I neither gained knowledge of this order nor did I carry it out in any respect.
Q Would you now please turn to Page 14 of your Document Book, which is Page 16 of the English Document Book? This is Exhibit 506, and the Document is No. N0KW-090. General, this is the evacuation report "Hermann." We did not want to go into the details of this report because it is known to everybody, but please turn to Page 5 and have a look at Paragraph 4, which is contained on that page. There is some talk here about a shelling of the village of Kjoelle, which was supposed to have been carried out by units of the Navy. What is the connection between the Army and the Navy? Was there a relation of subordination of the Navy under the XXth Mountain Army?
A No, the Navy was in no respect subordinate to the XXth Mountain Army. This shelling of the village I cannot imagine, even on the basis of this report, could, at the best, have become known to me after the fact on the basis of this report, but I did not remember the incident concerned here. I don't know what the report is talking about. The Norwegian document show one incident where a Navy vessel fired on some people with machine guns, and one woman was killed on this occasion. Maybe it is this incident that is meant here. I don't know any details. In any case this naval unit was not subordinate to me.
Q. We will now turn to Document Book XXIII. Do you have the Document Book there, General? Please turn to page 13 in your Document Book, which is page 12--one, two, in the English text. This is Exhibit 514, which is Document Norway 4. It is a communication to the Corps headquarters of the XXth Mountain Army. Would you please give us your comments on this communication?
A. A divisional commander comments here on the possibilities of the evacuation. The letter is dated the 29th of October 1944. It is strange that this communication has a receipt stamp of the XIXth Army Corps, dated the 31st of December 1944. The XIX Corps had been frequently on the move during that period, and I can only imagine that this communication, which is of no particular importance, got delayed and never actually, reached my knowledge.
Q. In this same Document Book would you please turn to page 30, which is page 23 of the English Document Book. This is Document Norway 8, land it has been submitted by the Prosecution as Exhibit 517. It is a report dated the 4th of January 1945. Will you briefly give us your comments please?
A. It is a report from a division to the XIXth Corps. This report did not go any further than the XIXth Corps, and, therefore, I did not gain knowledge of it. The purpose of the report was to gather material to counteract the strong radio propaganda from abroad, directed against the so-called atrocities of the evacuation. I can only say that I subscribe to every line of this report. All I would like to point out particularly is page 2 of the report, which shows clearly that the town of Hammerfest was almost completely evacuated on the basis of voluntary abdications. On page 3, which is page 30 of the English text, it is pointed out that the BBC asked the Norwegian population not to comply with the evacuation order, but instead to withdraw into the valleys and there these people would have died. In the next passage it is mentioned that one attempt had been made to find the people who had been left behind, and that they were then evacuated. There is some talk here about relief actions for those who had remained behind.
Of course these actions were reported in the Norwegian reports, but they were distorted by hatred. The term "relief action" for this population was used in the same manner by the Norwegian witness here, General Dahl, because he too had exhausted all his activities in such relief actions for those parts of the populartion which had escaped the evacuation. There is nothing else I have to say.
Q. General, this brings us to Exhibit 519, which is on page 54 of your Document and on page 60--six, zero--of the English Document Book. This is Document Norway No. 10. It is the proclamation to the population for evacuation which has been repeatedly mentioned here. Who drafted this proclamation?
A. It was drafted by the Reich Commissar in Oslo. My staff was asked by telephone for my agreement, and I was asked to sign my name on the document. And, of course, I could not refuse this request, particularly since there is nothing illegal contained in this proclamation. I would like to point out that the third passage of the proclamation has not been translated in the English document book and this passage reads as follows: "The German occupation authorities for this reason show themselves prepared to support the evacuation carried out by the Norwegian Government. It will be supported with all means at the disposal of the German agencies.
Q. Then, will you please turn to page 83 in your Document Book -eight, three, which is 89--eight, nine--of the English text. This is Exhibit 522, Document Norway No. 13. It is an Order of the Day where you make it known to the troops that you have taken over the post of the Commander in Chief for Norway. You were charged with this order under Count 2. Will you please give your comments on it?
