After tilings had calmed down somewhat I made some inquiries. Thereafter I left the position and on the way back I had an opportunity to see the wounded members of the population, among which there were women and also children. That was one occasion which I mentioned.
Q Did you see anything else of a similar kind, witness, but you can be brief?
AAt the beginning of May, 1944, some forces of Tito threatened to approach Valjevo from the south. General Felber sent me there in order to see what the situation was like. On the first day I found myself in Valjevo, on the second day I tried to get ahead on the road Valjevo Uzice. I tried in the morning hours to reach the combat group Weil. This combat group consisted of one or two companies of Brandenburg and of the Mihajlovic Cetnicks, who were fighting against the Reds. I got stuck on the way and found myself caught in the firing. I had to send my cars back for cover. I reconnoitred and when I heard the noise of battle, I continued alone on the road in order to find the staff Weil.
On the road I saw dead people. There were two people whose throats were cut. Immediately afterwards I met elements of the Brandenburg companies and of the Cetnicks. These men had crossed the road further south. They asked me to enter a mill further southward and there I met the staff Weil. On that occasion I heard that a security group of the Cetniks had been attacked during the night and that the Reds had cut the throats of some of the people who were wounded. It can be assumed that those were the people whom I had seen lying in the road. Those are my own observations in land warfare.
Q Witness, you were asked yesterday whether the troops, which were under the jurisdiction of your commander in his area, were sufficient to combat the acts of terror and you answered this question negatively. Would you like to make it quite clear now just what was the immediate consequence of the fact that your commander did not have sufficient, and not very good, troops in his area?
A The first consequence of the inadequate quantity of the troops and above all the presence of Bulgarian troops in the area was that the authority of the German occupying forces suffered and this lack of authority incited the population to excesses. The consequence of these excesses was then in turn reprisal measures, but I would like to say immediately that even the very strongest troops would not have guaranteed absolutely the stopping of these surprise attacks and excesses on the part cf the population.
That can be seen from the fact that the strong Allied forces in Germany saw themselves forced to threaten similar measures and partly perhaps even apply similar measures.
Q Witness, yesterday during the cross-examination there was some discussion of the shadow shootings?
A Yes.
Q And you were told of a statement, which General Felber made here as a witness, a statement to the effect that shadow shootings did not take place before 12 October 1943. Yesterday you attempted to prove the contrary and pointed out an entry in your war diary from the 28th of May 1943. This entry will be submitted to the Tribunal in document book No. 4, von Geitner, on page 27 under Document 93. Now I would be interested in the following; do you have any other reasons to assume that there were shadow shootings even before 12 October 1943 and that they took place especially before General Felber took over office in the area and that the question of these shadow shooting had been dealt with prior to these dates. Do you have any documentary proof for these facts?
A Before the time of General Felber's tenure, I have no documentary proof, all I have is this entry in the war diary, which refreshed my memory concerning these things.
Q You do have the document, don't you; where there is a handwritten note concerning shadow shootings?
A That is a document which originates from the time of General Felber.
Q All right, what date?
A 15th October 1943.
Q And what is the file number?
A There is a file note.
Q I believe it is W.B.
A Yes, it is W.B./1068/6.
Q And what did General Felber personally write into this document of 15 October 1943?
A It is almost illegible, but it does say something about shadow shootings.
Q Is General Felber's initial on it?
A Yes, it is.
Q And when did General Felber appear in Belgrade?
A I believe on the 28th or 29th of August 1943.
Q But then that was a few weeks before this document was dated?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Witness, you were also asked yesterday a question concerning the relations between the commander and the chief of his staff and you answered to the effect that this relation had in many instances depended on the personality of the commander and on the personality of his chief of staff; was that the way you expressed it?
A Yes. Yes, I said it depended on the personalities concerned.
Q Now, would you like to make a comment concerring the following, were your two commanders General Bader and General Felber strong personalities, next to whom the chief of staff was as in actual fact only of secondary significance or were those two generals weak personalities, who let themselves be influenced by their chief of staff; would you like to make a brief comment to this question?
A I can say quite frankly that both men concerned were very strong personalities. It was not easy to influence them, quite apart from the fact that both of them were far more experienced as soldiers.
Q Witness, yesterday the question was brought up whether in the Manual for the General Staff Service in War Time there is any prevision contained concerning the fact that reprisal measures constitute part of the executive power and that for that reason the ordering of reprisal measures was the right only of the Commander himself. You answered this question to the negative.
A I said "No."
