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.
Q.This entry from the War Diary to which the defendant has just referred was dated the 12th of August 1943, and the Tribunal will find it in Document Book Geitner 4, Document 96, page 32. I must correct myself, it is not to be found under the 12th of August, but under the 14th August.
A. And under the 12th.
Q. Under the 12th, witness, there is the first mention of it. It states here, a Major Eckers and the District Commander of Uzice report about the attack of the bandits on the SFK volunteers in Arillie. The Commander of Bulgarian Infantry Regiment 61 will bring the matter in order with his Regiment. That is under the 12th of August.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, may I inquire if defense counsel intends at a later time to submit these documents and read them into the record, or whether or not the quotation allegedly to be found in these documents as given to us by the witness are to be admitted in evidence in lieu of the document.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, I took the liberty of reading these extracts from the War Diary in order to recall these matters to the memory of the defendant, who knows them. At the same time I wanted to tell the Tribunal what the War Diary says about the matter concerned. I think at any rate this is expedient, because the War Diary is an objective piece of evidence, It is not only just prepared for the trial.
MR. RAPP: Dr. Sauter did not understand my question, or if he did and this is to be his answer I am not satisfied with this type of an answer.
JUDGE CARTER: Dr. Sauter, you expect to offer these exhibit's in your Document Book No. 4 into evidence, is that correct?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
JUDGE CARTER: And at that time the Prosecution will have the opportunity to cross-examine on them.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, of course.
JUDGE CARTER: Is that a satisfactory answer?
MR. RAPP: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE CARTER: You may proceed.
Q. Witness, do you remember that it was subsequently reported to you that the whole thing was an act of revenge by 500 bandits, as is stated here, against volunteers and that in the report which went to you it was expressly stated that the enemy had been wellarmed. Did you get this report?
A. At that time probably; I can't remember details any more.
Q. Witness, as a precaution I must ask you this: Was this action, the destruction of 65 houses, ordered by anybody? The Prosecution describes it as an act of reprisal.
A. It was ordered by nobody, If it states here that 500 bandits were concerned in the affair and that they were well-armed, then it is understandable that fighting took place. Nobody in the staff of the military commander ordered this and with regard to the expression, "act of revenge," this referred to the operation of the bandits against the volunteers.
Q. And when did you as Chief of Staff first gain knowledge of this whole matter?
A. I don't know any more. Judging from the diary it may well be that I knew about the fact that the bandits had made some kind of operation against Arillie, before the 12 August, because it states here: "It is reported about an attack on the SFK volunteers", and I do not assume that this was the first report. In any case at that time in this neighborhood planned mopping up operations took place against Draja Mihajlovic. This I know for certain, and there Mihajlovic seems to have attacked Arillie.
Q. In the indictment the date is given as August 15, 1943; you said previously that you knew about this before the 12 August 1943.
How can you explain the difference between these two dates?
A. On the 15 August, according to the War Diary the District Commander of Uzice reported that the enemy had been smashed in three groups near Arillie. Individual fighting took place, and on this occation I would like to say that the indictment states that. This is in the English text of the indictment. This concerns troops under the command, and as it states command and jurisdiction, - I don't know how the word "jurisdiction" has to be translated here. In the German edition of the indictment, as far as I know, it was translated "unter dem kommando und der Befelsgewalt". I translated "jurisdiction" as "Gerichtsbarkeit." The Bulgarians were subordinate in the same way as the police were now subordinate to the judicial authority of the commander. In my opinion in this case, however, where it was clearly a fighting operation, the commander had no cause to intervene. The fact that the Bulgarians were not very tame was known to the Commander, but he could not do without them, because he hadn't any German troops. Often enough General Bader complained to the Bulgarian commanding General of the Bulgarian Occupation Corps, General Nikoloff.
Q.- Witness, we will now come to the next point of the indictment, - in figure 12-B the indictment charges you with the fact that you also passed on the so-called Commissar Order of the 8th June 1941. This document NOKW-1076, Exhibit 14, Prosecution Document Book 1, page 34 of the German, page 49 of the English text. You were charged in this during the period of time after June 1941 without further details, is that correct?
A,- No. I think on the 1st July 1941, first of all, I was in the rear army area "Center". During the course of the summer I was commandeered to the Army Group Staff Center. During this period I heard about the Commissar Order. I neither passed at on nor did I urge the troops to carry it out, because according to my duties with the Army Group Center I was neither a commander with the Army Group Center, nor had I to draw up orders for the Troops, First of all I had the control of all the road communications in the rear of the front.
Q.- That isn't terribly interesting what your duties were, but we are interested to know whether you had anything at all to do with the Commissar Order?
A.- No.
Q.- Also not in the Balkans when you were there from July 1941?
A.- No.
Q.- And then you never pass it on to the troops?
A.- No.
Q.- Or reminded the troops about it?
A.- No.
Q.- And did you assume that the Commissar Order was valid for the Balkans and for the band warfare?
A.- No.
Q.- You did not assume that?
A.- No.
Q.- Herr von Geitner I would now like to show you another order, in which there is also mention of the Commissar Order, that is Document N0KW-1722, Exhibit 228, Document Book 9 page 67 of German, and page 51 of the English. Can you remember this order?
A.- This is the same order which we previously discussed.
Q.- An order on the 10th October 1942?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Signed by Bader?
A.- Yes.
Q.- This order it also deals on this point with a new summation by Bader of 25 March 1942, and this point does not state that commissars are to be shot, but it states that the men who are captured in combat armed are to be shot, but if I remember correctly -
Q.- I have got the order here?
