When the Tribunal will read this affidavit, they will realize that the affiant describes how Herr von Geitner in particular achieved a harmonious collaboration between German medical officers and Serbian doctors, that it was von Geitner from whom the Serbian doctors were given cars and gas for their work. Further that von Geitner achieved considerable improvement in the conditions for a number of the prisoners in camps. I would be grateful if the Court took judicial notice of these statements. I only want to read two brief paragraphs wherein the affiant says what he knows about the situation on the basis of his collaboration of many years with von Geitner and about his character. It is on page 7 of the document book under paragraph 1, affidavit by Dr. Reuter, it says:
1.) Herr v. Geitner appeared to me and many of my comrades, officers and troops, always as a prototype of the higher General Staff officer. He always was friendly, comradely, unreserved and always accessible to listen to personal requests. No one could ever notice in him any trace of self-glorification, presumption or conceit. He moved around among us with the greatest naturalness and ease. Whenever he entered my infirmary as a patient he declined all military formalities and attentions and had always a friendly, sympathetic word but also a hearty joke ready for the sick that he encountered in the infirmary.
In dealing with me as a physician he never exceeded his authority as other officers sometimes tried to do.
And then the brief sentence:
2. ) His attitude to Serbian problems was, as he made it known to me through several conversations, generous and understanding. After he left the staff in October 1944 the general opinion was that he had to leave because of his friendly attitude towards the Serbs. It was part of his generous, sensible nature that he declined unnecessary severity towards the population and tried to balance matters wherever he could.
The next document is No. 56 in von Geitner document book 3, which will be von Geitner exhibit 42. It is an affidavit given by Dr. med. Hermann Hoffmann, who from 1942 until the end of the war, served as an army group physician in the Balkans, in other words he was a medical officer with the Commander in Chief Southeast and there of course he came across Herr von Geitner. From this affidavit I only want to read a few brief paragraphs and for the rest, I ask the court that they take judicial notice of the balance of the document. This is what the witness says about Herr von Geitner himself on page 12:
General in Reserve v. Geitner is in his character an inviolable personality, symbolizing the best in soldiership. Expert knowledge and ability combined with a cordial comradeliness, an exemplary tact and a modesty which was almost too great. In numerous official conversations and in official talks I never gained the impression that Gen. v. Geitner exceeded even in the slightest degree the limits of a healthy selfconfidence or that he tried ambitiously to put himself forward. On the contrary, his great modesty rather conveyed the impression that he was meticulously anxious in no way to overstep the limits of his authority resulting from his position as Chief of Staff. If one was a guest with the Staff of the Military Commander in Serbia, one did not notice v. Geitner as "The Chief" and no outsider would have thought him to be "the first man" of the commanding Staff. His tactfully modest manner became especially apparent in his relation to superiors or comrades younger than he in years. To speak of a "desire for prestige or power" would be absurd. His iron sense of duty and his desire to be informed on all matters dealt with by the individual special divisions of his Staff led to it that apparently he had almost everything that came in before and after its processing presented to him and that he countersigned it. At any rate, I remember that almost all instructions and orders which I had sent to the directing Medical Officer in Serbia bore, after they were returned to me, the signature of Gen. v. Geitner. Among these there were many letters dealing with current affairs and medical matters, in themselves of no importance to the Chief of Staff and upon which he also has had no influence.
I mention this circumstance irrelevant in itself for the reason that from such signing of documents etc. one can deduct a responsible participation which did in no way exist. Viewed psychologycally, this detailed preoccupation with the affairs of the individual departments of his staff, was with Gen. v. Geitner on one hand the expression of his almost excessive sense of duty, and on the other hand a symptom of the inner unrest and deep worry which filled him just as much as many other officers in high position at that time and has led to a flight into work in order to compensate for this crushing mental burden.
I shall skip the next paragraph on page 14 and I shall read the paragraph after that one, which is a brief remark about the political attitude of Herr von Geitner:
From many personal conversations about military and political questions I could note that Gen. v. Geitner was in his heart bluntly opposed to the Party, its aims and methods. As every human being capable of comprehensive thinking he asan officer and economist followed the development of the situation with the greatest worry and has tried as every responsible officer as best as he could to fight the Nazi tendencies of the OKW or at least to soften them down. The latter became particularly apparent with the introduction of the National Socialist directing officers (Fuehrungsoffiziere). I know that at a table party at which I was present this topic was discussed and the opposition against this new creation called "Politroops" was unmistakable.
