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.
I doubt it but I haven't seen any and I haven't received any.
THE PRESIDENT: If the prosecution desires access to these volumes at this time as a means of informing themselves in connection with the matters therein presented in the case as presented by this defendant who is now to be called, I am certain that the members of the Tribunal will take no exception if you seek the use of them at any time that you may desire.
MR. RAPP: Very well, Your Honor. I accept this courtesy and know that I can have them then if I need them.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it that you have no objections, however, to the Tribunal receiving them for their information.
MR. RAPP: I have no objection to that, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: May I make inquiry of defense counsel -- are these to be received as exhibits?
DR. FRITSCH: No, Your Honor. I received this copy from United Nations in New York but at a time when, unfortunately, I was not able to study the English copy properly and therefore I cannot use it as evidentiary material but can only offer it for information.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, and the same statement that I made as to the use of this document by the prosecution will equally apply to the defense. If you wish them, why, you will call at our office and we will be glad to let you make such use of them as you desire.
DR. FRITSCH: Thank you very much. With the permission of the Tribunal, I would ask the Court Marshal to call the defendant Rendulic into the witness stand.
LOTHAR RENDULIC, a defendant, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you kindly raise your right hand, please? I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The defendant repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
Dr. Fritsch, I wish to state to you and to the defendant that at such time as he may wish to be excused he should indicate his desire and the Tribunal will take no exception to his temporary leaving the room.
DR. FRITSCH: Thank you, Your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q Witness, please state your full name.
A Lothar Rendulic.
Q When and where were you born?
A In Wiener Neustadt, lower Austria, in October 1887.
Q And what is your nationality, witness?
A I am an Austrian national.
Q And what is your religion?
A I am a Roman Catholic.
Q General, I would ask you to describe briefly to the Tribunal your career.
AAfter attending the elementary school, I attended the classical gymnasium in Wiener Neustadt. Then I studded law for two terms and then I entered the Military Academy in Wiener Neustadt. In 1910, I received my commission as an officer, and I served, during World War I as an officer.
Q And what was your military rank during the First World War?
AAt the end of the World War, I was a captain. During the war, I was a company commander and then later on a general staff officer.
Q And then after the end of the war, did you still continue as an active soldier, or did you take up a civilian profession?
A No, I remained an active soldier. Only, at the end of the war, it was very unclear as to whether an army was to be set up in Austria and therefore I continued with my legal studies.
I received my doctor of law on the 24th of December, 1920, at Vienna University.
Q Then during your study you did not leave the army?
A No. Until the establishment of the new army, a number or officers were on leave and others were used in other government position, I was used in the Finance Ministry.
Q And then what did you do after the conclusion of your studies?
A In the meantime, they had started setting up the new army. I was taken over into the officers corps of the new army and served with the troops and later on in the Ministry for national defense. In 1923 until 1925, I passed a two-years course in order to finish my general staff training which had commenced at the end of the war. After that, I was taken over into the general staff and served mostly in the Ministry for National Defense.
Q And what was your rank in 1925?
AAt that time I was a major and soon after that I was a lieutenant colonel in the General Staff.
Q And according to my knowledge you also were employed in foreign service?
A Yes, I was military attach for France and England from 1933 until the beginning of 1935.
Q And where was your official residence?
A My office at that time resided in Paris.
Q General, we will carry on later with your military career; I now come to another matter; were you a member of the National Socialist party in Austria?
A Yes, in May 1932 I joined the Party, but my membership only lasted for 13 months i.e. until the Party was dissolved in June 1933.
Q And what were the reasons at that time for you to join the Party?
A They were purely ideological reasons. First there was doubt at that time in very large circles regarding the possibility of living of Austria and then the conditions in Austria had become almost insufferable through Dollfus's tolitarian Government. This Government showed aspects similar to those which later on were seen during the Hitler Regime.
Q Can you give a more detailed explanation about this?
A The Regime is principally determined by the people who carry out the orders and instructions. In Austria at that time when the Government was fighting for its existence without taking into any account the fact of whether the people concerned were suitable for their jobs or not mostly quite unsuitable people were appointed to the individual important places and they were there for party reasons. In consequence the standards of public life in Austria, which had been rather high, were reduced. This system also didn't stop at the Army, and therefore a large number of officers regarded their position as completely unbearable.
Q General, and this was your idea of the Bollfuss System; now, at that time did you have any reason to believe that the same was the case with regard to the Hitler System?
A No, at that time an idea of this kind would have been impossible. On the contrary we had expected quite the opposite from the National Socialist Party. The party had promised a lot with great eloquence.
Q And were you in agreement with all the points of the Party program?
A Of course I was not in agreement with all the points. I had to say to myself that there is no party with the program of which one could be completely in agreement, but also there existed no party which is in a position or willing to carr out its program. For me the main point of the program was sufficient and therein the Party is founded on the soil of positive Christianity. When there prevailed such a basic principle then of course one could assume that the whole affair was in order. There were also numerous priests, protestant priests and also some Catholic priests who joined the party at that time. In 1932 it was quite impossible to envisage in any way the later development of the Party.
Q Witness, then in June 1933 you left the party and then did you join again later on. Later on it was after all desired that officers were to become members of the Party?
A I did not join the party again later on even when it was allowed.
Q And did you have any particular reasons for this?
A The reasons lay in the unexpected development of the Party. A special reason was for me the way in which the Party acted in Austria as well as what they did to Austria. In observing the various bad conditions - I don't mean the particular bad conditions which were uncovered in Nurnberg, but I mean the small trifling offenses incompetency, etc.
- thinking about the reasons I came to the conclusion that the misfortune of the party was its officials, the higher officials as well as the lower officials, their overbearing attitudes, their incompetence in work, and the growth of the system of the party bosses, which came more and more and more to the front - all this awakened me to the position that the party officials were the ones who had mainly to be fought, and I resolved -- unfortunately, I was only for the first time in 1943 to meet higher party officials to oppose them and their excesses. This I did in all the countries, where I served, with the greatest energy.
Q I would ask you to give us details about this, if yon could?
A The first time I met a high party official was in 1943 in Croatia. This was SA Gruppenfuehrer Kasche. He was German envoy in Zagreb. He covered the ethnic struggle which the Poglavnik had set in scene - and I shall have much to say about this, - and I strongly oppossed to this. I got at loggerheads with Kasche and with the Poglavnik, and only in order to stop the thnic struggle against the Serbs minority and this struggle took on such forms that it ceased to be objective. I counted on my being recalled at any moment, but this did not take place. In one of the pre-interrogatives one interrogator said to me, "The way you stood up to Kasche, nobody else would have dared." The information which the interrogator had didn't come from me. The next man I met was the Reich Commissar for Norway, Gauleiter Terboven, this man had set up a Government of force in Norway, and wanted to intervene in the military sphere, and I at once came into sharp dispute with this man. I knew that this man was a close friend of Hitler's, that he was on intimate terms with Bormann and Goebbels. I was warned by my friends, but nevertheless, I carried on with this struggle until I had got everything I wanted and until I succeeded in shaking Terboven's position in public opinion, and of course this struggle did not remain hidden.