A.- Officers, political commissars and couriers, are to be interrogated previously, and if possible in the presence of someone from the SD. The commissars were in this case only mentioned because General Bader wanted them to be interrogated, before they were shot. Only those men were to be shot who were found during the fighting with their weapons in their hands. A special treatment of the Commissars with reference to shooting was not planned in this order and was not intended.
Q.- The fact that people who were captured during the fighting with their weapons in their hands should be shot, did you think this was correct?
A.- According to the current orders given at that time this was correct.
Q.- The next figure of the indictment in which you are mentioned is Figure 12-H -- Commando Order. You are charged with having passed on the Commando order of 18 October 1942 to your troops. The document is contained in Document Book 9, page 41 of the German, English page 28.
This is Document 61, Exhibit 285. Is this charge against you with regard to the commando order correct?
A.- I couldn't remember this Commando Order at all. This order which gives a reason for the Commando Order didn't reach us at all, because it was only intended for the commanders in chief, as far as I know. As far the actual commando order coming to us at all, this seems to me to be shown in a document which was submitted to General Foertsch during cross-examination. This order, which I also didn't remember any more, and which had a supplement attached to it by the Army Group, ordered the distribution down to Battalions, return after completion. Therefore I must assume that this order reached the commanding general and Commander in Serbia and was probably passed on This passing on could not be avoided at all, because if I remember correctly this order contains very severe threats to those superiors who did not abide by it.
My commander therefore passed it on. The case about the supplement of the army group was not very clear to me and it actually did not have anything to do with the commando order at all.
Q. Witness in document 1132, exhibit 243 in document book 10, page 1 in the German and page 1 in the English, this is document No. 1132, document 1-c, and order of the commanding general, commander in Serbia, in which the commanding general Serbia gives an order of the chief of the general staff of army group E to the chief of the subordinate authorities about the drawing up of daily reports. In this order of the chief of the general staff, under figure 7, there is mention about the treatment of sabotage commandos. This order of the commanding general in Serbia is supposed to have been signed by you?
A. Also correct.
Q. Signed in such a way that at the end it reads: "for the commanding general and commander in Serbia, the chief of the general staff," and then comes your initials and underneath the name von Geitner written by typewriter. I would like to show you this document from document book 10, please look at it and tell us what you have to say about it?
A. This is the regular passing on of a order to the chiefs, concerning drawing up of the daily reports. In this order the passage was contained and it was simply the passing on of the order and that is how this order came about. It really does not concern the commando order itself, but it concerns reports which in every way concern commandos. The order meant here, as shown in another document had nothing to do with band warfare. As far as I remember it only the later order about the mission can be valid concerning band warfare. How the commanding general and commander acted in such cases can be seen from one case, I think it was in 1942, where British soldiers were captured in Alexinas and were then sent to Germany as prisoners of war.
Q. Witness, another document has been submitted NOKW 832; exhibit 284, it is contained in document book 11, page 59 in the German and page 76 in the English. It is a document dated 8 January 1943; do you have the document book 11, witness?
A. Yes.
Q. From this it can be seen that the order mentioned of the chief of the general staff and army group E dated 8 January 1943 was passed on to the chiefs of the subordinate corps; what can you say about this as regard to yourself?
A. That it is correct what I said.
Q. And during your time an the Serbian area, were so-called commandoes, that is sabotage groups, of the Allies found and how often?
A. I don't know know often, but the fact what it happened quite a number of times has been stated by the witness Wollny and the people later on made prisoners of war.
Q. Witness and then there is also mention of the commando order in a document submitted, document No. 155 in document book 12, exhibit No. 306, page 96 English and page 112 of the German. The last figure, this is an excerpt from an order of the commando in chief Southeast? In the last figure in this order General Loehr adds that the order of the Wehrmacht commander southeast is herewith rescinded? What do you have to say about this?
A. This additions about which I spoke about myself had almost no connection at all with the commando order.
Q. And therefore you maintain and you can swear that in your area the commando order was not carried out by you?
A. No.
Q. And previously you mentioned an order about military missions
A. Yes.
Q. Which appeared with the bands in the Southeast. This is an order of the chief of the O.K.W. of 30 July 1944 about the treatment of such military missions. It is document No. 537-PS, exhibit No. 488 in document book 21, German text page 65, English text page 75 and what have you to say today about this order?
A. Well, I cannot remember the order at all any longer. It is completely gone from my memory. I road the whole thing here again. From the proceeding orders it can be seen that military missions as they appeared among the bands in the southeast were not to be regarded as commandoes. It is stated in this order that they are not to be treated as commandoes. As far as I remember at that time Englishmen were not captured at all in the summer of 1944. If they had been taken prisoner, then, I think, they would have been treated in exactly the same way as those people captured in Alexinas.
Q. And that means?
A. This means that they would have become prisoners of war.
Q. Witness, please look at the last figure of this order and then please answer the question of whether this order was passed on by your commander or by you to the subordinate units.
A. I could not be passed on, at the most it could be announced orally.
Q. And how does the end of this order read?
A. "This order is not to be passed on by the general headquarters and staffs of equal rank to the other Wehrmacht units and after its announcement it has to be destroyed."
Q. And then what can you say from this concluding provision about the action on this in your office?
A. One had to take note of the order and bear it in mind for any occasion in which the commander spoke to the subordinate commanders and could tell them about this order and then to destroy it.
Q. And can you tell us, on the basis of this concluding provision, whether the order was passed on to the subordinate commanders of the troops?
A. I don't think so because at that time we had subordinate to us no large German units at all, as far as I remember.
At that time we were as poor as a church mouse and I cannot remember this matter at all.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The Tribunal will recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30 o'clock.
(The Tribunal recess until 0930 hours, 24 October 1947.)