In his other statement the affiant then deals with the welfare measures taken by Herr von Geitner for the Serbian population and I shall appreciate it if judicial notice is taken of it. I shall merely read the final sentence of the affidavit on page 15.
On the basis of these affidavits it is my deepest inner conviction that Gen. v. Geitner is an officer of inviolable character who filled his post as Chief of Staff in a correct unobjectionable manner and who to the best of his ability tried to mitigate the hardships caused by the war. According to character the opposite of a "pusher" or "firebrand" he was, especially by his measures towards the civilian population, exclusively guided by human and objective considerations, but never by criminal motives.
This brings us to the end of the affidavit given by Dr. Hoffmann. The affidavit has been properly sworn to and duly certified.
I shall then come to document 57 on page 16 of document book 3. Von Geitner document 3 and I shall offer it as exhibit 43. This statement and affidavit has again been duly sworn to and certified. It has been given by Dr. Franz von Harling. This affiant was the third general staff officer on the staff of the Commander in Chief Southeast, Army Group F in 1943, 1944 and 1945. On the basis of his position he describes efforts made by Herr von Geitner to make up for the antagonism which existed in the country when he came to office. I need not read these statements verbatim. I shall merely read two paragraphs.
MR. RAPP: May it please Your Honor, I understand that the affiant von Harling is going to be called as a witness for another defendant before this Tribunal, I have no objection against the introduction of this affidavit at this time, but I would like to serve notice now that if the affiant von Harling should be called by defense counsel, we would like then to cross-examine von Harling in connection with this particular affidavit.
JUDGE BURKE: There can be no question of your right to do as you choose. Proceed.
DR. SAUTER: Of course, I don't know whether the affiant Harling will really be called by another defense counsel to the witness stand. The possibility exists that the affiant von Harling will not take the witness stand and we have no influence on the matter, but should the affiant von Harling really take the witness stand, then of course I entirely agree that the prosecution shall cross-examine him.
I shall continue now with document 57, of which I only want to read two brief paragraphs. The first sentence of paragraph C concerning the collective measures of retaliation on page 17. He says there:
c) If collective retaliation measures were carried out at all within the sphere of jurisdiction of the Military Commander of Serbia then this happened, to my knowledge, in no single instance as the result of an order given by Brigadier General v. Geitner. If such an order was ever issued then the responsibility for it rested either with the commander himself or with the OKH or OKW to whom the military Commander Serbia was subordinate, by no means, with the Chief of the General Staff, however, who it is known acted on principle "by order" and therefore never gave a signature as being responsible.
I beg the Court to take judicial notice of the balance of the document. The affiant therein describes the antiSerbian attitude taken by the Higher SS and Police Leader Meyssner, who continually opposed Herr von Geitner. Then the affiant gives his description of the inclination of the Balkan peoples to make revolutions and to commit cruelties. I don't think it is necessary to read all these things. I would merely like to read paragraph D on page 19 concerning the methods of warfare pursued by the partisans because here we nave the affiant's own observations.
I shall read from paragraph D on page 19, it reads as follows:
About the question of the conduct of warfare of the Titopartisans I state the following facts:
1) When the Tito-bands invaded Southern Serbia in 1944 the wounded German soldiers were in some cases tortured to death in the meanest way by Tito-women (cutting off ears, sexual organs etc.)
2) Women and children took part to a large extent in this type of warfare by the Tito-partisans.
5) The secret intelligence service between the different Tito-bands was provided essentially by women.
4) German soldiers who fell into the hands of the Titopartisans in Croatia wounded or as airmen who had been shot down were massacred. Proof of this was furnished at one time by the statements of German soldiers who had been prisoners, and, apart from that, by wireless messages of Titos that were intercepted and in which he prohibited the murdering of German soldiers taken prisoner now", i.e. after establishment of a prisoner-exchange point south of Zagreb.
