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.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you take up Document Book No. II, Dr. Sauter, I think perhaps we'll take our afternoon recess.
DR. SAUTER: Very well, Your Honor.
(A recess was taken from 1500-1515)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. RAPP: If your Honors please, I would like to shortly refer to Exhibit 11 which was offered by Dr. Sauter, Document No. 13 on page 39. The affiant, Dr. Feine -
JUDGE BURKE: Is that Document Book No. 1?
MR. RAPP: That is Document Book No. 1.
JUDGE BURKE: My Document Book No. 1 was not paginated, so -
MR. RAPP: The same here, your Honor. It is Document No. 13.
JUDGE BURKE: What is the page number?
MR. RAPP: It has no page, your Honor. Mine is not paginated either.
JUDGE BURKE: What is the number of it?
MR. RAPP: The Document Number is No. 13. The affiant is Dr. Feine from Bremen. I am just wondering -- I checked up on this particular man during the recess. I wasn't quite sure and I found out that he is the same Dr. Feine who appeared before this Tribunal as a witness, I believe, for the defendant List. I am just wondering why Dr. Sauter at that time didn't examine the witness Feine about the points which he is now covering in this particular affidavit and I would in view of this have the Tribunal reconsider the admission of this particular document.
THE PRESIDENT: The counsel has seen fit to make use of this witness in this manner -- it seems to me that is within his province, is it not?
MR. RAPP: It is, of course, within his province if the Tribunal rules that way, your Honor, and whatever the Tribunal rules, I of course accept. However, it seemed to me under the rule of best evidence at that time if Dr. Sauter had in mind to use this witness he could have examined him at that time when he appeared before this Court, and I am merely calling this to the attention of the Tribunal because we will, I am sure, run into similar circumstances, and the Tribunal is always affording other defense counsels an opportunity to interrogate these witnesses for their own clients.
They are being passed up at that time and later on these witnesses after they have left are given affidavits.
TEE PRESIDENT: This witness is not here now. Are you making an objection to this?
MR. RAPP: I am not making an objection, your Honor. I merely like to call this to the Tribunal's attention and feel that possibly it may be beneficial for all concerned if the Tribunal would make some kind of a ruling that if a witness has appeared here and the defense counsel had the opportunity to examine the witness at that time, that an affidavit produced by the same witness at a later time should not be admitted in view of these conditions.
THE PRESIDENT: The affidavit will be received in its present form and I see no necessity, there being no motion to strike or any necessity to rule, it seems to me at this time. This is presented in its regular form.
MR. RAPP: Then I merely ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the fact that the witness has been here in Nurnberg before this Tribunal and was examined on behalf of the defendant List and that the counsel for defendant Geitner at that time obviously did not avail himself of the opportunity to talk to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Proceed.
DR. SAUTER: If it please the Tribunal, I shall now turn to Document Book II for Geitner. This Book II contains documents Geitner 31 to 53. These affidavits mainly concern--to anticipate this--bandit groups in Serbia, their organization and equipment and their method of warfare, and by these affidavits a contribution is to be made to help the court decide the question whether or not these partisan units were to be regarded as a regular army. We thought it important if the Tribunal please, to stress such facts as can be confirmed by the witnesses, as their own observations in Serbia.
The first document in this book, which is Document No. 31, I shall not offer because this witness is a resident of Nurnberg, and therefore could be examined, should it be necessary.
The next document is Document No. 33, and I offer it as Exhibit 21, Geitner Exhibit 21, on page 7 of document book Geitner II. It originates from Brigadier General Wittmann, August Wittmann.
MR. RAPP: May I inquire what is happening to Document 32?
JUDGE CARTER: Thirty-three.
MR. RAPP: Yes, your Honor, I am aware of this. I am merely inquiring what is happening to Document 32. He is just not offering Document 31 and I am merely trying to find out whether Document 32 is not being offered; in my document book there is-
DR. SAUTER: I have withdrawn Document 32 previously and have therefore not offered it to the Court but I have--it was too late to alter the sequence of documents, which is the reason why Document 32 has been withdrawn.
MR. RAPP: I am sorry for this delay but I have received Document No. 32. Therefore, I wanted to inquire what happened to it.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not in our document book.
MR. RAPP: Yes, but it is in mine.
DR. SAUTER: Then it so happened that it is contained in one document book of the prosecution by mistake - but I will not offer the No. 32, I mean.
JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Sauter, what did you offer as Exhibit No. 20?
DR. SAUTER: Just a moment please. Exhibit No. 20 was Document No. 30.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, Exhibit No. 20 has not been offered as yet. The last exhibit I have in Document Book No. 1 is Exhibit 19, is that correct, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, when I came back here I had no 20 and I thought maybe I had missed out but I --
JUDGE CARTER: I show No. 30 as having been withdrawn.