Q That is how I understood it. I now ask you, how do you make out that the order for reprisal measures was not the right of the Chief of Staff but only the right of the Military Commander himself?
A That is laid down in the Manual. That is a matter merely of the holder of the executive power, that he alone has the right to order these measures.
Q You take that from the Manual for the General Staff Service?
A Yes, I do.
Q Witness, yesterday you also said that you had assumed that an order from the OKH would be examined properly before it was issued so that there could be no doubt with regard to the legality of such an order. Is it known to you whether the OKW, the High Command of the Armed Forces, and the OKH, the High Command of the Army, had their own legal department which would examine such problems and where there would be legal experts to examine these problems?
A There were legal experts with the OKH and there was also an Armed Forces Legal Department with the OKW. For these reasons I naturally had to assume that an OKW order would be thoroughly examined concerning the question of its legality.
Q Herr von Geitner, you were asked yesterday whether you con cerned yourself with the food supply of the arrested people in the camps.
You answered this question in the negative. I would like to ask you in this connection, did you yourself ever enter any of these camps?
A No.
Q Did you ever try to visit such a camp in order to convince yourself of the conditions in these camps?
A I would have only been able to do that if my Commander had ordered me to do that. To make the request to visit the camp in Semlin, such an idea never entered my head because of the experiences which I had in connection with my attempt to get sanitary officers to visit the camp.
Q Can you tell us briefly what were the experiences that you had on the occasion of trying to get the medical officers to enter such a camp?
AAt first it was refused to let them enter.
Q Who refused that?
A Meyssner did. If I remember correctly, it became possible only after the Commander intervened.
Q Witness, you were asked yesterday what would have happened to General Bader if the OKW had by some chance found out that he issued fake reports in order thus to prevent the shooting of too many hostages. Your answer was that you were convinced General Bader would have been put before a court martial. Was that your answer?
A Yes.
Q I see. Well, witness, in this connection I would like to clear up one point which is of interest for the Tribunal as well as for the broad public. I have here in front of me a compilation, a statistics concerning the fate of German generals during the Second World War. Do you know this statistics?
A If that is the same that you gave me -
Q Yes, it is.
A Well, then I knew it.
Q Can you tell the Tribunal briefly how this compilation was made but very briefly?
A In the summer months of last year there were in Dachau in IW Enclosure 29 several hundred generals and General Staff Officers as prisoners of war. A survey was made there concerning the fate of German generals and General Staff officers. Everybody was to make a contribution towards this survey who was in a position to do it. The purpose was to gain a picture cf the actual facts in order to counter rumors and criticisms. At that time such a compilation was made from the information which we had.
Q I see. Well, now, witness, one preliminary question: to the best of your information you can tell us that it is approximately correct that the peacetime rank list of the generals -- I mean of the generals of the army, not including the ones of the air force -- that this rank list comprised about 400 generals in peacetime and 1242 during wartime.
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, I object to this line of questioning. Dr. Sauter ought to ask the witness whether he knows the number of German generals in the army before the war and not give him the answer in this question.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is quite leading, Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: This is merely a figure which can be established from the rank list without any trouble. It is not a figure which the witness is inventing, but we don't even need this figure. I can do without it and I will ask the witness something else.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not trying to limit you in your questioning. I am merely stating to you that your question was leading. You can ask the witness as to what he knows and he can tell us, I am sure there will be no objection on the part of the prosecution.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you, your Honor. I shall have this question answered by submitting the Army Rank List of the German Generals and then we can immediately and authentically ascertain the number of German generals before the war and during the war.
Q Witness, can you tell us, on the basis of this compilation to which you contributed, how many Generals were killed in battle during the war. That is according to this compilation?
A On the basis of our survey, there were 231 -- that is, if I remember correctly.
Q There German Generals had accidents or were killed, during who war Is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct in accordance with the information which we had at that time.
Q How many Generals died during the war? How many German Generals were sentenced to death during the World War by German courts martial? I shall repeat my last question. How many German Generals were killed during the Second World War at the front through sickness and disease? Will you please repeat your answer?
AAccording to our information, there were 97.
Q How many German Generals were sentenced to death during the Second World War?
AAccording to our information at the time, there were 22 who were sentenced to death.
Q Can you tell us why those 22 German Generals were sentenced to death during the Second World War?
A Some of them were sentenced to death because they disobeyed orders and others were sentenced to death because they participated in the Hitler plot of July 1944.
Q What was the date of this plot?
A The date was the 20th of July 1944.
Q How many German Generals committed suicide during the Second World War?
AAccording to our informations, 58.
Q Do you assume, witness, that amongst these 58 German Generals who committed suicide there were some who committed suicide because they were afraid to be put before a court martial because they disobeyed orders?
MR. RAPP: I object, Your Honors, the witness should be asked whether or not he knows the facts about these people who committed suicide and only then should he be required to answer the question.
Q Witness, I withdraw the question because everybody can make their own opinion why these people committed suicide. I shall now put to you a last question: how many German Generals were missing until Summer 1946 when this compilation was made?
AAt the time our information said that there were about 80 who were missing.
Q I see. Did the fear to be put before a court martial because of disobeying orders, because of not obeying them during the course of the war rest heavy on the German generals?
A I can well say that I had that impression on several occasions. We had orders from Hitler in which some threat was contained concerning court martial procedure if certain matters would not be followed up. At the time while I was active with Any Group Central I experienced the Hoeppner Case.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honors, I have no further questions to put to the witness.
DR. LATERNSER (Counsel for defendants List and von Weichs): Your Honors, I would like to put some questions in the case with reference to Field Marshal Weichs. I should be able to do this within a few minutes. There is one point I would like to clarify which came up during cross examination.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q General von Geitner, were the areas of jurisdiction of the Military Commander Southeast and of the Commander-in-Chief Southeast of a different nature?
AAre you talking about the territorial spheres?
Q Yes, I mean the territorial areas.
A To the best of my recollection, only inasmuch as, for instance, the Military Commander didn't have anything to say at all in Rhodos and in Crete he didn't have anything to way either; but, apart from that, they more or less coincided.
Q In the main then the areas coincided.
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Now, there are two kinds of authorities: there is an operational authority and a territorial authority. The latter one includes the executive power. Who was holder of the territorial authority?
A The Military Commander was the holder of the territorial authority.
Q And who was the holder of the operational authority?
A I would say that tactical matters were subject to the authority of Field Marshal von Weichs.
Q Now, we will talk about reprisal measures. Into what sphere did the reprisal measures fall, generally speaking?
A The ordering of a reprisal measure was a matter of executive power but I would like to emphasize that even troop commanders could do that, however, if only after discussion with the Territorial Commander.
Q But, General von Geitner, that did not alter the competency of the authorities concerned, did it?
AAt the moment I do not recall exactly the text of Field Marshal von Weichs's order.
Q Well, then, we will crop this point for the moment. You said just before that General Felber was a very strong personality.
A Yes, I said that.
Q Was General Felber also a man who was much concerned about his independence?
A General Felber had at all times tried to cooperate with the Field Marshal.
Q General von Geitner, I would like you to answer the questions the way I put them. My question was, after you had said that General Felber was a strong personality, whether you would also say that he was a man who was trying hard to keep his independence.
A He did not like to be interfered with in his spheres of competency.
Q I see. Then you said on cross examination, General von Geitner, that Field Marshal von Weichs did not protest against retaliation measures of the Military Commander Southeast. There is one question which I would like to put to you in this connection.
A Such a protest is not known to me.
Q I would like to ask you a question in this connection. Were the reprisal measures which the Military Commander Southeast intended reported before they were carried out to the Field Marshal von Weichs as Commander in Chief Southeast?
A Not to the best of my knowledge.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you. I have no further questions to put.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions on behalf of counsel for the defendants? Any further recross examination?
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, do you know the whereabouts or what has happened to Genera Bader?
A In Garmisch there was rumor that General Bader was dead and when I came here to Nurnberg and during my first interrogation you said to me: "Bader is dead, isn't he?"; and I took that as a confirmation of the fact that he is dead.
Q Ever since you haven't heard anything to the contrary.
AAt one time I was asked by a member of your office where Bader could be found and all I could answer was, "As far as I know, Bader is supposed to be dead."
Q Witness, regarding the executive powers, if I understand you right, there were three types of so-called powers known to you. I will give them to you in German so that we both speak the same language. The one you referred to is called the "territorial power." Is that right? Is that right, Witness?
A You are now talking about military powers aren't you? You are not talking of the Classical three state authorities-executive, law-making, and judicial? Are those the ones you are talking about? You are speaking of military powers, aren't you?
Q I am now speaking about the military powers, yes.
A There is also territorial power.
Q And we have learned just now of a so-called "operational authority". Is that right?
A I would call that troop leadership.
Q And thirdly, there is a so-called "executive power". Am I right about that?
A To the best of my recollection one cannot separate these things so clearly. I am not a legal man, and I should have to ask a military jurist or an administrative jurist about these questions because I am not an expert. Up till now I have maintained the point of view that executive power can only be held by the man who also holds territorial power. Therefore, the executive power is more or less a function of territorial power. I don't know whether I have correctly expressed this.
Q You made yourself perfectly clear, Witness. Now, there were certain territories in the Southeast, if I understand, you right, which were not under the jurisdiction of General Felber. Is that correct?
A To the best of my recollection this was Rhodos, as I said before, and Crete to a limited extent, and later I think the Peloponnesus also was withdrawn from General Felber's authority.
Q Witness, how about reprisal measures which occurred in the State of Croatia? Was that General Felber's concern?
A In Croatia, to the best of my knowledge, reprisal measures were only to be ordered in agreement with the Croatian Government. General Felber had under him General Glaise, and General Glaise wan to clarify these problems with the Croatian Government, to the best of my knowledge.
Q Witness, could you possibly answer this question "yes" or "no"? That is to say, whether or not General Felber had any jurisdiction over Croatia as far as reprisal measures were concerned?
A He only had jurisdiction over General von Glaise. He did not have any jurisdiction over the Creatian State.
Q Witness, isn't it true that there were certain areas in the Southeast theater which were called, for all intents and purposes, an operational area - the coastline, certain parts of the interior which never were and never have been under General Felber? Is that right?
AAs far as I know the whole of the Southeast was operational territory. Besides during certain operations special authorities were given time and again. How the situation was concerning the coastal area I do not recollect at the moment, that is whether such authority had been given to the troops on that occasion.
Q Witness, you were asked whether or not Fields Marshal Weichs only received knowledge of reprisal measures, so to speak, ex post facto, that is, after they were executed and in the form of the Daily Reports which you submitted to headquarters. And you answered this question that that is correct. Did you say that?
A General Felber, in individual cases, did not ask General von Weichs
Q But, witness, to the best of your knowledge, the Defendant Weichs was aware that reprisal measures were being instituted by order of General Felber, was he?
A Yes, he gained knowledge of it through the Daily Reports. The Daily Reports did not always report the execution of a measure, but they also reported that the order had been given for a reprisal measure These orders were not always carried out.
Q Witness, from these Daily Reports it was perfectly obvious to deduce a policy of reprisal measures prevailing at that time, was it not?
A It could be deduced that reprisal measures were being taken in Serbia.
MR. RAPP: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions on behalf of the Defense Counsel?
There being an indication that there's no further questions on behalf of the Defense Counsel, the witness may be excused.
Pardon me. Judge Carter would like to ask a question.
BY JUDGE CARTER:
Q General, can you tell me whether or not your commanders in the Southeast had full confidence in the OKW?
A The confidence in the OKW was, in the course of time, shaken also where my commanding officers were concerned, especially the confidence in the military leadership of the OKW.
Q And was your own confidence likewise shaken in that military leadership?
A My confidence concerning this leadership had for sometime been shaken. And it was considerably shaken not only by the attack on Russia which I considered a completely futile one, but it was also shaken by all the things which I experienced in the East in the way of Fuehrer orders, by what I experienced in the way of the Fuehrer's intervention in operations. And it was particularly shaken by the events of Stalingrad.
Q Well, now, was that fear based on the fact that Keitel and Jodl, and other high-ranking officers were under the complete domination of Hitler?
A I personally, of course, have never been in the OKW, so I cannot know how the individual events occurred. I did not know the relation between Keitel and Hitler or between Jodl and Hitler.
Q I didn't.....
A What I did know were things which I gathered from talks and discussions and by way of rumors.
Q I didn't ask you about the relation between Keitel and Jodl and Hitler. I was asking you about what the officers in the Southeast thought about it. Did they think that these high military commanders were under the complete domination of Hitler?
A That was what was said of Keitel. With regard to Jodl I don't know.
Q Did you think that was true of Keitel?
A Yes, I did.
Q And your fears then arose out of the fact that you doubted the military ability of Hitler and Keitel's carrying out the orders of Hitler as they were given. Is that correct?
A I doubted Hitler's military ability, and I also, in the course of time, doubted that Keitel had favorable influence on Hitler. Those were my doubts.
Q It is your thought, then, that Hitler had surrounded himself with military men who would do his bidding? Is that correct?
A It was not in every case Keitel or Jodl who were the advisors. As far as I know from my insignificant position Jodl was only competent for the so-called. OKW theaters of war, of which the Southeast was one. The East, however, was an OKH theater of war, and Hitler's advisor concerning this theater was the Chief of the General Staff, the Chief of the Army, and that was not Jodl. I don't know what effect or influence Jodl had on Hitler, and I never did know it in detail. In any case, we distrusted the OKW. We could not trust them.
Q And that was because you feared they were "yes men" to Hitler? Is that not right?
A That certainly applied to Keitel. Where Jodl is concerned I don't know the facts. I don't know whether he protested at any time or not.
And as a result of what came out in the IMT Trial, it is now said that he too gave in, but on the occasion of the IMT Trial cases also became known where he did contradict and oppose the Fuehrer. I don't know him and I don't know his personality. I don't know him habits. In any case, they were distinguished in the picture which I had formed during my earlier service period - the picture which I had formed of the Supreme Military leadership in the First World War. I don't know how this was. It remained always to us the Supreme Military leadership.
Q General, if you had this distrust of the military because of Hitler's influence, wouldn't you naturally have the same distrust as to the lawyers who were advising him in the matter of the issuance of the orders by the OXW?
AAfter all there had to be one person who ordered. As a rule it is a military principle that even a bad order is better than none at all. After all we had to obey. One person had to lead. Who was to have done it?
Q General, my question is that if a man like Hitler would surround himself with "yes men" in the military wouldn't he be just as apt to surround himself with "yes men" on legal matters?
A I must say that I did not assume that one could disregard simply everything. I, as an insignificant personality, had to assume that if such an agency orders something, this agency has to be fully aware of its reponsibility.
Q And even though you distrusted their judgment you still think you should accept their views of legality without question. Is that correct?
A I had to assume that. I could not imagine that such things were regulated without any consideration for law. That seemed to me a matter which was quite impossible.
Q Were orders received from OKW reviewed by your legal advisor in the Southeast at all?
A I don't know whether my commanders who alone had contact with the legal advisors because they were the judicial authorities--I don't know to what extent my commanding officers did have these orders examined. As a matter of principle the soldier who received such orders was not permitted to examine them. All he had to do was to obey them, all the more so if they came from such a high agency. We had such a sense of responsibility that on the basis of our own case of responsibility we had to assume that these high agencies also had a high sense of responsibility.
Q Did you ever cause any order that passed through your hands to be examined, as to its legality, by your legal advisors?
A I do not remember that I passed on entire orders for this purpose. But I did try to get information during my short stay in Belgrade concerning the legality of reprisal measures. And at that time I was told that reprisal measures were legally admissible.
But I did not bear the responsibility for them, but military commanders had that responsibility, and they were constantly concerned with legal matters in their capacity as judicial authorities, and they were in constant touch with the legal advisors.
Q Did you or your commanders in the Southeast ever receive a written opinion or a written advice as to the legality of these reprisal measures -- orders?
AA written advice? I did not remember that we received anything like that. I did not know whether my commanding officer received one.
Q No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Burke, do you have any questions?
JUDGE BURKE: I have no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it there are no further questions to be asked this Witness. The Witness will be excused.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honors, I have now, for the moment, the presentation of evidence in the case von Geitner. At the moment I have no further evidence to submit in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: It's my understanding, Dr. Sauter, that you have a further document book which is to be presented later, and at which time the Prosecution will reserve the right to cross-examine the defendant on the matters presented in that document book.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, certainly, that was what I suggested myself.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We'll take our morning recess at this time.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it, Dr. Fritsch, that you are now ready to present your case on behalf of the defendant Rendulic.
DR. FRITSCH: Yes, I would like to do that, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, then.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I have to deal with two different theatres of activity in the case of my defendant: the one in the Southeast and the one in Norway. I will deal with these things one after the other and I will begin with the Southeast.
Before I call the defendant to the witness stand, I would like to submit to the Tribunal the report of the Balkan Commission, merely for information. This is the report which was made at the order of the United Nations. I have not been able to study this report in detail and, therefore, I have asked the prosecution whether they are, first of all, in agreement with a submission of the report for information only. Mr. Rapp has told me that he is in agreement with this and I would, therefore, ask that the Tribunal should allow me to submit this report for information.
MR. Rapp: If Your Honor please, I have no objection to this being handed to the Court for the purpose of information. I merely want to state that for the record the prosecution has not received a copy for itself.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, since unfortunately I could only get hold of this one copy, I thought that this coy after it has been received for information by the Tribunal could be placed at the disposal of the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: May I make inquiry of the prosecution as to whether or not they personally or their office have had access to this publication.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, as far as I know, we did not. That is merely my knowledge at this time. I don't know whether or not they are here in the library.