5) One of the most essential characteristics of warfare conducted by the Tito-partisans was the uninterrupted sabotage activity affecting communications (roads, bridges, railways) and signal communications. There were nights in which a road was blown up more than 100 times. No special reference is needed to the fact that this conduct of ambush warfare inevitably affected the civilian population and their maintenance.
I recommend the balance of the document to the judicial notice of the Tribunal.
The next document is document 58. It is offered as exhibit 44, document 58, exhibit 44 and it is on page 21 of the document book 3 for Geitner. It is an affidavit made by Dr. Gartellieri of whom I have read an affidavit before. His affidavit states that he and the defendant von Geitner in February or March of 1943 discussed fundamental questions officially. The document shows that Herr von Geitner at that time explained the principles on which he wished the administration in Serbia to be handled. I shall read the most important parts of this because they are of special importance in order to determine von Geitner's efforts at the time.
I shall begin on page 21 in the middle of the second paragraph, it says there:
On this tour there was among others a discussion with the command in Serbia in Belgrade. There the Chief of Staff now the defendant Brigadier General Ritter von G e i t n e r, whose acquaintance I had not made until then, made detailed statements concerning the political situation in Serbia and in the Balkans in particular, which surprised me on account of their clarity and frankness and seemed so significant to me that, although they were not within my "jurisdiction", I claimed them after my return in a written report to my command headquarters as my own personal observation and opinion (without quoting the individual sources).
The most essential contents of these detailed statements were:
1. The destruction of Yugoslavia after the Balkan campaign of 1941, and above all the new boundary fixed by Germany and Italy which denied all racial questions was a basic cause of the unrest now prevailing and the promotion of bands. Ritter von Geitner referred in particular to the separation of Syrmia from Serbia, as a result of which the territory before the gates of Belgrade on the other bank of the Danube was no longer Serbian Territory.
2. The question of pacifying of the Balkan area is no military question, it can in so far as this is possible at all be solved politically only.
3. The most thorough, most orderly and finest people in the Balkans with the best moral conceptions are the Serbs. Ritter von Geitner deplored the fact that the policy pursued by Hitler had resulted in all Serbs being provoked against German so that not only the followers of Tito but those of Mihailovitse had to be combated as well.
4. As a distinct reason for the opening of guerilla warfare Ritter von Geitner cited the new Croat state with the Ustascha course supported by Germany. The Ustascha which even in Croatia could only rely on a dwindling minority of the population had conducted a vengeance campaign against the orthodox slaves killing hundreds of thousands, so that the surviving population had to flee to the mountains and was clearly compelled to indulge in band warfare.
5. Ritter von Geitner laid special stress on the fact that Tito's movement had originally few followers in Serbia and that it got the hulk of its followers as a result of the impossible German policy. With this, Ritter von Geitner referred to Tito's energetic personality which even then was generally accepted in the Balkans whilst I, after my official tour, tried to bring it to the notice of higher authorities.
6. Ritter von Geitner expressed particular anxiety about the lack of co-ordination of German organization in Serbia. Although Serbia had a German Military Administration, the latter had no say in many spheres, for three other merman Authorities there pursued independent policies namely the German Ambassador, the Plenipotentiary Deputy for the Four Years' Plan and the Higher SS - and Police Leader. Ritter von Geitner complained particularly about the despotism of the "Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan" and the"Higher SS and Police Leader."
I would appreciate it if the Court would take official notice of the balance of the document. I merely wish to point out that at the end the affiant speaks of his own person namely that after his release he was given the order to refer to War Department G-2 about his own character.
What the witness has said has been sworn to properly and duly certified.
The next document we come to is an affidavit given by Karl v. Baillou. This is document No. 59 in Document book 3, for Geitner, on page 25 and it will become exhibit 45. This affiant, Karl v. Baillow, was an assistant officer with the department 1-a of the Commanding General Serbia from September 1941 until February, 1943. I shall merely read paragraph 3 on page 26. It reads as follows:
3) I remember that higher offices repeatedly demanded ruthless measures against the insurgents, in accordance with orders given. In the same way, whenever there had been an ambush or an act of sabotage, the question was always asked: "What happened then?" or "What measures were taken?"
And this brings me to document No. 60 in document book von Geitner 3 on page 27 and this is offered as exhibit 46. This affidavit has been given by Dr. Fritz Gaedicke, who is now 62 years of age. At present he is a lawyer and notary. This affiant was as German judge in Serbia during the occupation. He was counsel with a court martial with the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia and this is of course where he met the defendant von Geitner. I recommend paragraph 1 to the judicial notice of the court, also paragraph 4. I will merelyread paragraphs 2,3, and 5. Paragraph 2 on page 27 reads as follows:
2) In private life I had very close connections with Herr v. Geitner. We ate all our meals together in the mess of the Military Commander, where only six officers ate, besides the Commander. I was never aware, here, that Herr v. Geitner was opposed to the Serbs. He never expressed himself in an arrogant way about the Serbs and never advocated permanent domination of the Serbs or other countries.
In paragraph 3 on page 28, it says:
3) Many official matters were brought up in this little circle of members at the Commander is table. Here everybody including Herr v. Geitner, often sharply criticized the execution of the reprisal measures which had been ordered by higher agencies. Herr v. Geitner never stood up for terrorizing and exterminating the Serbian population. He was never a firebrand. Rather, he attempted, so far as was possible, to act in a reconcillatory, alleviating and softening manner.
And in paragraph 5 the affiant says:
5) Herr v. Geitner also was respected by Serbian government circles. Germans who had lived for years in Serbia and had close connections with the Serbs have assured me of this.
5034.
This affidavit again has been duly sworn to and properly certified. We now come to Document No. 61 on page 30 of Document Book Geitner No. 3 and it is offered as Exhibit No. 47. This affidavit has been given by Rudolf Hug who is now 62 years of age who in 1943 and 1944 was a Sector Commander in Serbia and who after the attempt on Hitler's life of 20th of July 1944 was dismissed from the Army, as he says, dismissed in fact under the order that he was not allowed to be employed in the Government, Party or Army in any sense.
On page 13 he speaks about the attitude which Geitner took as a matter of principle -- namely, that Geitner regarded the Serbs as the leading and finest people in the Balkans. I merely want to read briefly paragraphs "b," "c" and "d" ------"b" on page 31, and ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the balance of the document.
"Guard posts in my sector were often attacked by Partisans, causing German soldiers to be killed and wounded. Despite this there were no reprisals for these attacks because in Belgrade they tried to circumvent the reprisal measures ordered from above by reporting the German soldiers killed or wounded in such ambushes as "killed or wounded in battle."
"c) The Save boats, which primarily served civilian transportation were often shot upon by the insurgents. Many times this caused casualties among the civilians as well as the soldiers. There were on no occasion reprisals for this.
"d) One of the most active bandit leaders in my sector was the Cetnik leader Nesco Nedic. Herr v. Geitner telephoned me several times and ordered me to tell this man , through middlemen, that "he should cut out this nonsense (meaning the ambush attacks) "In time there followed a certain truce with the group of Nesco Nedic.
In a later personal conversation, Nedic admitted to me that he had called off the ambush attacks later on because he feared the threatened reprisal measures would be carried out."
I shall not read the balance of this document. They merely repeat what other affiants have said about Geitner's personal humane attitude towards the Serbs and particularly towards partisans who had been taken prisoner.
This brings/us to Document No. 62 in Geitner Document Book No. 3 on page 64. This Document 62 is offered as Exhibit 48, Geitner No. 48. This affidavit comes from one Georg Nawrath who was in the Military Area Headquarters at Breslau and served there from 1940 to 1941. This document is offered because it shows that Herr von Geitner did what he could for racially persecuted persons; in other words, in one important point he took up opposition to the National Socialist Ideology thereby endangering his own position.
The affidavit has been properly sworn to and certified. I shall not read it and recommend it to the Judicial notice of the Tribunal.
This is followed by Document 63 on page 36 of the document book, Geitner No. III, which I shall give Exhibit Number 49. This has been given by Prinz Holstein who has also supplied affidavits about other matters. The Prinz, as is well known, was in 1942-1943 an officer on the staff of the Commanding General Serbia and as such well acquainted with conditions in the Balkans. The document furnishes a contribution about the methods chosen by the partisans in their warfare. From paragraph 1 on page 36 I shall read the following:
"In September 1941, shortly after my transfer to the staff of the Commander for Serbia, an order issued by the insurgents fell into the Army's hands. This order commanded that the Germans be fought with every possible means, that they were not to shrink back from murder nor from terrorist measures, etc. at the order of the Commander at that time General of the Air Corps Danckelmann, copies were made of this order, the copy certified by me, and they were distributed down to the companies, in part by dropping them from airplanes."
Then I shall read from paragraph 2 of this affidavit, where the witness from his own observation speaks about how commando troops were being dealt with in direct contrast in what is known as the Commando Order which in many cases was only a scrap of paper. About this point the affiant says as follows in paragraphs 2 and 3. This is on page 37:
"In the witner of 1941/42 (I can no longer give the exact time) a British intelligence and sabotage team was captured which had landed by parachute in the Sarajevo area. Strength: 1 major (whose name I have forgotten) with 3 men. Although all had civilian clothes with them and by their own admission intended to disguise themselves, they were , after being interrogated by myself and the SD, to whom the persons concerned had to be referred for interrogation according to orders, shipped to Germany as prisoners of war and not treated as spies or franctireurs. The major went to the air force camp in Oberursel. Later after the German surrender he was questioned as a witness about the treatment of prisoners of war in Oberursel."
And in paragraph 3 the witness says:
"3. The order for the annihilation of enemy sabotage and commando units was passed down in writing from above to the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia during the year 1942. This was also announced at the same time on the German radio. I do not recall that the staff of the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia passed the order on to the subordinate units and offices. At all events, I know of no case in the Serbian area until January 1943 where Allied liaison units attached to the insurgents were "annihilated" in accordance with this order. (I was charged with compiling the daily reports.) The Chief (v. Geitner) flatly rejected any such method of fighting as used against Allied soldiers. In his opinion, if they were seized in civilian clothes they should be brought before a court martial. He was accustomed to expressing these military views of his to young officers, both officially and unofficially, particularly because he had learned things this way during the first world war in the old Bavarian army."
The affidavit of Prinz Holstein has been duly sworn to and properly certified.
This brings us to Document 64 in Document Book Geitner No. III on page 39 of this volume and it is offered as Exhibit 50. The affidavit has been given by Hugo Schroeder, a Bavarian Colonel of 50 years of age. This Colonel for almost two years served from July 1943 to March 1945 in Geitner's immediate neighborhood. He was a liason officer with the Russian Corps in Serbia. Under paragraph I of his affidavit the affiant speaks about the fact that daily he attended Staff conferences with Herr von Geitner which is how he became so closely acquainted with Herr von Geitner's attitude. These statements are really quite interesting but in order to save time I merely ask the Court to take judicial notice of them without my reading it.
MR. RAPP: If your Honors please , I notice in this affidavit that the affiant on nine, possibly ten, occasions, at the very last part of the affidavit , makes reference to his own letters he wrote to his relatives from the front and he excerpts quotations of these letters in here. I would like Dr. Sauter, if he intends to submit such parts, to attach these letters as a record to the affidavit.
DR. SAUTER: I shall come back to this point immediately. I shall read first from figure II on page 40 of this affidavit concerning the experiences made by this Bavarian Colonel Schroeder with Herr von Geitner and the attitude which Herr von Geitner took. Under II this is what the witness says on page 40:
"General von Geitner, like myself, comes from the old Bavarian army. For this reason alone I felt drawn to him from the beginning. With respect to his political attitude, and naturally also with respect to his attitude toward Hitler's war which is necessarily connected with this, he belonged to the large number of old Bavarian officers who were opposed to National Socialism and thereby to the war. After a very . short time I noticed from his speeches and orders that he did not want to have anything to do with the opinions and intrigues which were ordered from higher quarters. Naturally, he was somewhat reticent before me as his subordinate,primarily in all questions concerning politics and the war; however, since I regularly expressed my opinions to him quite openly, after some time he became steadily less reserved and allowed his innermost opinions to become more and more apparent. Since I was still being stigmatized by the Nazis from my service on the Eastern Front as a pessimist and defeatist; I was shortly after the introduction of the National Socialist Educational Officers (NSFO) in the spring of 1944, denounced three times between May and July 1944 to the National Socialist Educational Officer of the Military Commander for the Southeast by the officer assigned to this position on my staff for statements "endangering the State."
