"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.
Courts 5 case 7
Q Now, witness, it is true, is it not, that in a division you don't have a chief-of-staff? Isn't that right?
A No, there is the Ia who was similar tasks to deal with as the Chief-of-Staff.
Q Witness, when you said no, did you mean that I was wrong or that I was right, that there is no Chief-of-Staff?
A No, I did not want to say that you were incorrect. I only said that there was no Chief-of-Staff, but that the Ia had some of the tasks which are the responsibility of a Chief-of-Staff at Higher Headquaters.
Q And the Staff, which a Division Commander has in a division is relatively small if you compare it to an Army or an Army group, isn't it?
A Yes, the staff of a Division contained 35 officers and officials.
Q Witness, you stated that you did not sign these various daily and evening reports. Now, that wasn't really your mission as a Commander of an Infantry Division. That was the mission of the Chief of the Office who issued this report, isn't that true? In other words --
A Yes, that is correct.
Q In other words, the fact that your signature doesn't appear on these reports doesn't mean that you didn't know then that was going on, do you?
A No, but it does not mean the contrary either. It does not mean that I actually know.
Q Witness, we will now turn over to the Norwegian picture. In connection with your examination, direct examination, about the evacuation of Finland and Finmark, you at one point stated that you laughed or your staff laughed at the OKW's suggestion to take Finnish hostages along with you. Did you make that statement?
A Yes.
Q Did you laugh because it was impossible or you did not believe it would be wise to take these hostages with your or did you laugh because you didn't take any hostages?
A No, I laughed because the authorities who issued the order were so badly informed that they did not see that there was no point and purpose in it at all. I did not see for what reasons we should have taken Finnish hostages with us.
Q Well, did you ever take any Finnish hostages? You only could take any with you if you had previously taken any.
A Finnish hostages were never taken. I found out later on about one case. In the town of Tornie. A few hostages were taken in order to prevent the Finns from shooting at the hospitals, but everything turned out all right. That is the only case of which I know in which hostages were mentioned at all in Finnland.
Q Witness, I don't quite understand you. At the beginning of your sentence, you said you didn't take any Finnish hostages and towards the end you said with the exception of one case which was called later on to your attention.
A Yes.
Q Will you please just answer me whether you took or whether you didn't take any and also -
A That is not a contradiction because when I said that we did not take any hostages with us, I was thinking of the OKW order which provided the taking along of hostages. Hostages were taken on one occasion for the protection of our own military hospitals against the firing of enemy in the little town Tornio near the Swedish border. This I only found from the documents here. Otherwise, I know of no such cases.
Q How come you only learned this here in Nuernberg?
A Well, I don't know. It is contained in the Diary and the Diary I did not read. The writer of this Diary, the author of this Diary, must have some special information about this fact.
Q Very well, Witness, then let's look at NOKW-060, being submitted as Prosecution Exhibit 607. Now, there was really no reason for you to have memory refreshed in Nuernberg on the basis of some secretary who kept your War Diary, was there? You yourself wrote a letter mentioning it.
A Naturally I could not remember this particular letter but after all this letter does not say of anything else, than I have said a few minutes ago. It deals with the combat, the fighting around Tornio which is near the Swedish border and it deals mainly with the safeguarding of our military hospitals and the passage of a German hospital train for which event the hostilities were to be temporarily stopped In order to exert pressure of the Finns, these hostages were aprehended The whole matter was successful; the military were transferred to Sweden; the hospital train went to Sweden and during all this time there were no hostilities of any kind and then the hostages were released. I did not say anything also, than is contained in this document.
Q The only other thing you said, witness, was that you took a few hostages, didn't you?
A Yes, that is true. That was my conviction until this moment, I thought it was a matter of 30 or 40.
Q Would you please let me finish my question and then answer me, if you would be so kind? Now, Witness, these hostages you arrested-where did they come from? I mean they were people who had anything to do with the act? Were they taken at random? Or do you recall where they came from?
A It says so here. "Kemi-Tornio"--that is the territory in which those military hospitals were situated. They were taken from this particular sector.
who they were, individually, I did not know.
Q I would like to refresh your memory somewhat, witness. I am now introducing NOKW-066, Prosecution Exhibit 608. Now there, witness, you see that on the first of January 1944 Major Pickel reports--I mean the first of October, 1944, I am sorry-Major Pickel reports that the Finns attacked local bridges south of Kemi and that you lost nine prisoners and one dead. I don't see anything about a hospital. And then as a reprisal for this particular attack on this bridge, 120 hostages were taken amongst whom were two officers, two police officers, and leading personalities from industry or commerce. Would you explain that to us, please?
A There is nothing to explain or not much to explain. It is the same what is contained in the order. He didn't say that these hostages were taken as counter measure for the attack on the bridges , but the hostages were taken against what is enumerated under points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. If I may read this, at 1800 hours, 120 hostages taken etc., leading personalities from economy, first, release of prisoners in Kemi; second release of German military hospitals in Tornio; third, free passage of a -
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me. We will take our noon recess at this time.
THE MARSHAL: The Court will be adjourned until 1330 hours.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
TIE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Mr. Rapp.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, prior to the recess, we concerned ourselves with NOKW-066, and I would now like to ask you whether you can explain why specially two officers and two police officers are mentioned as part of 120 hostages taken? Has that, as far as you know, any significance?
A Well, may I explain the context?
Q Please go right ahead.
A Tornio is a small town near the Swedish frontier. It was there that we had our hospitals in large numbers because we wanted to have the wounded and ill sent away via Sweden. The Finns who remained calm in the first days of October and of whom I had liaison officers on my staff, made a surprise attack on the 1st of October on the small garrison in Tornio, shot at a few hospitals and prevented the sick from being transported away. The battalion commander who was in charge at Tornio reported the facts contained in this document. All he told us really is that in order to safeguard the hospitals, and the transport of the ill to Sweden, and also so that the illegally captured could be handed back, hostages were seized. What the battalion commander meant by stating that among those 120 hostages there were two officers and two police officers. I don't know. I would assume that he wanted to point out specially that among the hostages there were relatively influential people included. I don't know why this measure is supposed to be incriminating. The arrest of hostages under those conditions was entirely admissible under international law. I know that it served its purpose. Local arrangements was arrived at. The ill and sick and wounded were sent to Sweden. Prisoners were handed back, and the hostages were in any case released. That is all I can say about that and I should like to add, as far as the previous document is concerned, that it was addressed to a Col.
Willamo, and Col. Willamo was the chief of the Finnish liaison staff with my headquarters. The purpose of this letter must have been to inform the Finnish government of the fact that hostages had been apprehended and the purpose behind that measure. That is all I can say to that.
Q Witness, this fortnight warning you had about getting the German troops out of Finland -- when was that to expire?
A That fortnight was to come to an end on 15 September.
Q And the attacks on these various installations mentioned in Major Pickets report are dated the 1st of October, are they not?
A Yes.
Q That is two weeks after the time of grace you had to get out of Finland, isn!t it?
A Yes, but let me explain that to you, so that everything would be seen in its true light. I could not do that in a public meeting because these matters very possibly might cause international complications, but if you desire me to do so. I will explain it but not in a public session.
Q Witness, when were the nickel mines in Finland -- I believe the Kollosiaki nickel mines -- destroyed by the 20th Mountain Army?
A Well, when the area was evacuated, which must have been the middle of October, approximately, I am not quite sure -- yes, of course, the end of October.
Q You couldn't give us an approximate date a little closer than the one you have given?
A No, that would be difficult. It must have been the end of October.
Q Could you say whether it was before or after you received the OKW order for the destruction of Finnmark?
A I received two orders, one on the 4th of October which was the first order contained in Document Book XXII and the second on 28 October.
Q And of course having reference to the one dated the 28th of October?
A I am afraid I really can't, say, nor do I know what the significance of it was supposed to be because the destruction was already ordered on the 4th of October. When it was carried out, I really don't know.
Q Were these nickel mines of great importance to the German war effort?
A Until then, they were of very great importance. It was only then that new nickel was found in the Reich and that nickel in the Petzamo area could be done without.
Q Could you say that one of the main missions of the 20th Mountain Army in Finland was to prevent that these nickel mines fall intact into the Russian hands?