DR. SAUTER: I beg your pardon, your Honor. Document 30 I have withdrawn, and the document which I offered just now, Document No. 33, will become Exhibit No. 20. It is to be found on page 7 of Geitner Document Book II. This is an affidavit by the former General Wittmann, August Wittmann. This affidavit has been duly sworn to and properly certified. It describes experiences made by General Wittmann in four years of war in the Balkans as a Regimental Commander and later on Divisional Commander, and it also gives his observations concerning the way the Germans conducted their warfare. In paragraph 1 on page 7 he deals first with the period from April, 1941, to October, 1941. I should appreciate it if these paragraphs could be taken judicial notice of and so there I need not read them verbatim, but I would like to read from page 9 in the Document Book II under II. Here the affiant says;
"From the middle of June until September 1943, I was posted in the Balkans at army groups E and F as general officer for special tasks.
In this capacity, I mainly served in the areas of Bosnic, northern Hontenegro, Northern Greece and Southern Dalmatia. In respect to this period and these areas, I am in a position to testify to the following facts on the basis of personal experiences:
"Even at that early period, the Tito sponsored communist partisan movement was terrorizing large areas of the Balkans by an organized resistance movement and a method of warfare completely inconsistent with international law, not allowing the masses of the population to enjoy the quiet they desired. They ruthlessly domineered those areas in which no national fighting organizations (Cetniks) were located or which were free of German troops. There, they carried our requisitions according to their current requirements, levied taxes, forcibly enrolled people into their fighting organizations, seized hostages, threatened those who did not serve their interest with compulsory measures, and persecuted those who tried to get along peacefully with the power of occupation.
Their particular hatred was directed against the Nationalists and the Moslems. These conditions were general at that time. The country was completely terrorized. It was not a matter of isolated incidents any longer.
"Wherever the German forces moved into these areas for their pacification, the bands, when falling back, removed the largest possible amount of property and persons, destroying, if there was time to do so, whatever had to be left behind. They often set villages on fire. The district between the Save and Focca is an indictment by itself. The German soldiers who had been fighting in the South East are not in possession of the documents and maps necessary in order to make detailed statements as to place names and dates. I still remember Zwornik, Kladanij, Focca, several villages in the Drina area and in the Romagna. Moslem settlements suffered particularly.
"The units of the German forces, too, were permanently subjected to these insidious attacks, particularly at night or in the case of small detachments. Dispatch runners, individual vehicles, sentries, and scouting parties, small columns and weak detachments were the main victims. As far as I remember, the units I was serving with during those few months lost many dozens of soldiers not in action proper, but by murder and ambush. On top of that, even major losses had to be risked, affecting companies which were surprised by ambush when on a mopping-up operation. Thus, this malicious method of warfare inflicted fresh losses on the German army day by day. Within the area of my activities, no day elapsed on which there was no report of at least one or two dozens of raids on rail and road communications, demolitions of bridges or cables, surprise attacks on or sabotage in vital installations. Murder was lurking everywhere. The frequency of the incidents does not allow to reconstruct exact statements including place names and dates without the use of logbooks and official action reports.
However, the following violations of international law committed by Tito bands are indelibly engraved in my memory:
"Massacre of an armored rifle platoon, lead into a village-ambush by a woman, in the Sarajevo-Jaijce area, Attacks on railroad trains including ambulance coaches and on ambulance trucks, use of German prisoners of war as a labor force in the partisan units, retaliation measures against German prisoners and especially against Croat soldiers (Domobranen)."The national combat units (Cetniks) fought at that time already defensively against Tito's units and were in many cases looking in their fight against the communism for connection and cooperation with the German Wehrmacht.
There was nearly everywhere in my sphere of activity a useful collaboration between the two parties.
"No order of superior offices came to my knowledge during my activity at that time which demanded the arrest of hostages and the execution of retaliation measures against these these. Neither were verbal instructions in this direction ever given to me. On the contrary; it was emphasized over and over again at all meetings that the good name and respect of the German units must be observed in this bandit war and that they must not become nervous. My Commander-in-Chief was then Field Marshal Frh. v. WEICHS. I do not know whether a so-called "hostages order" was given for the South East at the time. Should such an order have existed then it can be said that it was in large districts actually a theoretical one only. I myself, in any case, did not find any hostages in my territories of activity nor did I see them.
III. "From the middle of July 1944 until the middle of March 1945 I stood with short interruptions first with the 117.
rifle division in the Peloponnese and in Southern Greece, then with combat units of the 117. rifle division and the 1. mountain division in the Belgrade area and Croatia.
"a). During this space of time the picture of the situation was essentially the same as described under II. The peacefully minded population, especially the nationally disposed part, was looking now as before for cooperation with the occupying power, the extent of the partisan terror, however, was considerably increased. It is not necessary to talk of it in detail once more. However, the following particularly inhuman actions should be stated: approximately between 15 - 25 July 1944 a motorised navy unit was ambushed in the Pyles area (Western coast of Polopennose) at a road with many curves. The column was nearly completely wiped out (more than 90 men), and bestially, in a not describable manner, murdered, with the women especially active. Unfortunately the perpetrators could not be called to account. The division did not take any retaliation measures.
"In the middle of August approximately a rifle company, peacefully stationed in Selania near Sparta, was unexpectedly attacked by several hundred communist partisans and to the largest extent massacred. The assistance of the village population was likely, but could not be proved.
"No retaliation measures were taken against the inhabitants of the village. Murder of the commander of the 41st fortress division approximately June 1944 - on an automobile trip from ambush.
"b). As far as I remember there existed at that time a Fuehrer order which regulated the problem of the hostages. This order was never put into practice in the territory under my command. My superiors at that time (Lieutenant General Air Force, Colonel General LOEHR (In the meantime sentenced to death in Belgrade and shot) approved silently of this attitude. Never was even the least pressure exerted in the direction of the order."
I need not read from the next paragraph (c). It deals with the good relationship between the German troops and the population. I shall appreciate judicial notice of this paragraph.
Now the next document No. 34 which is on page 14 of the Document Book Geitner II and I offer it as Exhibit 21. This document contains experiences made by a combat officer who was staying for a year and a half in the Balkans, concerning the way the partisans fought against the German troops as well as against the civilian population. The witness, the affiant, is called Wilhelm Plewa. He is 33 years of age, a German citizen, and as he states, he was from 1st October 1943 until April 1945, he was a battalion commander. I quote from page 14:
"The following reports, it ways in the affidavit, concern in the first line the Greek area. My unit under my leadership was only in the last months of the war put to service in Serbo-Croat territory mainly in a permanent front. The insidious and treacherous way of combat of the communist bands had fundamentally nothing in common with a regular conduct of war by civilized States. It was characterized by a really beastly cruelty from the part of the bands against their opponents and the native population. As the numerous racial, national, religious and even family contrasts are settled on the Balkans with a limitless hatred and a pitiless ruthlessness. The international agreements and laws were absolutely not adhered to, they even were entirely unknown to the bands. Murder of wounded soldiers and prisoners, frequently under horrible tortures and mutilations of the victims were quite general in my operational area. Every German soldier knew of these facts. The Red Cross was in no way respected. The bands accepted a fight only if they were in an overwhelming majority and eluded every attack. Attacks from ambush against individual soldiers or smaller units, against motor cars, motorized convoys and billets were the rule. Every trick and every deception was all right for them. The gangs wore frequently for instance when attacking, especially at night time, German uniforms or approached calling in German language, Scarcely a week passed in the Peloponnese region, hard to be watched and inaccessible as it is, in which an unexpected attack on motorized supply or Red Cross convoys did not occur.
"As spies and scouts preferably women and children were used by the bands and the food was also supplied by them in part. This fact was established not only by German troops, but in a number of cases by the anticommunist, autonomous Greek units stationed in my neighborhood.
"The calm and order in the country was systematically undermined by the bands."
The witness then continues to describe details and continues on page 16. I shall quote from page 16:
"The bands proceeded with the same inhuman cruelty in the fight against the German troops as also against the civilian population or in the fight against each other. On the Peloponnese the "National Band" of the Captain (Rittmeister) Vrettakos consisting of about 300 men was massacred by communist to the last man. The family members of persons belonging to "National Bands" or anticommunist units were murdered by the communists including women and children, the farms pillaged and levelled to the ground. Nearly the same ruthlessness was used on the part of the anticommunist units. However, as the terror of the communist bands could not be surpassed by anything, they gained influence despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the population, nearly 100% in the rural districts, was hostile and opposed to communism. But the fear for property and family prevented them from participating actively in the fight against the communism. The weak German occupation could only occupy the roads serving the rain traffic, while wide areas were exposed to the influence of the bands. Repeatedly the inhabitants from far remote places presented petitions to me, asking for German occupation as protection against the pillaging and the terror of the bands. In Croatia whole villages in a territory not permanently occupied by the German Wehrmacht were inhabited by a few old people only. The inhabitants had been murdered by Tito Bands, removed or had fled. The bands did hardly distinguish - especially not in the National Struggle - between fighting units and the civilian population, women and children included.
"A transport of wounded Cetniks of more than 60 men were murdered by Ustascha men in the same area in spite of the fact that they fought the same enemy.
"After this the order had to be given out from the part of the Germans to have all transports of the Cetniks guarded by German soldiers. In the following some details:"
On page 17 of Document Book II, the affiant then describes his own observations of certain details and I shall read: