DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, may I just say something else about the whole matter? Mr. Rapp just stated that these affidavits and excerpts which are contained in Geitner document book 4 could have been submitted weeks ago. That is of course quite wrong, if that would have been possible then I would certainly have submitted them weeks ago. The whole of document book 4 deals exclusively with excerpts from the war diaries, which came from Washington and I really cannot see how I could take these documents and submit them to the Tribunal before they even came from Washington. Even as defense counsel I could not do that and the prosecution cannot do it either.
The second point is about the two affidavits of the defendant Geitner, which I added to this document book as documents 109 and 110. They are comments and opinions of the defendant Geitner with regard to these war diaries which came from Washington and he too, as a defendant, could not possibly have said anything about these books before they were war diaries were here and before he looked through them.
Then with regard to the other documents in document book No. 5, those are documents which have nothing to do with the war diaries, but they are affidavits. These affidavits did not reach here earlier for the securing of the affidavits was very difficult for the defense counsel all because of the censorship problem and because of the prolongation due to this. I can prove, Your Honors, many times daily nine-tenths of our mail had been checked by the postal censorship. This means that for every letter there is a postponement of not only days, but also weeks. This also had a very great effect in other respects because many witnesses, who were supposed to give affidavit, were very hesitant to do this as every letter arrived with the sinister words "Censored". If every witness knows that every word is censored which he writes to me or which I write to him, then this presents complications, Your Honors, which I can only hint at here. They are complications about which the Tribunal perhaps does not think if the Tribunal wants to have an idea as to whether the defense did its duty or not.
This indeed presents very great difficulties for us.
JUDGE CARTER: Dr. Sauter, some of my mail has been censored too, I don't like but don't know what we can do about it. I don't like it any better than you do.
DR. SAUTER: I did not understand.
JUDGE CARTER: I said, Dr. Sauter that some of my mail has been censored too and I don't like it any more than you do, but I don't know how to avoid it. If I knew a way, I certainly would.
DR. SAUTER: There is only one difference. We have to get the affidavits and we have to work on them, that is the duty of the defense and that is very difficult.
JUDGE BURKE: I would have to admit, as a member of the Tribunal, that there may be a slight distinction involved in that situation.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Witness, first of all, I would like to ask you one concluding question. During the prosecution's case you heard that the defendants and also you are changed with having participated in a criminal plan to disentrigate the Serbian people or even to exterminate them, to clip off Serbian economy; in brief to destroy Serbia. In conclusion, would you perhaps like to state quite briefly anything in regard to this charge as far as it concerns yourself. This is the last question I have to put to you at the moment.
A I was chief of staff, chief of the general staff and as such I was the first cooperator of my commander. I did all the donkey work and my commander was the man who had to have time and his head free in order to make the necessary decisions of the commander. When I came to Serbia the system was already in operation, the system about which the prosecution speaks. I neither wanted this system not did I make this system, but I had to work under this system and the same applies to the system of the Higher SS and Police leader.
Relative to talk about an extermination plan, then the only reason for this is that there was either a tremendous hatred for political or religious reasons or it was a cold reckoning for political or economic reasons.
If one looks at the war diaries exactly as they came from Washington, then one would be able to see from them the kind of statements or documents something concerning this hatred. Now there is no mention at all of anything of this kind, neither with the military commander Serbia or anywhere else.
My commanders found themselves forced to take severe measures, these severe measures arose from the military necessity and rested on the military necessity and even whether or not I too at the end was in agreement with this, did not play any part. I was the chief of staff and I had to follow the orders of my commander.
These measures, however, also had as their purpose the maintenance of economic life in Serbia and they were also directed against the attacks of special sabotage commandoes, who were directed against the industry, against the mines and against communications. If it is asserted in the indictment that the economic and industrial potentialities of Serbia was damaged in this connection, I would like to remind the Tribunal of an affidavit in my document book 3, written by Dr. Keyser. It is document 77, page 84.
Q Witness, in this connection, could you perhaps quite briefly tell what positive things you did in order to achieve something for Serbia perhaps to improve the situation in the country, tell us quite briefly, no details.
A Obstacles with regard to any activities in the country were threefold. First of all there was the insufficient strength of the occupation, that is the insufficient quantity and quality of the occupation forces, which was equally sufficient in the beginning and then went down. The organization of the administration, which we always had to fight. Then we cannot forget the secret police of the Higher SS and police Leader who spied on my commanders and denounced them and always influenced the commander to take more severe measures and never even informed him about their own measures.
If one reads through the war diaries, then one realizes what an enormous amount of work was done for the Serbian population in the supplying of food, the transporting of food, the protection of the Serbian administration, the welfare for the refugees, the welfare for the workers in the large industries and factories and in the medical and hygienic welfare field and in the attempts to intervene in the Ustasha murders in Croatia. Now one can then speak about an extermination program or a program of destruction, that I really cannot say.
As the very last thing, I would just like to say that if anyone wants to get an idea of my political situation at that time, then he should read the affidavit Cartellieri, which is also contained in document book 3, it is document 59, page 21.
Q. Witness and that brings me to the end of my examination about your activities in Belgrade, I would just like to ask you one personal question: you are now under arrest; since when?
A. Since the 9th of May 1945.
Q. And in which zone is your property, your factory, your house, etc.?
A. In the Russian zone.
Q. Were you able to save anything at all, or have you lost everything?
A. I could save nothing at all.
Q. You lost everything?
A. Yes everything except a few pieces which I managed to save, but I lost almost everything.
Q. And one last question, you write your name Curt Ritter von Geitner; why do you have the right to write Ritter von Geitner, that is the title of a nobleman to your name?
A. I received this right as the owner of the Bavarian Max-Joseph order.
Q. The Bavarian Max-Joseph order was bestowed upon you during the first World War?
A. Yes.
Q. As a captain?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the highest Bavarian decoration for bravery?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know approximately how many officers during the first World war received the Bavarian Max Joseph order?
A. About 200.
Q. And you were one of these 200 and therefore you have this title?
A. Yes.
Q. Your Honors, I have no further questions to put to the defendant Ritter von Seitner. I would suggest that the three remaining document books should be submitted to you now. It will probably be expedient if the defendant von Geitner would return to the dock and then he could be recalled again to the witness stand for cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Whatever your pleasure may be, Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: Herr von Geitner, you can return to your place.
(The witness returns to the dock.)
DR. SAUTER: Well, then I take document book von Geitner No. 1. This contains the documents 1 to 30, inclusive. Document No. 1 on page 1 I will not read, we already know about the contents.
Documents 2, 3 and 4 have already been read, they are von Seitner exhibits 1, 2 and 3.
The next document, document No. 5, is an affidavit by Dr. Hans Schreiber, dated 14 April 1947 and it is regularly sworn to and certified. It is document No. 5 and it receives exhibit von Geitner No. 8. The affiant states.....
JUDGE CARTER: Do you mean that document No. 5 is to be exhibit No. 8, document No. 5?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, document No. 5, exhibit No.8. The affiant Dr. Schreiber was Oberaret and adjutant of the chief medical corp officer in France where the defendant von Seitner was stationed at that time. I would ask that the whole contents of the affidavit be noted and in the third paragraph he talks about von Geitner's political attitude. I will just read the last paragraph in which he states:
"He was no militarist in the meaning of giving preference to military aims in his personal actions towards the soldiers or in the great questions of economics, politics or ethics, since his way of acting and living was guided by Christian lofty principles which prevail beyond the limits of a single nation."
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
The next document is Document No. 6 which has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit No. 4 and then follows Document No. 7 to which I give Exhibit No. 9, Geitner No. 9. This is an excerpt from the manual of the General Staff Service in the war. This has already been mentioned several times, from the so-called "Red Donkey." I would ask that the whole document be noted here. I will just read the "Basic Principles" under Figure 1 on page 13 in the English:
"The Supreme Leader bears the only responsibility for the sphere of his command."