A. Well, I don' t see why I am charged with it. All I do hero is to announce to the troops and to other command authorities that I have been made Armed Forces Commander of Norway, and it is a matter of course that this has to be done. In such orders, which are rather formal, it is common usage to conclude then with, "Long Live the Fuehrer."
That is done in all countries. I don't see what is incriminating in this.
Q. Now, let us turn to Exhibit 512, which is on page 5 of the German text and on page 4 of the English text of this same Document Book. It is a report of a police official. It is page 5 of the German text and page 4 of the English text, the same Document Book. The Document is Norway No. 2. This is a report by a police official in Vadsoe. Did you ever gain knowledge of the things mentioned in this document?
A. No, I never gained knowledge of them. The action described here seems to be identical with the shelling by the Naval units, which was mentioned in the report "Hermann," but apart from that there is nothing I can say about this whole document.
Q. General, in this context there is one other question which has been touched upon earlier. What became known to you of actions during evacuation which might be objected to.
A. Reports of the troops did not bring anything of this kind to my knowledge, and practically that could not be expected of them either. But the British radio, the Russian radio, the Swedish radio, and the Swedish press did bring certain incidents to my attention. All kinds of things were asserted in these reports, and I had every single assertion followed up. I intended to take a large-scale countermeasure against such excesses if they really bad occurred, but all these assertions turned out to be mere inventions, or else they were matters in which neither the Army nor the troops had been guilty. I would like to give an example.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute. We'll rake our morning recess at this time.
(A RECESS WAS TAKEN)
31 0ct.-M-JP-8-1-Love (Int. Evand)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may continue, Dr. Fritsch.
BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q. General, first of all we have dealt with the military documents concerning Norway and now we are dealing with some documents which I would like to describe as civilian ones. Before the recess I asked you what you have to say about objectionable occurrences in connection with the carrying out of the evacuation and you stated that in particular you received information about these things from the foreign press but that these reports were either terribly exaggerated or else distorted. Now I would like you to continue with describing these things. Please, would you do so.
A. I just wanted to quote an example of Russian propaganda. The Russian radio reported when the Russian troops came into the neighborhood of Kirkones they found Norwegians living in cases, norwegians who were sick and had no medicines, etc. and they added that in such a condition the Germans left the Norwegians behind, but to this I could only say that people concerned were people who had resisted being evacuated and they had arrived in this condition through their own fault. Another report was in the Swedish press. Some Norwegians were found frozen to death in the Swedish-Norwegian frontier area. They had insufficient clothing and had marched through the mountains and so were frozen to death. These were cleanly people who did not want to be evacuated and had resolved by themselves to find their way to Sweden and against this too the Army was powerless; and then the Swedish press brought a report about the fact that during the evacuation the Germans carried out such ruthless destruction that they set a house on fire in which there was old man and the name of the locality was also given. In order to get this straight I ordered an investigation under military law. This was carried out by the XIX Corps and in all details, it was shown clearly that no house had been set on fire unless it had been previously searched in all corners. In this way the propaganda accusations went on, but not in one single case did I find any justified reason.
Q. General, please turn to page 19 of the document book XXIII, English page 17; this is document No. 516. Excuse me, Exhibit No. 516. This contains a report of the City Engineer of Hammerfest which has been accepted here for whatever probative value it may have. In this connection I am only interested to know when Hammerfest was destroyed.
A. From the report it can be seen that the destruction started at the beginning of November, and that in January and February the destructions continued.
Q. Now with regard to the last document we are going to deal with here, this is Exhibit No. 521, German page 68, and English page 71. It is document No. 12. This document contains a calculation of the war damages in Finmark. Can you please comment briefly to this question.
A. In order to comment on the war damages, of course, there is of course, the basis missing the basic documents. From this report it can be assumed however, that some items contain the total war damages and then that the original damage figures were even increased in later corrections. From these reports it can also be seen that in Norway until the preparation for this trial tarted, nobody thought about these damages at all, and therefore these calculations bear the characteristics of great speed and superfluity, and from the date it can also be seen that these calculations were very quickly made for the purpose of this trial, and I think that these facts speak for themselves.