A No, the task of the 20th Mountain Army in Lappland at the time when I took over consisted first in preventing a linking between the Western powers and the Russians in the extreme North; two, to cover up the rear of the Norwegian front; and three, in protecting the Northern shores of the Baltic Sea. The Baltic Sea was of special importance to us because it was a testing ground for the U-boats and new weapons, and those were the tasks of the 20th Mountain Army. The fact that in that area there happened to be a nickel mine did not constitute the decisive and essential task of the army.
Q Did your Chief-of-Staff General Halder -- did he have the same information you had on what the main mission of the 20th Army was in Finland?
A I should assume so, yes. He must have shared that opinion. For a year at least, if not longer, before me, he had been Chief-ofthe-Army and had to know what the army had to do. On the 24th of June, 1944, I was introduced into those tasks by the OKW on the occasion when I took over my command.
Whether the Chief-of-Staff received it in the same wording at the time I don't know.
Q Witness, did you ever protest to General Jodl of the OKW, WEST, either after the first or the second evacuation order, that you did not consider this to be a military necessity?
A No. the first evacuation order I carried out in such a way as I thought to be necessary. That is, supported those people who wanted to take part in the evacuation to Southern Norway, regard to the second evacuation order, for me there was a conviction of the military necessity of the destructions, but also the destruction of part of the quarters. It was intended that the Norwegian population should be gathered in the necessary living space and then the buildings which were thus made free were to be destroyed; but under all circumstances it had to be prevented that when the enemy arrived he would find any quarters, because in these areas quarters and accommodation meant existence or non-existence.
A When the second evacuation order came, which ordered the evacuation of the entire population, then I had to say to myself that the OKW had judged correctly and placed a correct demand. I had no reason in this situation to make a particularly energetic protest. I certainly spoke with Jodl and told him that from my point of view it was not indispensable. We could gather all the population together and then the greater part of the area would be made free and could then be destroyed. I also urged this solution but it was refused.
Q Witness, as a matter of fact what did you do or what was actually carried out? Was the Finnmark totally or only partially destroyed in your opinion?
A Total destruction was impossible, without doubt very much was not destroyed.
Q Those parts which were not destroyed, was that on account of any consideration you showed for the Norwegians or merely because you did not have enough men or material to carry it through one hundred percent?
A Well, the destruction, for instance, in the far north, could not be carried out entirely because the pressure of the Russians was too great, and there was no time and no opportunity to do it. And what considerations played a part with the troops in not destroying something I really can't say.
Q Could you tell us what was not destroyed?
A Kirkenes, for instance, was not destroyed. The towns of Vardoe and Vardsoe on the Arctic Ocean, and many places on the fjords. Those are the ones I know. And what was destroyed in Kirkenes was destroyed by the Russian air force, not by German measures; otherwise, I don't know what else was not destroyed. I thought that Hammerfest, for instance, was not entirely destroyed. I found that out only later on from the documents here.
Q Witness, did any part of the Norwegian population ever come to you or to any representative of the XXth Army and beg them that you save them from the Bolshevists?
A No, certainly not.
Q Nov, most of your orders and those of the OKW show that the German Army took it upon themselves to be more or less the protector of the Norwegians from the Bolshevists. Was that merely an assumption which you more or loss put there gratuitously to give your evacuation a propaganda value?
A No, that refers to the Hitler order of the 28th of October; and there I would like to ask whether it is wrong if one tries to save people from Bolshevism?
Q Witness, you stated that the German Navy, which was stationed in Norway, was not at all under your command. Did you make that statement?
A Yes, that is also true. With the limitation that those parts which were on land, for instance, the coastal batteries -- these parts were subordinate to the Army for the movement, that is, for the march, which is quite natural because this movement was one of the most complicated affairs which one can imagine.
Q Does that also apply to German Air Corps units which were land based?
A That refers in exactly the same way to the German Air Force, but nevertheless, with the extension that I was also justified to order the Air Force with regard to its tactical employment?
Q Now, I'm having particular reference to the unit which was designated as "Admiral Polarkueste," and to those units which were charged to assist the evacuation staff of Colonel Hermann in the seagoing evacuation of the population. And my question is, wasn't that part of the German Navy under your command?