And then follows the provisions which apply in our case. That is, to the defendant von Geitner.
Then I will go on to the next document, Document No. 8, and this has already received Exhibit Number 6. This is an affidavit by General Halder. This has already been offered to the Tribunal.
And then Document No. 9, this is an affidavit by the same Chief of General Staff Halder about another point. This already received yesterday exhibit number "Geitner 7" and a further affidavit in Document No. 10 has already received exhibit number 5.
And then I come to Document No. 11. This has not yet been read and this will receive exhibit number 10. Document No. 11, Exhibit No, 10, on page 25. This is an affidavit of Friedrich Ferdinand Prinzsu Schleswig-HolsteinGluecksburg, born in 1913, living in Gluecksburg -- and he is a German citizen. The affidavit is regularly sworn to and certified by the defense counsel in whose presence the signature was made. From figure II it can be seen that the knowledge of the affiant rests on the fact that he was Auxiliary Officer in Department I-a of the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia and he was officer for organi zational matters in Department I-a during the period of the 12th of July 1942 until January 1943.
Under figure "1", the affiant describes his personal acquaintance with the defendant von Geitner. He says amongst other things here -- I quote -- on page 2:
"Educated in the school of the old Bavarian army, he was an upright and straight thinking man who refused and did not tolerate in his staff any irregularities, uncleanness and encroachments."
And in the next paragraph but one the affiant describes the correct reserved and modest direction of his office by the defendant Geitner as Chief of Staff. It is not necessary to read all this. I would just like to refer to the contents.
The bottom paragraph on page 26:
"So he always say to it that General Bader as the responsible commander put his signature under all important and fundamental orders. He himself only signed decrees, the distribution of which was ordered from above and to which nothing of importance had to be added. If during the absence of the commander he signed orders he did that only if he had before him corresponding instructions from the commander or his deputy. So for instance did he instruct me within my field of work, to present all letters that he (von Geitner) had signed during a possible absence of the commander to the commander for subsequent approval."
In the next paragraph, figure "2", the affiant talks about the attitude of the defendant von Geitner towards the question of National Socialism and the difficulties he had with other plenipotentiaries who were in Belgrade, the General Plenipotentiary for Economy, the Police Leader Meissner, and I would like these statements also to be noted. These are completely in line with the picture which we have received up until now from the whole thing.
Figure 3 on page 28 of the English, the affiant, Prinz Holstein, talks about the attitude of the defendant von Geitner toward the Serbian people. He quotes various statements, for instance "a" on page 26:
"The Serbians are the most valuable nation of the Balkans, besides the Bulgarians."
And then under "b":
"The Serbians are a healthy people, closely bound to nature; their collaboration in the pacification of the Balkans is indispensable. The German administration of the occupied territory of Serbia therefore must be an amicable administration."
And then in the last part of this paragraph the affiant by chance talks about the matter discussed by the defendant last of all on the witness stand and he confirms that there was no plan of exterminating the Serbian people or decimating them.
And then -- I won't read figure "4". This describes the efforts of the defendant Geitner with regard to Serbian culture and it gives a number of details.
And figure "5", on page 31 of the English -- the affiant, Prinz Holstein, talks about the other side and he states -- I quote -- it is paragraph "5":
"Certainly, Herr von Geitner rejected the mean and cruel way of fighting used by the National, as well as the Communist Serbs; a large number of German soldiers, as well as of peaceful and loyal Serbs, in particular Serbian administrative officials, buromasters and farmers were the victims of that way of fighting. The losses, for instance, which the German troops sustained through the partisans in the Serbian area during the time after the armistice, that is from the capitulation up to the end of 1942, were by far greater than the total losses during the campaigns in the individual countries in the Balkans until the conclusion of the individual armistices."
So much for figure "5".
I want to read figure "5". This confirms the just and pro-Serbian attitude of the defendant von Geitner.
And figure "7", still on page 29 of the English-the affiant deals with the difficulties which arose from the drawing of the Serbian Frontier by German Administration during the occupation period.
And then in figure "8" the affiant describes the efforts made by the defendant von Geitner to achieve a pacification of the country and also the difficulties and obstructions which confronted this aim; and here, too, I would ask that judicial notice be taken of the statements. One can see from this how the Commander Serbia and his Chief of Staff had to suffer under the weakness of their own occupation troops -- on page 31 of the original -that there were not sufficient German troops and that Bulgarian divisions -- also on page 31 -- were not sufficient substitute.
This affidavit from the 17th of September 1947, as I said, is regularly sworn to and certified.
The next document, No. 12, we will not evaluate. It comes from the affiant, Dr. Heinrich Bub who was examined here on the witness stand and who testified to these things here orally.
The next document, No. 13, on page 41 of the English receives exhibit number 11 and it is by an Oberregierungsrat, Senior Government Councillor, Dr. Feine. The affiant describes, first of all, in figure "2" his own attitude on how he gets his knowledge and then in figure "3" the affiant states:
"Regarding General von Geitner, who at the time I served there, was Chief of the Staff of the Commanding General and Commander of Serbia, I gained, more strongly the longer I knew him, the impression that he was a man of a strict sense of duty and great conscientiousness. He demanded much of himself and others. He set an example by his simple way of living. He was correct in all things, and frequently spoke contemptuously of people who tried to profit from the war."
Then the witness goes on to talk about the differences of opinion between Geitner and Obergruppenfuehrer Neuhausen, the General Plenipotentiary for Economy. I will not read these statements in full, also not these under figure "4" either in which the affiant, by reason of his knowledge as advisor to the ambassador in Belgrade, confirms that Geitner had a definitely positive and benevolent attitude towards the Serbian population.
In figure "5" the affiant states -- I would like to read this -it is on page 42 of the English:
"Colonel von Geitner's attitude as expressed to me in numerous talks, was far removed from inciting. I never observed that he favored ruling of the Serbs by Germany. He certainly never thought of an annihilation of the Serb nation. I also believe that he did not at all agree with all commands given by the superior offices. However, he did not talk to me about these things. On the other hand, he expressed to me his loathing regarding the crimes committed by the Ustascha in Croatia against the Serbian population which lived there. He condemned these atrocities severely.
In figure "6" the affiant deals with the question of the Jugoslav capitulation with the whole Jugoslav army, a question which as regards judgment of International Law regarding the partisans is very important. Therefore, I would like judicial notice to be taken of this affidavit by Dr. Feine. I think it is particularly important because Dr. Feine was a civilian -- that is, he was not a soldier -- and because he had a fundamentally negative attitude toward the Hitler Party; he was an Anti-Fascist. The affidavit is regularly sworn to and certified.
The next document, on page 46 of Geitner Document Book I in the English -- this is Document No. 14 -- is an affidavit of Gottfried Meyer. I will not deal with this document because I have found out that the affiant lives in Nurnberg and, if necessary, he can be called as a witness and examined on the witness stand. For the same reason I will also not deal with Document No. 15, on page 57 of the English.
This affidavit by Dr. Wenzel von Kohoutek, was refused by the Tribunal for the reason that the affiant lives in Nurnberg. As Exhibit No. 12 I offer Document Geitner No. 16, on page 61, Document No. 16, and this becomes Geitner Exhibit No. 12. This is an affidavit that -
JUDGE BURKE: It may be an error but I thought you had offered Geitner Document No. 13 as Exhibit 12.
DR. SAUTER: Document No. 13 was Exhibit No. 11.
JUDGE BURKE: It was my error -- a frequent habit.
DR. SAUTER: Now, I am dealing with Document No. 16 on page 61 of the English. This is Exhibit Geitner No. 12. This is an affidavit by a certain Keyser. This man Keyser whose name we have frequently heard here because he was with the Serbian administration, states the following:
"I know nothing about the existence of concentration camps in Serbia up to July 1942 into which portions of the Serbian population were driven together and maltreated."
Figure "2" -- this confirms the defendant von Geitner's liking of the Serbian people. I would ask that judicial notice be taken of this and then in figure "3", in this the affiant who was active in the Serbian administration in the economic field dates the following others is on page 6B:
"Because of this attitude of Geitner any idea of terrorizing or even decimating the Serbian people was completely remote from him. As I knew from repeated conversations, General von Geitner was completely clear in his mind that with his entirely inadequate occupation forces he could carry out the most necessary and important tasks only if a policy was pursued which excluded any additional requests for military forces. He knew only too well that terrorization or even decimation would have changed the situation still further to the disadvantage of the occupation force, since supplies from home were not to be expected.
These real reasons of the military strength situation did not permit the policy alleged by the Prosecution as a matter of logic, apart from all ethical considerations by which he, as I likewise know very well from conversations with General von Geitner, actually let himself be guided as a matter of principle.
And then in figure "4" the affiant confirms the fundamental opposition of Geitner toward the Higher SS and Police Leader and I don't think I need read that.
And Geitner Document No. 17 to which I give Exhibit No. 13; it is on page 63 of the English. Here you will find an affidavit of a Colonel of the Reserve, Christoph von Auer. The affidavit is regularly sworn to and certified. Auer himself, according to figure 1 of his affidavit, belonged to the staff of the Commanding General of Serbia from the 1st of March to the 7th of July 1943. "General Geitner was at that time Chief of Staff for the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia."
Second, "General von Geitner was a quiet man of refined mentality who was popular among his staff and always restrained his authority as chief. I had the impression that he was skeptical about the overall leadership of the war and that he had a decidedly negative attitude toward the measures of the civilian administration as well as those of Police and Gestapo Leader Meissner in Jugoslavia."
And I don't need to read figures 3 and 4. I ask that judicial notice be taken of them. The affiant describes the activities of the defendant von Geitner and so does figure 5, but I will read on page 56 of the original, page 64 of the English, figure 5. Here the affiant states the following:
"I recall that von Geitner complained on various occasions that he was required by superior agencies to proceed in a ruthless and summary fashion."
Then the affiant describes in many paragraphs details which he still does recall and then in figure "8" on page 65 of the English he states the following -- I quote:
We agreed in concluding that it had been unfortunate to organize economics and police laws quite independently. In how far this faulty organization provoked acts of resistance on the part of the Serbs I cannot say. I do not know whether the monthly reports referred to these difficulties."
And then in figure 9 the affiant describes in his opinion the positive achievements of the defendant and of the Commander in Serbia for the benefit of the people and in figure 10 the personal benevolent achievements of the defendant for the welfare of the Serbian people. I don't think I need read all this. I ask that judicial notice be taken of it.
The next document, Document No. 18, on Page 67 of the English, I will not deal with for the same reason, because the affiant, as far as I can find out, is living in Nurnberg. That is, he can be called here and examined as a witness at any time if necessary.
And, in the same way, I will not deal with Document No. 19, on Page 70 of the English. The affiant has already been examined here on the witness stand, and he has testified about this.
Document No. 20 I have withdrawn and have told the Prosecution about it; therefore, I will not deal with this either.
And then I go over at once to Document No. 21, on Page 80 of the English. This document No. 21 receives the Exhibit No. 14. It is Document No. 21, on Page 80 of the English, and receives Exhibit No. 14.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 72 of the English.