Q. And now a few general questions; until when were you Commander in Chief in Norway?
A. Until January 13, 1945.
Q. And then where did you go?
A. Then I had the supreme command of Army Group North during the battle in East Prussia.
Q. And then later on you took over Army Group South, when was that?
A. Before that I had Army Group Kurland in the 6th Kurland battle,a and last of all I was in charge of Army Group South.
Q. Army Group South was in operation against whom?
A. Army Group South was in operation against the Russians in the area between Czechslovakia and Yugoslavia, and later on individual units fought against the Americans, who came from the rear , from the West into the back of the Army Group.
Q. And when did you cease hostilities?
A. I stopped fighting on the 7th of May, 0900 hours, and this was against the Americans, and then I gave the order to the four armies of the Army Group that on the evening of the 7th they should withdraw from the Russian Front, and should retreat towards the west.
Q. And with which American General did you negotiate?
A. I negotiated with General Walker, the Commanding General of the 20th American Tank Corps, deputizing for General Patton, the Commander in Chief of the 3rd American Army.
Q. And then when were you made a prisoner of war?
A. On the 7th of May I gave myself up as prisoner of war to the Americans.
Q. What are you now?
A. I am convinced that I am still a prisoner of war.
Q. And did you sign a statement to the effect that you were in agreement with your release from being a prisoner of war?
A. No, it wasn't like that. I signed the release certificate at the beginning of January together with 5 or 6 other officers. We gave the signature only under the threat of disciplinary measures if we should refuse to sign. The signatures were given under protest.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honors, at the moment I have no further questions on direct examination to the witness. I have had the intention to submit at this point the documents which I still have to submit, and these documents were promised me by the Translating Division for this morning, but I just heard that they won't be ready until this evening, and therefore I would like to place the witness at the disposal of the prosecution for cross-examination.
JUDGE BURKE: Are there any questions by other defense counsel?
DR. LATERNSER: First of all I have a few questions I would like to ask the witness as defense counsel for Field Marshal List.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. General, in November 1938 you were Chief of the General Staff of the 17th Army Corps?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. And during the first three November days of 1938 did you experience the excesses taken against the Jews in Vienna?
A. I experienced them insofar as we read it in the newspapers the next day.
Q. General, do you remember which instructions were issued at that time by Field Marshal List to members of the Army in his area of Command?
A. The Group v.hose chief I was, as soon as this news arrived, contacted all garrisons in the Province and all barracks in Vienna in order to find out whether the Army had taken part in these excesses and right in the middle of this activity there came an order of the then General List, who was in charge of the group in Vienna to which the troops were subordinate, and this order read: "It must be prevented under all circumstances that members of the Army take part in these excesses and members against whom it can be proved that they have taken part in these excesses are to be punished by way of the severest measures."
Q. General, were you also during the Polish campaign Chief of the 17th Army Group?
A. Yes, I was Chief of the Corps also during the Polish Campaign.
Q. And at this time was this Corps also subordinate to Field Marshal List?
A. The Corps was subordinate to the 14th Army and this was led by Field Marshal List.
Q. Do you know that at that time individual excesses were carried out by the police against the civilian population and against the Jews in Poland?
A. I can remember that individual reports came in from other commands that through police units in one locality a Synagogue had been set on fire.
Q. And in this connection did you ever receive any kind of Army order from Field Marshal List or any kind of directives?
A. There was no written order, but my commanding general was told through General List on the telephone, that he should take special notice of the events taking place in the rear area of the Corps in order to prevent excesses by people who did not belong to the Army.
Q. And now I have a few questions which I would like to ask the witness on behalf of Field Marshal von Weichs; General, did the 2nd Panzer Army, an addition to the order of December 22, 1943, Exhibit 379, receive directions from the Commander in Chief Southeast with regard to reprisal measures?
A. As far as I remember this was the only order which came from the Army Group to the Army in this respect.
Q. At the beginning of 1944 did the reprisal measures decrease within your Army sphere?
A. Yes, they decreased to such an extent that even the Prosecution stated this in its opening statement.
Q. And now a few questions with regard to the treatment of the Italians after their capitulation; did the Commander in Chief Southeast issue an order according to which one staff officer and 50 men of every division, who had sold weapons, were to be shot and 10 men of every company that had vehicles rendered unusable?