The Swedish Press, who of course criticized Terboven sharply, brought new that the new Commander in Chief of Norway wanted nobody on his level, Terboven's days are numbered, and of course one could imagine how these things acted on a man who was extremely ambitious for power. In the Struggle I was the weaker of the two, and of course I knew this. And still Hitler didn't do anything. Terboven got me away. I received the Command of an Army group in East Prussia, which at that time was in a catastrophically critical situation, and I was unlucky again in East Prussia to meet again a notorious party boss. This was Gauleiter Koch, the Reich Commissar of the Ukraine at that time. My predecessor told me, when I took over, how this man made things terribly difficult, and that one couldn't work with him, so I took him aside and in two hours discussion I completely finished him. He told me, "General, nobody has spoken to me like this before," whereupon I said, to him, "I hope you understand, that you needed this," and this man when he called me up on the telephone said to me, "General, what are you ordering today!" Although he had a very strong footing in the party and with Hitler, he did not draw the conclusion which Terboven had drawn. I came away from East Prussia for other reasons, because in Kurland there was a new battle and I was called there. First of all I was in command of Army Group South in the Army Group Eastern Frontier between Czechslovakia and Yugoslavia. Here I had to deal with two gauleiters, Eigruber in upper Austria and Verberreiter in Steiermark. The others didn't count. Eigruber was also finished in the shortest possible time. Veberreiter was quite a decent man, but his weakness was that he intervened in military matters and he made the commander in chief of my 6th Army, which was in Steiermark, a lot of difficulty and I spoke to him very clearly, perhaps it was a little too roughly, because these men weren't used to this, and he complained about me to Hitler in a telegram. He said I spoke to him as if I were speaking to a corporal. Hitler again didn't do anything against me. All these people when they saw my strong way of acting tried to find out "what has this man behind him." My adjutants, my aides de camp, all came to me and told me that such things were told to them and I let them tell all people that I didn't have anything behind me except what I could do, and my bags which were always packed.
The result of this was that the people became even more suspicious and in the later conversations which I had with them I found an absolute growing mistrust against what I might possibly have behind me, and when I was asked about similar questions during my interrogations I recalled these suspicious glances, because the interrogator had exactly the same suspicious look. I can only say that one who was in the favor of the party or who tried to get in the favor of the party, certainly did not act in this way against the most prominent representatives of the party.
Q General, we will come back again to this question briefly later on; first of all I would like to close another question which I have already mentioned; you were talking about your legal studies, did you have any special private intellectual interests?
A Yes, I continued my military studies, because that is a sphere which is continuously changing, and which one can never completely grasp.
Q And did you also carry on any kind of writing activity?
A Yes, I wrote numerous tactical distertations in military journals, some of which were even translated into five or six languages.
Q And did you publish any other books?
A Yes, in 1924 I published a manual of tactics in which I sat down my experiences of the World War, and in 1925 I published a book entitled "Military Psychological Studies." I was interested with regard to the military profession to the military leadership and combat especially the psychological side interested me. This was neither properly set down in the regulations or in military literature. It was kind of a stop-child.
Q And did you legal studies have any importance at all for your military career?
A They had no practical importance for my career. Later on I neglected them and only occupied myself with occasional studies of international law which concerned my sphere, principally owing to the failure of the First League of Nations, and of the Disarmament Conferences regarding the limitation of the danger that the War should still remain a means of politics. My actual intellectual interests lay, even though it may sound rather strange for a soldier, in the field of abstract philosophy.
Q General, when were you taken over into the German army and with which rank?
A On the 1st of April, 1938 with almost all the other officers of the Austrian Army I was taken over into the German army with the rank I had at that time. I was a Colonel in the General Staff. Yes, at that time I was a colonel in the general staff.
Q And what job did you receive in the German Army?
A I became chief of the General Staff of the 17th Army Corps in Vienna.
Q And then as chief of this staff in 1939, you took part in the 2nd World was; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And then what about your future promotions?
A On the 1st of December, 1939 I became a Brigadier General after I had been a Colonel for six and one half years.
Q And on which fronts did you serve?
A First, I was in the Polish campaign and then I contracted a rheumatic disease towards the end of it which made me unfit for service until June 1940. In June of 1940 I became commander of the 14th Infantry Division in France.
Q And when did you give up this division.
AAfter about three months and then I took over the command of the 52nd division. With this division I served in the Russian campaign until October of 1942.
Q General, could you make rather a longer pause between questions and answers?
A Yes.
Q And then in the meantime were you promoted at all?
A On the 1st of December 1941 I became a Major General after having waited for just two years.
Q And then as a major general, did you remain commander of a division?