A Well, I don't know what they thought about it. The German officers probably knew more about the urgent needs of the Reich than those of Croatia. My point of view was that if the German Wehrmacht was supported by such measures then the German Reich would also be supported, and I thought that this support on the spot was at least just as important as the work in Germany.
Q Witness, we are not talking about the relative importance of the work to be accomplished. We are talking about the fact that the German government did not realize, obviously, that it had a pact with Croatia and consequently could not force the Croatian government to send slave labor to Germany. In other words your explanation you have given here in this court holds only true for the 2nd Panzer Army but is not applicable to your superior officers. By that I mean the German government - I don't mean Army Group F.
A Yes, but it still isn't quite correct, because this was a matter of captured bandits. According to the regulations in force until this order, all captured bandits had to be shot, and in any case they would not have been given to the Croatian labor assignment and now Hitler in a way allowed the prisoners a certain pardon and sent them to forced labor. He disposed of them, these people, and I think I am right about this, couldn't have got the impression that German interests were being placed before Croatian interests.
Q. Witness, what do you understand by tactical subordination?
A. Tactical subordination is a subordination exclusively for combat purposes and for everything connected with the fighting.
Q. Witness, do you consider reprisal measures taken by members of units of the 2nd Panzer Army a tactical necessity as long as they were carried out by these troops?
A. I can't describe it as a tactical necessity, but I can describe it as a military necessity.
Q. Witness, what I am driving at is to have you explain to us whether or not there is a deference, if these reprisal measures are being carried but by your troops, that is to say tactical units, or if they are to be carried out by the police in rear areas as a security or police measure; there is a difference, isn't there?
A. In the purpose of the reprisal measures I think there is no difference at all. In any case there must be a necessity, and I assume that is justified. In the case of reprisal measures.
Q. Witness, you told us here that the Skanderbeg Division was under your command for tactical employment only, didn't you?
A. Yes, and only a certain case and not the whole of the Division, only parts of the Division, and the Divisional Staff, I think not at all because an employment of the Divisional Staff was impossible because the whole division had nothing more than one regiment.
Q. That one regiment you have reference to which fought under the name, so to speak, of the Division Skanderbeg, was part of the 21st Corps occasionally, wasn't it?
A. If it was subordinate it was to the 21st Corps or one of its divisions.
Q. And the 21st Corps was part of the 2nd Panzer Army, isn't that right?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Now, suppose this one Regiment of the Skanderbeg Division, while being a part of this 21st Corps carries out reprisal measures, isn't that in the long-run your responsibility?
A. As far as reprisal measures are concerned in execution of my order then I carry the responsibility, but one must however remember that these SS troops received their orders through their own service channels, and, in addition, in this particular case here, the Skanderbeg Division was in the process of being set up and it was made subordinate to the Plenipotentiary of the Reichsfuehrer SS in Albania in every respect.
Q. Witness, I am very well aware of all these facts you have cited, but the point I am driving at is, if this regiment of the Skanderbeg Division, as part of the 21st Corps carrys out a reprisal to the 2nd Panzer Army, it would be rather far-fetched to say, would it not, that this particular reprisal measure then was ordered by Fitzthum and not by you?
A. No, it wouldn't occur to me like that at all. If a reprisal measure is carried out by reason of an Army order, then of course this falls within the responsibility of the Army, but if a reprisal measure is not carried out within the scope of such an order then the Army has nothing to do with it.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I am submitting now NOKW 809, Prosecution Exhibit 604. This is a daily report from the 3 July 1944 from the 21st Mountain Corps to the 2nd Panzer Army, and under paragraph 2, it says: "SS Division Skanderbeg". There two communists were hanged in retaliation for the dynamiting of a bridge and various telephone lines; now, witness, is this particular retaliation on the part of the 1st Jaeger Regiment a responsibility of the 21st Corps or a responsibility of General Gullmann, the German Military Commander in Albania, or possibly of the SS Gruppenfuehrer Fitzthum, just see who you would like to pin it on this time?
A. In order to judge this one must see the Army Group Order of the 22nd December 1943. By reason of this order the troops in Croatia and in Albania, are authorized to apply for reprisal measures with the competent Albanian or Croatian offices, and the Croatian and Albanian offices have to decide about these reprisal measures, this order I think--
Q. No, it won't be in this particular---
A. I think it is in Document Book 16.
Q. Witness I know the order you have reference to, would you care to see that particular order?
A. No, but then you have to believe me if I don't read it, because it states expressly in this that the Croatian and Albanian offices arc the only people competent for reprisal measures, and the troops have to apply to those offices. The decision about this lies with the Albanian and Croatian offices. And with regard to this report I would like to say that it is dated the 3rd of July 1944, and I had already been away from the Balkans for two weeks. I left the Balkans on June 24, that is 10 days before.
Q. Witness, I have handed you now Document Book 14, and I am having reference to page 10 in the English, page 8 of the German, Exhibit 339, NKW 880, -- page 10 of the English, page 8 of the German, Document Book 14, Exhibit 339, NOKW 880. I just have two questions in connection with this document. Was the First Mountain Division ever under your command, witness?
A. Yes it was subordinate, I think, in December or January 1943 for an operation in Bosnia, and in February or March 1944 for an operation in Albania. That is, it was subordinate to me on two occasions.
Q. Witness, during your direct examination you stated that the First Mountain Division was never under your command, at least that is what the transcript reads.
A. Then it must be a mistake, because in my various examinations I said that the division was at least twice temporarily under my command; but with reference to this charge here I said that at this time in September 1943, the Division was not subordinate to me. It is quite im possible that I could ever have consciously said that the division was never subordinate to me.
The division even played a rather important part on these two occasions, so that I could not have even thought that they had never been subordinate to me.
Q. I have checked you statement that at that time the First Mountain Division was not a part of your command within the Second Panzer Army, and I found your statement to be true and correct, and for that reason we withdraw NOKW 880, as far as you are concerned. In other words you are not implicated in the document. It was an error on our part. That is Exhibit 339, Your Honor. Did you understand what I said, witness?
A. Yes.
MR. RAPP: Exhibit 339, Your Honor.
Q. Witness, was it ever suggested to you and subsequently approved by yon to disguise killed hostages in British uniforms fully identified with British papers and drop them around Marshal Tito's Headquarters to give the impression as if those men had been genuine British parachutists who overtook a misfortune when they landed, and they were full of explosives? They carried a letter to Tito, and if that letter would have been opened it would have blasted the headquarters apart, and for this particular purpose two killed hostages were used, and they were fully disguised in British uniforms; I would like to ask you in this connection two questions, firstly, have you ever heard of this plan, and secondly, if so, would you consider if a permissible use of land warfare? Please answer these two questions?
A. I certainly can't remember any case of this kind. If anyone could ever have thought that was necessary or expedient in order to lead the enemy astray, why should this action be prohibited?
Q. Witness, I am merely asking you whether or not under the rules of land warfare to the best of your knowledge it is a permissible ruse; if you don't know, it don't answer it?
THE PRESIDENT: Is this defendant being charged with this particular offense, or is it a part of the indictment?
MR. RAPP: Well, I am cross-examining him on something for which I am at the present time laying a foundation, Your Honor, and I don't want to give that away at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
A. I would just like to say the following: I know of no provision in the laws of warfare in which such an action is prohibited.
Q. Witness, were your troops ever instructed in counter-partisan warfare or how to combat partisans, did they learn down there by application or were they especially picked and trained for this particular warfare?
A. No, the troops who were there from the beginning trained themselves by reason of their experience. The troops who came fresh to this area got the corresponding information about the experience from the other troops, and the superior officers also gave them information about it. The most important experiences for band warfare were set down in the regulations for band warfare, and those regulations were available in large numbers of copies to the troops.
Q. Witness, will you tell us now who was in the area of the 2nd Panzer Army charged with the mission of selecting the victims which were to be used in connection with reprisal measures?
A. They were the local agencies, divisions, and this had to be done in the closest agreement with the Croatian authorities or the Albanian authorities, and these Albanian and Croatian authorities took the decision on this selection.
Q. Did the SD have anything to do with these things?
A. The SD only had to do with these matters insofar as where the troops were not quite clear about band suspects, in certain cases they called in the SD in order to determine how far the man concerned was a band suspect or not; but the SD had no other kind of activity in this connection.
I have also seen from the documents that there was another case, I think it was one incident,--I can't remember which incident it was, in which such a reprisal hostage camp was not especially set up by the troops but the hostages were given over to an SD camp. I found this out from the documents here, and this could also be another point of contact, but there were no other points at all.
Q. Now, something else, witness, who carried out the executions?
A. Either the Croatian agencies, the Croatian police, as expressly stated in the order, and perhaps where these people were not available on the spot the troops carried out the measures themselves.
Q. The German Troops?
A. Yes, the German troops. I can't imagine it any other way.
Q. And how was it in all those areas outside of Croatia which were under your command?
A. Well, I had only areas which were independent states, where for instance the same conditions were valid in Albania as for Croatia, and only Montenegro possessed a German Military administration and was administered by an administrative sub-area headquarters, and of course there only German agencies came into the question.
Q. Did the SD help out or was it all done by soldiers and police?
A. Well, I can't remember that the SD had anything to do with this at all. I cannot think that it could ever become necessary.
Q. Witness, in connection with the operation Panther you stated that the Samarica area was a notorious area where dozens of Tito partisans hang out; you also told us this area was cleaned out three times, but in every instance the partisans were able to return; you also told us that the partisans were engaged in recruiting the civilian population either voluntarily or by force? Did you make these statements?
A. Yes, Samarica belonged to the most notorious band area. It had been cleaned out at least three times, and then they reformed again.
Q. Isn't it apparent from these statements you made that the partisans must have been pretty strong in that area to enforce the drafting of civilians into their ranks, and that as a matter of fact you did not control that area at all times or at any time you pleased?
A. Of course I could not place German troops in every village and every valley, but nevertheless we were able at any time to get to any place which we wanted to get to. In those places or in those areas in which we were not present, it was not very difficult for the bandits to carry out this kind of forced recruitment. They only needed to be energetic enough. For instance, in the area of Samarica, since they had been left alone there for some time they were able to build up numerous stocks and they certainly had enough forces to secure and to guard these stocks, and from our point of view they were not terribly strong, because we had already thrown them out within a few days.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q. Witness, you stated that the Commando order was issued sometime in the fall of 1942 and at that time yon were still in Russia; is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. You further stated that the commando order as far as you knew was not applicable for the Russian theater of operations; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And finally you said that upon your arrival in the Balkans in August, 1943, this commando order had already been issued and passed down to lower units: that is correct too?
A. Yes, that was before my time. yes.
Q. Witness, you further stated that this commando order was not carried out by units under the 2nd Panzer Army while you were in command of that army; is that correct?
A. Yes, I know of no case, but I know evidence to the contrary effect.
Q. Did you consider the commando order in violation of international law?
A. I must say that I saw this commando order for the first time here in Nurnberg, with all its motivations. The commando order contains two parts, it deals with sabotage troops and the so-called commando troops it only deals with at random. As far as sabotage is concerned or rather sabotage troops, the commando order itself says that these men who appeared as civilians did not take prisoners but murdered whoever stood in their way, and when they found no way out they referred to the Geneva convention, put on their uniforms and then gave themselves up as soldiers. This is a decided misuse of the Geneva convention. The measures which are contained in the commando order against these sabotage troops can be called reprisal measures, for there can be no doubt that the way in which those troops acted was in violation of the law and illegal.
As far as the actual commando troops are concerned, this order wants to put them on the same level as the sabotage troops for the reason that by those commando troops numerous illegal actions were carried out. That has been explicitly described during the trial before the international Military Tribunal and on the basis of these illegal actions on the part of the commando troops, Hitler decided to issue this order. I think it can be proved that this order was not illegal or at least has a chance of one ot one. It can be proved just as well that this order was legal as it was attempted here to prove that it was illegal.
Q. Then, witness, in view of your opinion why was it not carried out?
A. In my field of activities, the order was not carried out for the reason firstly because there were no sabotage troops and those commando troops which appeared in my territory acted and fought as decent straightforward soldiers.
Q. The next question, did you ever reissue the commando order or make reference to it in any way, saying that the full meaning of the commando order should be applied in every and all instances where commandoes landed within the area which you commanded?
A. No, I know nothing about it.
Q. Let me take a look at NOKW 1030, it is being offered, Your Honor, as prosecution exhibit 605. Now, witness, here is a report from the first Cossack Division with an enclosure. The report is dated 25 October 1943, the enclosure is called secret and under paragraph 6 of this enclosure, that is the last page of the original, that I have handed you, it says:
"In the fight against invading commandos, proceed with the same ruthlessness as the enemy!
"Cut off possibility of withdrawal to the landing place if the enemy has landed!
"The mission always reads: absolute annihilation of landed or parachuted men who do not deserve to be spared in view of their combat methods which are contrary to international law."
Now, you told us before that you did not reissue any part of that order, this General Grolamn who is mentioned here was your chief of staffs was he not?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Now, will you explain to us the meaning of this attachment you have there whether or not in fact the contents of the commando order was reissued by you?
A. This order was not issued by me at all, it was issued by the chief and the purpose was that the troops should be introduced into the way of fighting the commando troops. It becomes evident from point 3, the main aim of the commando troops is to surprise and deceive our forces applying great ruthlessness. It is here pointed out the great danger which such operations constituted the troops are directed to be very much on the alert etc. This order, order, or this memorandum I should say, did certainly not originate from the 2nd Panzer Army, as the 2nd Panzer Army had no experience in the combatting of commando troops. It must have come from the OKW to the army and General von Grolman merely passed it on. I would not know hour Grolman should have been informed about. such details concerning the combatting of commando troops, considering that up to then we had had nothing to do with any commando operations of any kind. It can only be a matter here of a memorandum, which came down from higher headquarters and was passed on by the chief. It it had been an order the chief could not have passed it on at all because he would therefy have exceeded his authority. It can only be the matter of the passing on of a memorandum which did not originate at the 2nd Panzer Army. And the memorandum itself does not contain any order, it only gives suggestions, how to proceed, as to what Steps were to be taken.
I can maintain my contention neither to have passed on the commando order nor to have referred to this order in any context.
Q Now General Rendulic, let's look at that just a little bit closer than you choose to do. Firstly, you know the Commando Order and you know that the Commando Order substantially in the first few paragraphs gives the reason why this order has been issued and why Hitler decided to put out such an order. If you compare that Commando Order to this order you will see that there is basically no difference in what has been summarized in this Merkblatt and that what Hitler stated sometime in October 1942.
Secondly, are you trying to say that the OKW prepared this leaflet, so to speak, for General Grelman's signature and then it was sent out to the troops?
Furthermore, if you look under Paragraph 6, General Rendulic, it says very clearly there -
DR. FRITSCH: Your honors, I do not want to hinder the proceedings but I would like to ask Mr. Rapp, that he would let the witness answer those few questions which he has already put to him. These matters are becoming much too involved and too complex and I do not think any witness is able to answer so many questions and keep them in his memory.
THE PRESIDENT: I think caution should be exercised so that only one question be asked at a time and not make them too complicated.
MR. RAPP: Very well, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Not only will that be of assistance to the witness but it would also be helpful to the Tribunal.
Q Witness will you now tell us firstly then whether or not this order basically and generally speaking, contains the same background and motivation applicable for your theater which has been contained and embodied in the original Commando orders; and just answer only this particular question.
A This order or rather this memo coincides in certain basic idea with Commando Order but it contains directives for combat. It contains suggestions concerning the combat methods to be used against the Commandos and, furthermore, contains suggestions concerning the methods of defense.
This is essentially a direction covering tactical matters and in this respect it has nothing to do with the Commando Order. It deals with an entirely different sphere than the Commando Order does.
Q Will you now look under Paragraph 6 and tell me whether or not the sentence: The mission always needs absolute annihilation of landed or parachuted men who do not deserve to be spared their combats methods which are contrary to International Law" -- just how do you interpret that? Is that just for the information of the troops? Is that an order, a rule or just what is that ?
A No, that was by no means an order because the whole document is entitled, "Memorandum" (Merkblatt). Therefore, it was only meant to he some sort of information about the especially ruthless lighting methods of the Commandos which were contrary to International Law, and it was to make suggestions for counter measures but not in the form of an order.
Q The last question : is General Grolman, your Chief of Staff, or you responsible in having issued or passed down this particular Merkblatt?
A Without any doubt, from the point of view of the command situation I bear the sole responsibility, but, as far as the penal code is concerned, you cannot charge me with something of which I did not know.
Q Witness, did you ever issue orders or tolerate that such orders were issued which permitted the carrying out of inhuman act against Jews?
A No, I think that is quite impossible.
Q Were you ever instrumental in discriminating against Jews that is, mentioning them as Jews as distinguished from other enemy soldiers who fought against you?
A No, I find no explanation.
Q Did you ever issue orders or tolerate their being carried out that Jews were selected by your commanders to perform especially unworthy tasks?
A No, I have not the fainted recollection in this respect.
Q You can't remember anything? Is that right?
A No, I cannot.
Q But you won't deny the fact?
A I cannot imagine it.
Q Witness, did you ever execute so-called partisans when you commanded the 52nd Division in Russia way back in 1941?
A I certainly do not remember any such case.
Q Did you consider the Commissar Order in violation of International Law?
A I could not because, as I have said, I could not form a judgment concerning this order, I was not informed about the reasons for this order, it was just a short oral communication which gave no reason. It could possibly be regarded as a reprisal measure as then ot had already been known for quite some time that the Russians killed all prisoners which they got from us.
Q Witness, did you say-- did I understand you to say in the direct examination that the Commissar Order was not carried out by you ?
A I am not aware of any case in which the Commissar Order was actually carried out.
Q Were you opposed to the Commissar Order?
A Yes, absolutely. On various occasions I spoke to commanders and we exchanged opinions to the effect that commissars unless there was some special circumstance, should not be shot.
Q Did you consider the Commissar Order psychologically wrong?
A I could not be of this opinion because I regarded the Commissar Order as a reprisal measure directed against the shooting of German prisoners by the Russians.
Q Were you opposed to it anyhow?
A To a certain extent, certainly.
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, I am now offering NOKW-1858, Prosecution Exhibit 606. Am I correct in that, your Honors? I beg your pardon?
Q Now, witness, let's go together over this whole order page by page, day by day, so you don't have to read it first. We will answer the questions as we go along.
You were in command of the 52nd Infantry Division, were you not, during the time that this report pertains to?
A Yes, I was.
Q Now, let's open page 1, the entry under the 20th of August 1941.
There is reported: " 2 band leaders shot." Then on the 22nd of August "1 band leader shot, " also 3 armed francs-tireurs shot."
Under the 27th of August on the next page. "In Kostjukowitschi all Communists and functionaries pulles out before the occupation Cattle driven away, locality burned down with the exception of the best residential area."
Then, the 30th of August, Witness, it says: "Day of rest. Rule of the local sub-area headquarters in Chotimsk. Detailing of Jews for cleaning up the streets."
Under 31st it says: " Measures against Jews (labor service,) evacuation, etc.)" Will you now look, please under the 3rd of September.
"39 Partisans east of Alkulitschi were seized and taken care of " -- the German word is "erledigt."
Then below you have: "To the 152nd Division Supply Officer:
"A Russian who had the position of a commissar of the Communist Party in the highest security council and was said to have shot at German soldiers was reported by local residents to the unit. Inquiries through interrogation of many witnesses and through finding of his weapons which had been concealed by him gave proof of guilt. He, as well as all the witnesses, knew that a civilian who in time of war takes part armed is counted as a franc-tireur and is to be shot, according to the international laws of war.
"On the basis of the evidence the facts of the case are well confirmed and I had the man shot according to court martial at 2015 hours in full observation of the orders.
"Kupa, Captain and Leader of the Column."
A. Under what date was that, please?
Q. That is in the letter you have in there, I believe the 19th of August 1941.
A. In my copy I do not find it.
Q. There it is.
A. Oh, I see.
Q. Now, will you turn to your next page, witness? There it says: "52nd Infantry Division, Branch Ic, to the headquarters, 12th Corps, Ic:
"It is reported subsequently that one Jewish Communist functionary, 2 Commissars and 36 Partisans were seized and shot near B.W. (about 8 kilometers northeast of Akulitschi) in the evening of 3 September. The accompanying card with sketch was taken from the leader of the band."
If you now turn to your next page, witness, under the report of September 11, you will find:
"The following were seized:
"2 soldiers in civilian clothes in Wadeneshje "2 soldiers in civilian clothes in Nabat.
"They were shot to death."
And then below at the page: "According to personality and conduct this prisoner had to be pronounced a Partisan: he was hanged in Nabat."
How, go to the next page, please, witness: a report from the Ic Branch Division Combat Post, 11 September 1941, first the first paragraph:
"In an operation carried out this morning a member of the band and 4 Red Army men loafing around in civilian clothes were seized and executed And then part of paragraph 3:"All persons (even women) loafing around in the woods, who cannot prove that they are native to the region are to be arrested first of all.
Insofar as it is shown, following arrest that suspicious loafers are concerned, these persons are to be shot. All other persons of draft age are to be turned over to the Division. Former Red Army men in uniform or civilian clothes loafing around, Jews, commissars, persons on whom weapons are found, or those who can be pronounced as partisans, immediately are to be shot at once."
The next witness -- the entry of the 16th of September, somewhere way down at the bottom, about the third line at the bottom, under the 16th of September:
"2 suspicious loafers in the region south of Salikina shot to death." Then on the next page under the 17th of September at the bottom: "Local president of Bolodnia shot to death on account of Communist agitation."
Then if you go to the next page:
"The Regional War Commissar has ordered a mobilization of all men of the classes 1886 to 1923."
Below there on the next page you will find a report to "headquarters, 12th Corps":
"As already reported, the local president of Bolotnja was shot to death on 16 September on account of Communist agitation."
Now, witness, will you go to the next page of your German document and there at the very bottom, a little above the signature of Captain Damn it says:
"2 Partisans shot to death; one small locality and one house standing by itself burned down. The Action continues."
If you now turn to the 16th of September on the next page, here you will find a letter -- rather, an order in this particular case -- from the Ic pertaining to partisan warfare and in the second paragraph, the two last lines, it says:
"Especially all political and Party organs are with certainty in the service of creating Partisans. They are, therefore, to be removed without regard of age."
Then, witness, if you turn to the next page you will find there again:
"2 partisans were shot."
On the next page you have:
"3 partisans were shot to death."
And finally on the last page on the last line it says:
"One GPU agent was shot to death."
How, will you explain now to us the statement you made regarding the Commissar Order and also I like to call your attention to the affidavit that was submitted on your behalf in Rendulic Document Rook I, Defense Exhibit 18 and Defense Exhibit 19, by Colonels Mahlmann and Reimann who also stated that no commissars were shot as far as they know by the 52nd Division.
A. This I do not know even today; apart from these notes, I did not keep that in mind because of the hurry. Did they find more than one commissar?
Q. Oh, yes, they found quite a few.
A. Quite a number of partisans were shot and that, of course, needs no explanation because of the heavy fighting which took place between the troops and the Russian partisans.
Q. Now, witness, I would be glad to point out to you the number of commissars which were killed in connection with this order. I am glad to show you this again. I also like to recall to you the fact that you previously stated that no partisans were shot as far as you could remember.
A. No I cannot remember that any were shot. If you look at all these documents you see diaries which I did not see myself. Then you find a communication here which was signed by a column leader and a division report signed on behalf of the Ia. Then there is a report from an Jaeger Battalion, an order by the division concerning the combatting of partisans which is signed by the Ia, and all the other documents contained here have been signed by Ic or Ia. There is nowhere a document which was signed by me and there is nowhere a note that this whole matter came to my knowledge.
Q. Now, Witness, a division is, after all, a very small unit, isn't it, compared to all the larger units that you commanded later on during your career?
A. That is quite correct but, it is well known in the first year of the Russian campaign the troops fought day and night. If the division fights day and night then the Division Commander is under such a strain that he cannot deal with all matters himself. It was known to me that we had heavy fights with the partisans. The attacks on the part of the partisans are being discussed in this document and this combatting of the partisans was carried out on our part with the same means as they applied. Otherwise, there was no way to cope with them. That is the only thing that is known to me out of all these documents.