A. No, the Commander in Chief Southeast did not issue any such order nor did any office in the Balkans including myself. That is pure imagination, in my opinion.
And did von Weichs order the shooting of General Roncaglia?
A I have already said that I do not remember anything about this. I don't remember that I ever received any order to this effect from Field Marshal von Weichs or that I ever discussed anything like this with him, and I would like to state that such order would not have been issued at all but the order would have run, "This man is to be shot if he cannot be taken away", and it has been proved that he was taken away.
Q Did Field Marshal von Weichs order the shooting of officers belonging to the Bergamo Division?
A No, never.
Q And now with regard to the evacuations; did the Army Group order the evacuation Panther?
A No, the Army Group had no knowledge at all of this operation, but it could only have learned about the fact that the operation had been carried out by reason of a daily report.
Q General, do you agree with the Army Group, that is Field Marshal von Weichs, that there was a military necessity to evacuate the Dalmatian Islands?
A This was such a matter of course that there could not be the slightest difference of opinion.
Q And now a few questions of another nature; did the Army Group issue orders for the deportation of Balkan inhabitants to the Reich?
A I don't know any single order about this at all.
Q Did you receive orders from the Army Group with regard to concentration camps or collection camps?
A No. I do not remember any order at all with regard to this matter.
Q And with regard to the treatment of Jews in the Balkans?
A Certainly no order came and could not come about this, because there were scarcely any Jews in my area.
Q And did the Commander in chief Southeast worry very much about details in the command situation of the 2nd Panzer -Army?
A No, Field Marshal von Weichs did not intervene in these matters on principle. He was of much too generous a nature for this.
Q And now one final question, General; in the field of reprisal meatures, treatment of Italians, Commando Orders, evacuations, did the Army Group ever issue more stringent measures that is more stringent measures than the OKW ordered?
A The Army Group never passed on an OKW order in marmorerstringent way.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
JUDGE BURKE: Are there further questions by defense counsel?
DR. GROSS: Gross, deputizing for Dr. Tipp, for the defendant von Leyser.
BY DR. GROSS:
Q General, I have just one very short question to put to you, which merely concerns a correction in the record. The Prosecution on the 6th of August when offering the 14th Document Book, Document Book 14, submitted Document NOKW-788, Exhibit 390; this is a teletype of the 15th Mountain Corps to the 69th Reserve Corps, the contents of which are of no interest here, and during the submission of this document, as can be seen from the record -- I am referring to page 1510 in the English and page 1514 in the German Document Book -- the Prosecution stated the following: "This is a teletype from the 15th Mountain Corps to the 69th Reserve Corps, one of the units subordinate to it" and with regard to this I would like to ask this question: Was the 69th Reserve Corps ever subordinate to the 15th Mountain Corps?
A No, the 69th Reserve Corps was never subordinate to the 15th Mountain Corps. The two corps were on absolutely the same level.
Q On the part of the Commanding General of the 15th Mountain Corps there can therefore never have existed any responsibility for events in the 69th Reserve Corps General, if I understand you correctly?
A No, such a responsibility can never have existed.
DR. GROSS: I have no further questions.
MR. RAPP: If Your Honor, please, I understood defense counsel making reference to Document Book XIV, NOKW-788. Just in order to set the record straight he also referred, I "believe, to Document Exhibit 390; unfortunately, I don't find this reference in Document Book XIY. It seems to me that Exhibit 390 would bring us up around Document Book 15 or 16. I would like to have defense counsel check that, please.
It is Document Book 16, Your Honor. It is Document Book 16, Exhibit 390.
JUDGE BURKE: What is the exhibit number, please?
DR. GROSS: 390.
JUDGE BURKE: Very well. The record is straight. Any further questions on the part of defense counsel? If not, you may proceed, Mr. Rapp, with the cross-examination.
MR. RAPP: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS -EXAMINATION BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, you told us that you joined the Nazi Party in May 1932 and remained a member of that party until 1933, is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Will you tell us now whether or not you left the Nazi Party voluntarily, or was your separation from the Nazi Party dictated by the fact that the Austrian Nazi Party was to be considered illegal and was dissolved at that time?