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE:Dr. Sauter, Mr. Rapp desires to make an objection, I take it.
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, I object to having any part of this affidavit read into the record before Dr. Sauter answers to my objection I have made. I repeat that this affidavit should not be admitted into evidence until such time that Dr. Sauter had produced the letters the affiant has reference to. I don't see any reason why Dr. Sauter continues to read some parts into the record.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Does the objection you have made go to the portions of the document he is reading?
MR. RAPP: It pertains to the entire document, Your Honor, and Dr. Sauter has already read part of the document into the record.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: What specifically then is your objection?
MR. RAPP: The specific objection, your Honors, is that the affiant makes excerpts of letters which he wrote which may be so or may not be so. In order to save time and not put the witness on the stand for cross examination, I am merely suggesting that the letters which the witness has reference to be produced in full as part of this affidavit , or in lieu of these letters , if these letters are not forthcoming, that part of the affidavit be stricken.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Wouldn't that be the appropriate time to make your objection, when Dr. Sauter offers to make use of the letters or any portions of than?
MR. RAPP: These letters are part of the affidavit that he is already reading. These excerpts I am having reference to are covered in this particular affidavit.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Docs your objection extend to the personal observations of the dependent or does it extend merely to the letters which are referred to therein?
MR. RAPP: The latter part, your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Well, until such time as Dr. Sauter decides to offer any portion that bears on the letters, wouldn't that be the proper time to make your objection?
MR. RAPP: All right, your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed.
DR. SAUTER: I continue on the bottom of page 40, where the witness says: "It was only thanks to General von Geitner's intervention that no difficulties arose for me from this business . If General von Geitner had been a Nazi and an intriguer he certainly would have acted quite differently. General von Geitner always kept within his authority; I am convinced that he neither exceeded his powers nor abused his position.
Because of his human willingness to compromise at all times, which was apparent under all conditions, he enjoyed a high reputation among all the members of his staff, and was generally popular not only with the officers, but also with the non-commissioned officers and enlisted men. " In Paragraph III, the witness continues oh von Geitner's attitude on the basis of his own observations.
I shall continue to read this paragraph, by the way, because it seems to be, to me, particularly important --- on page 41 of his affidavit:
"His attitude to, and his relations with, the Serbs were entirely correct. He saw in them the conquered foe and considered it beneath his dignity as an officer to proceed against defenseless people. He often had to deal with members of the Serbian government, or even with members of the resistance movement of Draga Mihailovic --- the Cetniks. Insofar as possible he met them half way on these occasions and shewed the greatest possible understanding for their often very extravagant wishes. Quite often he was subsequently cheated by his partners in the agreement, in that the latter simply did not adhere to the terms which had been agreed upon. However, he never lost patience with them and only interferred when very important interests cf the German Wehrmacht , or even of the Serbian people , were endangered. Many times I myself have been surprised at his forbearance, particularly towards the Cetniks.
It was General von Geitner's constant endeavor to maintain order and tranquility in Serbia with the use of as little force as possible. I have never noticed even a trace of hatred in him for the Serbs; on the contrary I had the feeling that deep in his heart he had respect for their brave and stubborn resistance and in a certain sense sympathized with them as a soldier. Expressions such as "waging ruthless warfare", "annihilation of the Serbs", and the like I have never once heard pass his lips.
General von Geitner was an outspoken foe of the so-called reprisal measures. He often expressed himself to this effect in the daily staff conferences and also condemned them in personal conversations with myself. I know definitely that he suffered grievously from them in his mind and can still remember well one discussion around the spring of '44 when he remarked that "thank God" under the new policy of Ambassador Neubacher the reprisal measures would now cause."
Particularly instructive is what he says under paragraph 4 concerning various troops and organizations which existed in the Balkans and which fought each other at the point of a knife. However, although they are interesting, I shall not read these statements verbatim in order to save time.
On page 43 to 45 the affiant describes the various organizations and units which faced each other in the Serbian area as enemies. These statements are of assistance if one wants to study conditions in that area at the time. I recommend it to the attention of the Court and I shall then read from page 45 from paragraph V concerning individual cases which he himself experienced. He describes the way in which the partisan units fought so that the Court may form an opinion whether this was a regular army in the sense of the Hague Rules for Land Warfare.
Paragraph V on page 45:
"In general, I want to state that in the Balkan theatre, murder of the civilian population or of prisoners, attacks, distractions, blowing up of (military) objects, atrocities and horrors of all kind, committed by partisans or the civilian population against the occupation power and against their own fellow-countrymen as well as against foreign people, were so much an everyday occurrence that after a short stay in that district, one had to put up with them as a foregone conclusion without further ado.
If I had recorded them, I should be able to cite at least a hundred examples. I have forgotten most of them in the whirl of events during the last years, thus I can only give a few examples which I remember still exactly, either because I experienced than myself or because they came to my knowledge through dispatches of the Russian units to the corps headquarters staff:
"In July 1943 near Veliki Zvornik on the river Drina the Ustascha. drove about 1500 Serbs domiciled in Bosnia, among them about 400 wounded persons , to the western bank of the river Drina in order to drown them in the river, after having entirely destroyed their villages. The units of the 1st Russian regiment, stationed there, ran to the Serbs' assistance from the Eastern bank, freeing them from the hands of the Ustascha, and took them to the Eastern bank. At that time, about 800 persons were given medical care at the first aid station of that regiment.
"2. Also in July 1943, the mounted platoon of the 2nd Russian regiment came to a village in the Homolje-Mountains (North East Serbia) in order to pick up some hay which the Serbian farmers had put at the disposal of the troops by order of their own government. After they had been moved, red partisans attacked the village and burned down the two farms where the hay had been held at the disposal of the troops.
"3. When in December 1943 I was with the Bulgarians, at Uzize, I saw at Rogatica on the river Drin that all places on the Western bank of the river where places on the Western bank of the river were destroyed down to the foundation-walls. To my question referring to this, they told me that this had been done by the Ustascha who had killed all Serbs on the Bosnian bank and had destroyed their villages."
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Sauter , we will take our morning recess at this time.
THE MARSHAL: The Court is in recess until eleven-fifteen.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You nay proceed, Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: On Page 46 of the original, Document Book Geitner III, Document No. 64, I read from paragraph 3:
"When in December 1943, I was with the Bulgarians at Uzize, I saw at Rogatica on the river Drina that all places on the Western bank of the river were destroyed down to the foundation-walls. To my question referring to this, they told me that this had been done by the Ustascha who had killed all Serbs on the Bosnian bonk and had destroyed their villages.
4.) In February 1944, in a village on the rive Save in the North of O b r e n o v a t z, the Serbian maidservant of an officer of the 2nd company in the 5th Russian regiment was forced by threats to quit their service. As she did not respond to that, her husband was kidnapped and has disappeared since that time without leaving any trace.
3.) When, in March 1944, I was the leader of a combat element of about the strength of a division, composed of Russians, Serbs, Bulgarians auxiliary police, Serbian State Guard and Cetniks, the Cetniks simply killed some Tito partisans who had come across the river Ibar North of Raschka, without wasting time in taking them prisoners. To my objection that this was unlawful, they answered with a pitying smile and made me understand that I had no idea about the methods of fighting in the Balkans, and that the same would happen to them if they would fall into the hands of the Reds.
6.) At the beginning of May 1944, some Titopartisans took possession of a proletarian brigade of the village of M r a v i n c i (between V a l j e v e and U z i z e, in the West of Serbia), On that occasion, the first aid station of the 1st Battalion in the 5th Russian regiment fell into their hands. When the village was taken again by the Battalion, all the wounded soldiers, among them one sergeant called S e r e b r a j k o w, had been killed by the partisans. The partisans had written on the wall with the blood of the murdered soldiers: