Q. Herr Von Geitner, now concerning the bands, I would be interested to know whether you were of the opinion that these Serbian bands were the legal representatives of the old Yugo Slavian army or were you of a different opinion?
A. This idea that the bands were the continuation of the Old Yugo Slav army was one which seemed absurd to me. The Yugo Slavian army had capitulated, every person who illegally after this capitulation was found with weapons or even in uniform was in my opinion - and this was a general opinion - to be regarded as a franc-tireur.
Q. Concerning the chapter of "bands in Serbia," is there anything else you would like to say; anything which has so far not been said by any of the witnesses or are you in conformity with the testimony or other witnesses concerning this point?
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I don't think such a question is proper, that is an invitation to speak on any subject. I think you should limit the question yourself and expect a responsible answer.
THE WITNESS: May I answer, or should I not answer?
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. No, you are not to answer this question.
We now turn to a different chapter. During the time of your activities in Serbia did you have anything to do at all with the Jewish question?
A. In Serbia I had nothing whatsoever to do with the Jewish question. I remember and this can also be seen from the documents that once there came a teletype from the plenipotentiary commanding general in Albania to the effect that the S3 division Skanderbeg, which was stationed in Pristina or somewhere near there had arrested three hundred Jews.
Q. May it please the Tribunal this document is document NOKW 668, which is exhibit 440. It is contained in document book 18 of the prosecution, the page in the German text is 87 and the page in the English text is 88. Herr Von Geitner, this is a daily report of the military commander Southeast addressed to the commander in chief southeast and it concerns an action of the division Skanderberg; is this the report you mean?
A. Yes, it is. This fact was made known to us by a report of the plenipotentiary commanding general for Albania. I don't know who it was at that time.
Q. I am just informed that it is page 89 of the English text, it is document book 18, page 89 of the English text.
A. This report was passed on in order to characterize the situation. The division Skanderberg was an SS division and as such it was subordinate neither to the plenipotentiary commending general in Serbia nor the military commander Southeast. The plenipotentiary commanding general for Albania turned in this matter to the plenipotentiary SS leader to the Albania government, who in turn was not subordinate to the plenipotentiary commanding general, and he complained. The SS leader replied and told him at the time that he would take care of the matter and that is all that I know about this particular affair.
Q. Then you yourself personally had nothing to do with this affair ever?
A. No.
Q. And you had no responsibility for this matter?
A. No.
Q. Herr Von Geitner, I shall then have to show you another document. This one is also concerned with the persecution of the Jews. It is contained in document book XVII of the prosecution. The document concerned is NOKW 692, it is exhibit 422. You find it in document book 17 of the prosecution, page 86 of the German text and page 110 of the English text. This is an administrative report of the military commander Greece, and it is addressed to the military commander southeast, that is your office, the office were you worked, among other things there is some mention about the confiscation of Jewish property in Athens and the transfer of the trusteeship of this property to the Greek government; did you have nothing to do with that?
A. No, I only learned about this matter here. The report from the military commander Greece is not the general situation report, it is rather a situation report of the military government of Greece and we received it in our office for the Military administration with the military commander southeast. I was never informed of any of these facts and I had nothing to do with them, as it was purely an administrative matter.
Q. As chief of staff did you have anything to do with police matters and were there ever any conflicts.regarding responsibility between you and the Higher SS and Police leader?
A. I myself had nothing whatever to do with police matters. When I came to Belgrade there was the system of the Higher SS and Police leader next to the system of the military commander. The Higher SS and Police leader Meyssner soon after I got there became known to me as a very stubborn man, as a man who hated everything connected with Serbia and Serbians and as a man with whom it was difficult to discuss matters. As I have already said, he was subordinate to the military commander only concerning his own person and not concerning his staff. He received his directives concerning matters of police security directly from Himmler and regarding the purpose which was connected with his appointment, I would like to refer to a document which has already been shown to General Foertsch. That is exhibit 529 contained in document book 24 on page 67 of the German version. According to this document the combatting of the insurgents was to be carried out through a far flung net of spies and through brutal political measures and measures of a secret police nature. After the highest SS and police leader had been appointed, these measures were to be applied to the largest extent possible.
Q. May it please the Tribunal, the document which the defendant has just mentioned is exhibit 529. This is document NOKW 1669. It is contained in document book 24 on page 103 of the English text.
Now, witness, in connection with Meyssner, I should like to ask you; do you remember an order from Bader, which was issued during your time? As a matter of fact it was issued on 10 October 1942 and it concerned the treatment of captured insurgents?
A. Yes.
Q. It is document NOKW 1722, that is contained in document book 9, it is exhibit 228, pages 66 and 67 of the German text and on page 51 of the English text.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I find document 1722 which Dr. Sauter is referring to in document book 24.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: It is also on page 51 of document book 9, the same NOKW 1722.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q No. 1722 that is the document I am referring to; witness, do you remember this order?
A Yes this order or rather the development of this order is the best proof of the fact that Meissner spied on the military commander and it also proves the fact that he intirgued against him with his chief Himmler. The military commander had, followed a suggestion of mine, transported a number of Draja Mihajlovic leaders, who were obviously insurgents to a German prisoner of war camp and Meissner had demanded that his vehicles be free of any military check-up. In turn we received a teletype from the O.K.W. asking us to account for these two facts. The teletype contained a statement to the effect that the higher SS and police cader was to be called in inquestions concerning the treatment of insurgents. This fact led up to the order which is contained on page 66 of the German text. It starts on the bottom of that page. This is a new version of a former order which Bader had issued. As far as I know this previous order originated from a time prior to my arrival in the Balkans. It originated,on 25 March 1942.
JUDGE CARTER: If the witness is going to refer to a document, let us have it identified.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, what are the contents of this document?
THE WITNESS: It is on page 66 of the German text and it says there....
JUDGE CARTER: That does not help us, Dr. Sauter, we don't have the German text, where is it found in the English?
DR. SAUTER: The English text is contained in document book 9. On page 51 of the English text we find this document. It is still document NOKW 1722, exhibit 228 contained in document book 9 on page 51.
JUDGE CARTER: Yes I have it, but where is the witness reading from?
DR. SAUTER: Witness, have you got the document in front of you and what is the page you are reading from?
THE WITNESS: I am reading from page 2 of the document here, figure 1.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Is that the order of 10 October 1943?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Alright, that is on page 52 of the English.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q This communication starts on page 6 of the original and then it says: "Headquarters 10 October 1942," (that is page 53 of the English text.). On the lefthand side it says Commanding General and Commander in Serbia, Branch Ia No. 5310/42 Secret. Subject: "Treatment of captured insurgents in Serbia." Then we have figure 1, altogether we have four passages and the witness v. Geitner is concerned with figure 1. It is on page 53 of the English text.
A "A person encountered carrying arms or assisting insurgents during combat actions is to be hanged or to be shot dead as a matter of principle. Leaders, political commissars and couriers are to be interrogated first of all if possible in collusion with S.D."
Under figure 2, it says:
"Insurgents taken outside of combat actions, insurgents who have surrendered giving up their arms, persons arrested under suspicion of belonging to the insurgent movement, of having aided and abetted the insurgents or in any other manner cooperated with the insurgents are in general to be turned over to the Commander of the Security Police."
Now we have a sentence which after a long discussion with the Higher SS and Police leader was incorporated into this order on my request and on my initiation. This sentence is not contained in the old version of the order and it reads:
"This does not infringe upon the authority of the Commander of Administrative Sub Headquarters to instigate and execute court-martial procedure."
Now the next paragraph, three, was unfortunately not incorporated in this document by the prosecution. It reads as follows:
"The commander of the Security Police clarifies the facts. If he considers that the basis is given for a court martial procedure, Then the prisoners will be transferred to the summary court martial or the competent administrative sub area headquarters. The procedure is to be expedited as much as possible. A strict standard is to be applied."
Under figure 4 we read the following:
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, may I suggest for the purpose of possibly gaining some time since we all can read that the witness be instructed to merely possible refer to these figures rather than read again in the record providing they appear already in the record.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q I believe that one can only understand what is contained under figure 3 correctly if one knows the whole order, the whole order consists of four passages and the defendant is just about to read the last passage. It would already have been read out at this time had we not been interrupted.
A The contents of the last passage deals with those persons who are not liable to a court martial procedure. They are to be released as acquitted or sent to a prisoner of war camp. Convicted persons will be made available, for the Plenipotentiary General fer Economics to procure voluntary work for him or they will be deported for compulsory labor by the commander of the security Police in accordance with the degree of their guilt. Those are people who are not sufficiently suspected for a court martial procedure.
In connection with this order I would like to make the following statement. The strong emphasis on the court martials can be traced back to my instigation. This was done in opposition to the wishes of the Higher SS and Police leader.
This order was then passed on through official channels via the armed forces commander southeast to the O.K.W. and it was accompanied by a note saying only persons can be sent to a prisoner of war camp who have not been convicted, but who for reasons of precaution should be deported from Serbia. This sentence again represents a camouflage because in actual fact even after that date there were convicted Draja Mihajlovic followers who were sent to German prisoner of war camps. I know that because on the occasion of such a transport some people of that type escaped us and because I was reproached because of their escape. Because of this escape, Meissner was informed about the whole incident.
Q. Witness, I would now like to conclude these general statements and I would like to turn to some specific cases which you are charged with by the prosecution.
Under Count 5-e of the indictment you are charged as being responsible or co-responsible for the shooting of 10 Communists as reprisal for sabotage acts around the date of the 7th of March 1943 and this was to have happened south of Topola. I think we are concerned here with the Document NOKW-1360 which is Exhibit 264. It is contained in Document Book XI on page 2 of the German text and on page 1 of the English text.
Did you play any part in that affair?
A. I did not play any part. It is an order which was given by my Military Commander. The reprisal measures were taken because apparently the main communication line which passed through there to the south had been destroyed. That was why the reprisal measures had been taken.
Q. Did you issue this order?
A. No.
Q. How come, then, that you are charged with it?
A. I was only informed of it.
Q. Will you please observe the fact that you have to make a pause before you answer?
You were informed of this order after the act?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you initial this order?
A. No.
Q. Do you know what this action actually was?
A. It was the destruction of an important communication line, telephone line.
Q. This is an a military installation?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And the shooting of the 10 Communists, was that a reprisal measure?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And you were only informed of it after the action had happened?
A. Yes, I learned about it after the Military Commander had ordered the measure.
Q. I will then deal with the next count of the indictment. This is 5-f of the indictment. In this count you are being connected with a case of 350 Communist who were allegedly executed as reprisal for the murder of 3 German custom officials. That was to have happened around the 27th of June 1943. I think this refers to Document NOKW-380 which is Exhibit 283, contained in Document Book 11 on page 58 of the German text and page 74 of the English text. Were you connected with this affair in any way?
A. This question is not very simple to answer. First of all, the assertion of the prosecution is not correct. The prosecution talks about the shooting of 250 Communists as a reprisal measure for the murder of 3 German custom officials. In actual fact, this measure was a result of the murder of German custom officials and also a result of the shooting at a leave train, Sofia-Nish, on which occasion 3 Bulgarian soldiers were killed and 2 more wounded. This document concerns -
Q. Just a minute. I want to mention the numbers. These are the the Documents NOKW-341-m, which is Exhibit 275. It is contained in Document Book 11 on page 43 under "a". That is the order concerning the murder of the German custom officials. The other order, the one referring to the 3 Bulgarian soldiers who were killed and the 2 Bulgarian soldiers who were wounded, this other order, is NOKW-340, which is Exhibit 276 contained in Document Book XI on page 44, of the German, page 54 of the English text.
Witness, can you tell us for how many dead and for how many wounded in total the reprisal measure was taken?
A. The reprisal measure was taken for 6 killed and 2 wounded.
Q. Then there were 8 people in all?
A. Yes.
Q. Who issued these two orders?
A. These two orders were issued by General Bader.
Q. Did you have any influence whatsoever on the issuance of this order?
A. No.
Q. Did you participate in the issuance of the orders?
A. No, because after General Bader had given the order I was shown the order which had been put down in writing and this is contained in Document Exhibit 275. This document bears my initial. I don't know when I initialled the order because in the normal course of events I would not even be shown this order before the General had signed it. Even if it had been submitted to me then the order would have already been issued and the decision of the Commanding General would have already been made.
Q. The next case where the prosecution connects you up is, Count 5-g, of the indictment. This count concerns the execution of 150 hostages as reprisal for the murder of 2 German soldiers and for the wounding of a further 2 German soldiers near Posarevac. I believe the Document NOKW-148 refers to this incident. This is Exhibit 365. It is contained in Document Book XII on page 91 of the German version and on page 106 of the English version.
Witness, what was your connection with this case?
A. This incident took place at a time when General Bader was on leave and his deputy, was General Lontschar. He was at that time Administrative Subarea Headquarters Commandant in Belgrade. The incident was based on a request made by his own administrative Subarea Headquarters which is the Administrative Subarea Headquarters 799. The case was submitted to him and he agreed with the manner of dealing with the affair. He signed the order. The order also bears the initial "g".
Q. "G" like "Geitner."
A. Yes.
Q. Then you initialled this order?
A. Yes, I did.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until three-fifteen (A recess was taken) Court No. V, Case No. VII.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors, I should like to interrupt for just one short minute, if i may. The Deputy Secretary General tells me that the Prosecution has introduced two different documents under the same document number. During the course of the cross-examination of the Defendant Kuntze we introduced NOKW-1779 as Exhibit 594; and then, two weeks later, during the course of the crossexamination of the Defendant Foertsch, we introduced another document with the same exhibit number. We can either move up the remaining documents introduced on cross-examination of General Foertsch one number, or, if Your Honors would prefer, we can introduce NOKW-1779 as Exhibit 593-B.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: There's always the danger that often exhibit being referred to by both of the numbers. Personally I have the feeling that you ought to leave it just as it is, even though you may have it offered twice. It will do no particular harm. Those things are bound to occur occasionally.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: That will be all right with the Prosecution, Your Honor, if that's the war the Tribunal feels.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Well, it's possible that you may have referred to it by one number in one way and by another number in another way. I would hate very much cause any more confusion by changing it if that happened to have been the fact.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Yes, that may have happened, Your Honor. We shall leave it as it is.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: Dr. Mueller-Torgow for the Defendant Felmy.
Your Honor, I would ask that my client be excused from tomorrow's session, in order that I may prepare my case.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: They may be done under the usual conditions.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: "Thank you, Your Honor.
DIRECT-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Witness, we stopped at count 5-G of the Indictment, according to which 150 hostages were supposed to have been shot as reprisal for the murder of two German soldiers and the wounding of two other German soldiers near Posarevac. Please, would you answer thus?
A. The order was distributed by the deputy of General Bader, Brigadier General Kontschar, and it was signed by him. The order bears my initial, but, after seeing the photostat copy of the document, I think it was initialled subsequently, because I was not accustomed to sign my initials this way before it was submitted to the Commander.
Q. And did you propose this reprisal measure?
A. No, it was probably proposed by General Lentschar himself, because it came from his own administrative subarea headquarters.
Q. In the Indictment there is mention of 150 hostages.
A. In the order it states 150 expiation prisoners.
Q. In the order, Document NOKW-148, Exhibit No. 305 it states expiation prisoners. And what kind of expiation prisoners were these? Please wait a moment, General von Geitner.
A. They were presumably expiation prisoners from the expiation prisoner camp of Administrative sub-area Headquarters No. 799.
Q. Can you imagine why these people ware arrested?
A. This is probably cased on the order by General Bader's order about the installation of expiation prisoner camps.
Q. And did these people have anything to do with the band movements?
A. They were people who were to be regarded as accomplices of the bands.
Q. And you can swear to it that you did not issue this order?
A. No, I did not issue this order.
Q. I will now go on to the next count in the Indictment. That is Figure 5-H. This is presumably Document NOKW-174, Exhibit No. 410, Document Book XVII, German Page 40, English Page 52. And the Indictment states: "Execution of 50 Communist as reprisal for the killing of 7 and wounding of 4 German policemen around about the 15th of September 1943 near Krigvice. Witness, did you have anything to do with this reprisal order?
A. No.
Q. Answer please?
A. No.
Q. And who issued it?
A. This order was issued by General Felber on the application of the Higher SS and Police Leader. At that time near Krigvice there was a requisition command....
COURT ENGLISH-GERMAN INTERPRETER: We do not find the passage here.
DR. SAUTER: Just a minute, Witness. It is on English Page 52 and German Page 40, Document NOKW-174, Exhibit No. 410.
BY DR. SAUTER:
A. The Higher SS and Police Leader, on the first of September, that is on the third day of General Felber's presence, obviously went to report to General Felber, and this can be found in the War Diary of these days.
There is an entry to the effect that Meissner came with the wish for more severe measures. General Felber came from Berlin, or, from OKW, and he was told that things had been treated too leniently in Serbia up till then and that he had to take stronger action on it. The entry in the Var Diary will be submitted to the Tribunal as a document, and the import of it is that General Meissner demanded an increase in the reprisal measures.
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, I believe at this time I feel I should raise one point pertaining to the references that have been made previously during the direct-examination of this witness, both by his offense counsel and by himself about this Document Book IV. Whether Dr. Sauter intends to still submit it, I personally have not received it yet. Now, assuming that Dr. Sauter puts this document book in during the time that this witness is on the stand, and should shortly thereafter he is terminating the directexamination and I'm being expected to commence with the cross-examination, but having had only knowledge of this Document Book IV, as it was put into the record here in the Courtroom, I'm somewhat at a loss as to how I could use these documents during the cross-examination. I would, therefore, like to inquire, firstly, when this Document IV is being handed to the Prosecution, reminding the defense counsel of the twenty-four hour time limit. And, secondly, is it going to be received during this time so it will be of some use to me during the cross-examination?