A Yes, I was relieved of this decision because the party was dissolved and as a result the voluntariness or non-voluntariness of it did not come into the question.
Q Witness, I asked you very plainly whether you left it voluntarily or whether your separation from that party coincided with the dissolvement of that party; there can only be one answer to that question.
A Yes, of course, the separation from the party coincided with its dissolution.
Q Thank you, witness. Will you tell us whether or not you would have left the Nazi Party at that time already had it not been dissolved?
A Perhaps not at this time, but later on certainly. I would like to repeal that then there was no reason to turn away from the Party.
Q. As reason for joining the Nazi Party you cited the fact that this party was based on the principles of positive Christianity. At least, you mentioned this particular point as one of the main reasons of your joining. Am I correct?
A. No, it isn't correct in that sense. The reasons for my joining the Party were different and I have already stated them. There was the doubt in possibility of existence for Austria and then the excesses of the Dollfuss dictator regime. I only mentioned the provisions of the Party Program, that the Party stood on the basis of positive Christianity as a reason for my being reassured with regard to the carrying out of Party ideas that did not find my approval. I mentioned these provisions of the Party Program, the fact that the Party stood on the basis of Party Christianity, as a guarantee for the fact that when the program was carried out not very much could happen which was in opposition to those fundamentals.
Q. Now, witness, in your testimony on the 28th of October 1947 before this Tribunal you stated that the cardinal point for your joining the Nazi Party was because the Party Program or the Party as such represented positive Christianity. Did you make that statement or not?
A. No, that is an error. I stated that I was of course not in agreement with all points of the Party Program but for me -- that is, in reference to the judgment of the Party Program -- this point was the cardinal point. This really must be seen from the text of this statement.
Q. Very well, witness, that is the very fact which I have asked you. Now, I have before me the program of the National Socialistic German Labor Party, the NSDAP, and in this particular program the party is quoting the famous 25 points. You have heard of these 25 points have you not?
A. Yes, but I don't remember them all.
Q. But you have heard of them?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I will read to you two points from this program. I will read thorn to you in German. "A citizen, a member of the state, can only be a Volksgenosse, a Volksgenosse can only be a man who is of German blood without any regard to his religion. No Jew, therefore, can be a Volksgenosse." And the second quotation: "We demand the liberty of all religions within the state as far as they do not endanger it or as far as they do not oppose the feelings of decency or feelings of morals of the German people."
Witness, will you now explain to us how those two aforementioned authentic quotations from the Party program are compatible with your statement that the Party represented positive Christianity?
A. The first point which you mentioned deals with the so--called Jewish problem. Nobody thought that this problem could come to any kind of complete carrying out, at any rate not in the year 1933, and least of all could one think of all of the ways in which this matter was finally carried out.
The question of how far this compatible with Christianity did not arise but the Provisions of the Party Program with regard to Christianity I regarded as a reason for the Christian execution of the Party Program, because these provisions do not contradict the first provision at all , I mean, do you think there is anything definite unchristian in a point if it says: "Only a Volksgenosse can be a citizen--"? This is political non sense, but it isn't unchristian. It hasn't anything to do with religious questions.
Q. Now, witness, I won't pursue this point any longer. I just wanted to get your point of view into the record.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: That is where all testimony goes ultimately.
Q. Witness, defense counsel asked you whether or not you rejoined the Nazi Party at a later time when it was supposedly desired that officers join the Nazi Party.
Will you tell us which well known officers of the German Army when you, know have joined the Nazi Party as a result of this alleged desire by the German government that they join the Party.
A. I can't tell you any names.
Q. Witness, you told us a lot about your fights, if one can call then that, you had with such well known Nazis as Kasche, Terbo ven, Koch and others. Will you tell us now which other general of equal or higher rank than yours known to you dared at any time to oppose Nazi bigwigs of that caliber in the political field?
A. Yes, I know that, for instance, General Reinhardt, when ho gave over the Army Group North to mo, told me that he had continual differences with Gauleiter Koch but that up until then he hadn't been able to cope with him and, therefore, there was always disputes between those two. When I took over Army Group South from General Woehler he told me that he was also in a state of hostility with the Gauleiters in that area then and that they made great difficulties. My predecessor in Norway, von Falkenhorst, was on quite good terms with Gerboven but he also didn't give in to him in all respects. The way in which the struggle was carried out is of course a matter of temperament. I, on principle handled those people as they deserved it and in away conformative with their own nature; that is, I handled these people sometimes in a rather brutal manner. And that gives you the cue for your next question.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The Tribunal will stand adjourned until one-thirty this afternoon.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 1330 hours.
(THE TRIBUNAL ADJOURNED UNTIL 1330 HOURS.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours 31 October 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may continue, Mr. Rapp.
LOTHAR RENDULIC - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued BY MR. RAPP:
Q. Witness, before the recess you told us in answer to my question that on several occasions you dared even in a brutal way, to quote your own words, opposing certain German Nazi leaders. Did anything happen to you as a result of your attitude in Germany with the exception of the one time that you lost your assignment in Norway on account of Terboven?
A. No, I expected at any moment that some measure would be taken against me, especially at the time when the whole affair in Croatia started. I remarked to this effect to surrounding officers. I told them come what may my luggage is always ready for me to take off. I would have welcomed it if I had been in a position to retire to my country estate. However, it never got that far.
Q. Looking at it from a time factor you got bigger and better assignments all the time as the years went on, did you not? For instance, when you left Norway you had an army and you were an Armed Forces Commander. You had several army groups after that. When you got to Croatia in 1943 you told us you were nothing else but a Three Star General despite the fact that the Four Star General rank should have been given to you at least within thirty days from the day that you received the command over the 2nd Panzer Army. You started a quarrel with Kasche right away but you were promoted anyhow, were you not? Will you please explain to us some of these things?
A. I have in actual fact had quite a number of high ranking assignments. I have commanded in my time three army groups but you mustn't think that this was awarded to me. It was nothing but a particular burden because I received all these new assignments under the most difficult conditions.
So that I was finally convinced that I was tried in difficult situations and therefore was used when the situations became difficult, for reasons of expediency.
I would like to give you a few examples. When I took over the Army Group in East Prussia the order read: "The Army Group has for weeks been on retreat. It can no longer be stopped. It is not unified; one army has been separated from the rest. Koenigsberg is in extreme danger." The order read: "Stop the retreat of the Army Group and hold Koenigsberg." Such an order in such a situation could only be given only to somebody of whom one could be sure that he would be able to solve the problems at hand, In time I became convinced that, in spite of my opposition against the Party and its functionaries, I was only kept in my position because I was needed there.
I know of one remark that Hitler made which I do not want to state here, however, because the man who told me about it is no longer alive and, therefore, I cannot prove that this remark was actually made. But I did gain the conviction that I was only kept in my position because I was suitable for all the tasks that were at hand at the time. I did not enjoy all privileges which usually go together with great achievements. Commander in Chief, who was in special favor of the Party, got for a battle that was almost lost, the diamonds to the Oak leaves and besides he was promoted. I was neither promoted in all those assignments nor did I get more than one decoration which was awarded to me immediately at the beginning. Nothing else was awarded to me. I was merely made use of because I was suitable and I was needed and I never received any thanks from anybody. All I had were the disadvantages which I began to feel here in Nurnberg.
Q. Witness, neverless, you did, as a matter of fact, enjoy the Fuehrer's confidence. Hitler's motives why he best owed you with such confidence may be for any reason you cite. Is that correct?
A. Yes. I was under the impression that I enjoyed Hitler's confidence because of the fact that I was suitable for certain assignments and because of my achievements in the sphere of military leadership.
That became even more important and significant because the Reich, around that time, found itself in increasingly difficult military situations which sometimes were quite hopeless.
Q. Witness, you say that these advancements or assignments were based according to your own impression, on your technical ability and knowledge of warfare. Isn't it true that there were a great number of people in the German army who were as good soldiers as you were -- some of them even held higher ranks -- who already were retired in 1942 never be called back and, in addition to this, men who had never ventured to step outside their military role into the political field as you did? Will you explain that?