DR. SAUTER: This is an affidavit by Major General, retired, Eugen Wurster, dated the 8th of August 1947, regularly sworn to and certified by the American officer in the camp. This witness, General Wurster, was, according to Figure 1 of the affidavit, serving from May, 1941 until April, 1943 as Higher Signal Officer, with the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia. As such he was specialist for the technical communication matters in this staff. And then under Figure 2 he says: From about spring 1942 onward there was in Belgrade a detachment of the Commander of the Signal Intelligence (Radio Intercept Service) in South-East, who at that time had his seat in Athens. The detachment led by an officer had the task to supervise, to intercept, and to evaluate the radio-traffic of the guerilla bands in Serbia. It received its directions from the Commander of the Signal Intelligence in Athens, and remained directly subordinate to him. The leader of the detachment worked together with the Field Intelligence section (Ic) of the Commanding General and Commander.
In the orders which were issued by superior offices, the offices to which the results of the intelligence could be given were designated in detail.
The Commanding General and Commander in Serbia received only one copy, which the leader of the detachment handed over to the Ic directly. Within the staff the results were to be made known only to a strictly limited number of persons. As a rule in addition to the Commander in Chief and the Chief of Staff only the Ic had knowledge of them. Even I as Signal Officer was informed only occasionally, when my sphere was involved. Besides it was strictly and repeatedly ordered by highest quarters that informations derived from radio monitoring, mentioning their source, should under no circumstances be forwarded to other offices. As I remember the leader of the detachment attended to it very carefully that these regulations of secrecy were strictly complied with. He also continuously warned against measures and operations on the part of the Commanding General, from which the enemy could arrive at the conclusion that they resulted from informations derived from radio monitoring. A departure from this principle would have endangered the success of Radio Intercept Service, as the enemy would have taken corresponding counter-measures.
The next document is Document No. 22, Geitner Document Book No. I, on Page 74, pencil No. 83. This document receives Exhibit No. 15. This is an affidavit by Erna Schneider, who was female staff assistant in Geitner's staff. And she gives the same good testimony of Geitner as the others did. I would ask that judicial notice be taken of it without my having to read it in detail.
And then follows Geitner Document No. 23, on page 76, 86 in pencil, to which I give Exhibit No. 16. This is Document No. 23 on Page 76, Exhibit No. 16. This is an affidavit by Erich Kruse. He is a chauffeur by profession, and he served the Defendant von Geitner in this capacity from March, 1943 until October, 1944. I don't need to read this in detail. With regard to the character of the Defendant Geitner and his way of living, this is quite on the line of all the other affidavits.
And then Document No. 24, in Geitner Document Book I, receives Exhibit No. 17. This is an affidavit by Dr. Max von Stockhausen, a fiftyseven year old German National, who, as a Major of the reserve, served from October 1943 till June 1944 with the Commander of Serbia in Serbia. And of course he learned to know the Defendant very well. And he talks about the services which the Defendant and his Commander did for the various parts of Serbian life. The Tribunal is asked to take judicial notice of this.
Document No. 25, on Page 80 I will not deal with. I will not use it because the witness who made the affidavit has already been examined here.
The next document is Document No. 26, on Page 82, pencil Page 93, of the Geitner Document Book No. I. This is an affidavit of Erna Schneider about the Daily Reports. I would like judicial notice to be taken of the details here so that I shall not have to read them. This is Exhibit No. 18 -- Document No. 26, Exhibit No. 18.
The next document is Document No. 27, on Page 83 of the Geitner Document Book No. I. I would like to offer this as Geitner Exhibit No. 19. This is an affidavit of Colonel Christoph von Auer, from whom I have already submitted another affidavit. He describes the merits of the Defendant with regard to Serbian economy. I would like judicial notice to be taken of this. This affidavit too is regularly certified and sworn to.
The next document is Document No. 28, on Page 85. I will not offer it because the affiant concerned lives here in Nurnberg and, therefore, can be called to the witness stand at any time if necessary.
And the next document, Document No. 29, on Page 87, I will not use either because the witness Gerhard Wollny was on the witness stand yesterday or the day before, and he was examined.
The last document of Document Book I is Document No. 30, on Page 99, and it is an affidavit by a certain Josef Mitterer. I have already withdrawn this document in writing; therefore, this brings to an end Document Book Geitner No. I.And then I come to Geitner Document Book No. II.
