tribunal the compilation which shows these figures which Herr von Geitner mentioned will be found later in Document Book Geitner IV, and it will be Document 81. I have there made excerpts from the War Diaries which we received from Washington, and I have compiled these excerpts according to assets and liabilities and with this compilation in hand the Tribunal will be in a position to check whether Herr von Geitner's statements of today are correct.
JUDGE CARTER: Before we leave this exhibit might I ask the witness if I understood him correctly, when he said these German losses included losses in combat?
THE WITNESS: Yes, indeed.
JUDGE CARTER: And do you mean that reprisals were carried out for the loss of German soldiers in combat?
THE WITNESS: There were no measures taken, but I have not counted the wounded and the missing who in the normal procedure would also be retaliated for. I did not take those into account at all, and that should be a compensation, because just during these first three months of 1943 there were hardly any operations in Serbia. Operations were few because we had to give up two whole divisions, and we had to shift our men around and we were rather weak at the time.
Q. Witness, concerning the attitude of the Chief of Staff towards his commander, do you in this respect share the opinion of General Foertsch, which he expressed on his examination and which expresses that the responsibility is a matter of the commander, but not of the Chief of Staff?
A.- Yes.
DR. SAUTER: In this context I shall then offer a further exhibit. This will be a further affidavit of the Former Chief of Staff Halder, dated August 27, 1947. This is contained in Document Book Geitner I, Document 9 contained page 19, the affidavit has been properly sworn, and I offer it as Exhibit 7. For reasons of time saving I would like the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this document. On the whole it coincides with statements which were contained in documents which were offered for General Foertsch.
JUDGE CARTER: At this time Dr. Sauter we will take our morning recess.
(Thereupon a 15 minute recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Witness, who deputized for the military commander if he was absent from Belgrade?
A In case the commander was absent for a longer period, the deputizing for him was regulated by letting the senior troop commander deputize for him.
Q Were you not as chief of staff his deputy?
A No, I could only deputize for him if he was absent for a very short period if he ramained in his home area. Only in that case could I deputize for him with regard to the current matters. By this I mean matters which had already been decided, on, but concerning all matters which had already been deceded on, but concerning all matters which needed a decision on the part of the commander I could not deputize for him unless the situation happened to be such that a decision was immediately necessary. In that case I was even obliged to make a decision. Such a situation, however, did not occur during my tenure in Serbia.
Q Who was the man who deputized in matters concerning the executive powers, i.e. concerning legal matter and concerning reprisal matters for the military commander when he was absent from Belgrade?
A That was in all cases the senior troop commander who was designated for that task.
Q You yourself never deputized for him?
A I myself had no judicial authority whatsoever and therefore I could not deputize for him in a judicial capacity.
Q Concerning this particular problem, if it please the Tribunal, I wish to read a further passage from an exhibit which has already been offered as exhibit 6. This is document 8 contained in document book 1 Von GEitner. For implicity's sake I would ask you to take judicial notice of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 on page 16 which reads as follows:
During the commander's absence the Chief of Staff was bound to defend the commander's fundamental views also in the face of a temporary deputy.
There was no binding order to that effect, but this obligation certainly follows from the need felt in all the armies to preserve uniformity and continuity of leadership regardless of a temporary absence of the commander. Thus, the Chief could not possibly suggest, in an individual case, to the deputy of his commander a way of acting contrasting basically with the ideas held by his commander, the less so when this line had been fixed by orders from superior commands and the commander himself had fixed his basic attitude by orders given to subordinate commands. Rather was it the duty of the chief to direct the attention of any representative of the commander, who wanted to deviate basically from the line so far in forces, to the dissonance that would thus be created. Any other action would have rightly incurred for him the reproach of disloyalty.
And I shall also read the immediately preceding paragraph on page 16. It starts with the words:
The Chief of Staff of a command authority was the first adviser of this commander in questions of tactical leadership and supply. In these fields he was automatically his deputy, whenever the commander was not in a position to decide himself and there was not another deputy in office appointed explicitly. The field of personnel policy, the field of judicial administration and the field of executive power were outside the province of the advisory duty of the Chief of Staff, which was limited to the sphere of General staff technical matters. That, of course, did not prelude the possibility of a commander discussing such matters with his Chief, if he deemed it appropriate. In these fields no provision was made for the Chief of Staff to act automatically as the commander's deputy, oat the contrary, for these fields an authorized deputy had to be appointed explicitly by the superior office in case of the commander's absence. As a rule, it was the highest-ranking troop commander, but it might also have been that the Chief of Staff was entrusted with this task by the superior office, it he appeared to be suitable according to ability and seniority. Then, what authority, e.g. that to act as the judicial authority, had to be conferred to him expressly.
Q Thus far I have read the expert opinion of the former German Chief of the General Staff, General Halder; I now ask you witness do you completely agree with this opinion of General Halder?
A Yes.
Q I see, and did these cases occur when you were appointed deputy of the absent commander by the superior office?
A No.
Q There were no such cases ever?
A No, there were not.
Q If the commander was absent from Belgrade, what were the names of the generals who deputized for him during your tenure?
A One time General Hinghofer deputized for him.
Q What is his name?
A Kinghofer, I will spell it H-i-n-g-h-o-f-e-r. On another occasion General Dippolt, D-i-p-p-o-l-d. On another occasion Major General Juppe, J-u-p-p-e. On another occasion, General Lontschar, L-o-n-t-s-c-h-a-r. General Geib at one time deputized for General Felber, G-e-i-b.
Q Witness, you have told us that you yourself did not order reprisal measures, but today you told us or maybe it was yesterday that you were informed of the reprisal measures of your commander or of his deputy; is that correct?
A Yes, it is.
Q How were you regularly informed of this?
AAs a rule through the experts, who told me about the commander's decision.
Q I believe you were also informed about reprisal measures, which the troops, the administrative sub-area headquarters or the police carried out?
A Yes those measures which were ordered by the military commander. I was informed about those measures by the daily reports.
Q Is it correct then that all reports which came in from the troops came to your attention?
A Yes, that is correct. The reports came in during the late hours of the morning and were looked through by the 01, and then the draft for our daily report was compiled. This draft was checked by the I-A and it was then submitted to me. I checked it and then it was submitted to the military commander.