DR. SAUTER: Your Honors, it is like this: At the moment all defense counsel are working on the War Diaries, which came for this purpose from Washington. This document book for the Defendant Geitner, which contains the excerpts from the War Diary, is to be submitted to the Tribunal next Saturday, that is, the day after tomorrow.
We could not possibly get it done any earlier because there is a great deal of material to be gone through. I think that it is expedient if in every individual case it is pointed out whether and under which number in Geitner's Document Book IV there is an entry which concerns the case. I can't do it any other way because otherwise I would have to submit another large document which would show every individual document and the entry in the War Diary concerning it. The document book will be submitted by me on Saturday for the Defendant von Geitner.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You may proceed as you have been doing; however, the Prosecution will not be compelled to close their cross-examination until after Document Book IV has been served, and, if necessary, they can call the witness back on the stand for further cross-examination.
BY. DR. SAUTER:
A.- This order was not carried out. According to a further entry in the War Diary, dated the 9th of September, and according to an existing letter from General Felber to Meissner, it was rescinded in spite of the many attempts Meissner made subsequently to carry out this shooting.
Q.- Witness, the entry concerned in the War Diary for the 9th of September 1943 is to be found in Document NOKW-970, page 35 of the Geitner Document Book IV. Is the text correct under the 9th of September 1943 which I am now going to read to you? "Commander in Chief decides, after conversations with the Higher SS and Police Leader, by reason of the nex political directives for Serbia, to rescind two further reprisal measures in the area of Kragujevac and Lescovac in order to facilitate the situation for the Nedic Government." Is that correct?
A.- Yes, that is the text in the War Diary.
Q.- Witness, with reference to this case, the Indictment bears the date 15 September 1943. Previously you mentioned another date. I think the second of September 1943 was the date you mentioned. Well, which date is the correct one?
A.- The order is dated the 2nd of September. The Indictment always uses the term, if I remember it correctly, "on or about."
Q.- Witness, I know come to a further count of the Indictment. That is Figure 9-D ("D" for Dog). This document is NOKW-148, Exhibit No. 305 in Document Book XII, German edition page 93, English page 106. The Indictment maintains on this point: "Destruction of 460 houses as reprisal South of Arillie on the 15th of August 1943." Herr von Geitner, what do you know about this incident, and how did you participate in it?
A.- This incident and the other things connected with it only gradually came back into my memory through the existing material, but two things I knew. One: That from the end of June, 1943 onwards until the end of August a large number of operations took place North and South of the line Cacak, Posega, and Uzice, first of all North of this line from East to West, up as far as the Drina, and then South of this line from West to East, to the district South of Cacak.
These were operations against the DM bands which were, first of all, North of the line and then moved toward the Southwest -- toward the Montenegro Frontier. And then the following happened: In Arillie lived the Commander of a battalion of Serbian volunteers. I can't remember his name very well. I think he was called something like Radko Juric. This man was particularly hated by the DM people. A DM band then attacked Arillie, tried to exterminate the family of Radko Juric, or whatever he was called, and on that occasion they set a few houses on fire.
This commander in charge of the Bulgarian Infantry Regiment 61 tried to get hold of these DM bands as quickly as possible, and this started fights with DM bands to a larger extent than had ever occurred, concerning DM bands. Also there are statements in the Diary of August about this. The Bulgarians, when they fought at all, were very difficult to control in their methods. How often did the commander call the Bulgarians to order and tried to calm them down. If it is reported here that 460 houses were burned down, then this happened in combat, and whether and with what justification I don't know, but in any case fighting took place.
Q. Which units took part in this fighting on the German side?
A. I assume the reinforced Bulgarian Regiment 61 and perhaps also German police. I only know that the German police Regiment 5 took part in these operations north of the line, whether at that time it still participated I don't know. From a report from Uzice Administrative Sub-area headquarters it can be seen that this operation was led by the Commander of Infantry Regiment 61.
Q. The Germans or the Bulgarians?
A. The Bulgarians.
Q. Witness, did you know anything about how long these military actions lasted in the area of Arillie, how many hours or how many days or how many weeks?
A. It lasted a few days.
Q. A few days?
A. Because first of all partial reports came about the whole thing.
Q. And did you say that it was not a reprisal action, it was not a reprisal measure, but it was part of a military operation, did I understand you correctly?
A.The military operation in that special case seems to have been caused by an attack of the bandits on the Serbian volunteers in Arillie. This can be seen from the entry of the 12th August.