A. In all these interrogations I was never even asked ab out any events which took place in Finland. The questions which were put to me always referred to the Nordlicht, Northern Light, and that is the withdrawal from Lappland and Northern Norway via Lyngen-ford.
Q. Witness, you did not answer my question. I asked you whether during such interrogations you were asked generally whether or not the 20th Mountain Army ever took any hostages and during such interrogations neither Finland or Finmark was mentioned; you merely asked about the 20th Mountain Army and you know that the 20th Mountain Army was in Finland as well as in Finmark?
A. I know quite well where the 20th Mountain Army was and I only considered this question which was put to me as referring to Norway.
Q. Witness, will you explain to us whether or not you were rather favorably impressed by the skill and equipment the Russians showed when they met you first in Finland and later on in Finmark?
A. The Russians were particularly suitably equipped for this warfare in the Tundra. The Nucleus of the troops which confronted us were old Karelian units which were well versed in winter warfare and had tested this skill in the war with the Finns in this theater of war.
Q. Witness, will you tell us whether it is true that at first -that is, at the very beginning of October -- out of tactical considerations the 20th Mountain Army was only in favor of destroying lines of communications, bridges and such means of transportation which were not necessary for the fishing, that is, with the exception of small fishing smacks and cutters and also all the barracks and installations which were constructed by the German Army and were more or less owned by the German Army? Did you at first intend to confine your destruction only to those four mentioned installations, that is, at the very early beginning of October?
A. We believed that we could concentrate the population and that we could then destroy those quarters which were no longer used and, apart from that, of course, we wanted to carry out all those destructions which were militarily speaking absolutely necessary, By this I mean highways, bridges, air bases, port installations and the like.
Q. Is it correct that the order for the total destruction and evacuation of the Finmark which you received from Colonel General Jodl of the OKW was dated the 29th of October 1944? Is that correct?
A. Yes, this order was dated the 28th of October.
Q. Did you say during your direct examination that this order was to some extent possibly the result of Terboven's -- may we call it -"pressure" or "intervening" with Hitler and the OKW?
A. Yes, because in the OKW order which gave the instructions for the destructions this fact is actually contained in so many words.
Q. Terboven, if I understand correctly, was the Reich Commissioner for Norway.
A. Yes, he was.
Q. That was a purely political field, was it not?
A. I don't understand the question. What was a purely political field?
Q. His job was a political job; it was not a military job. Is that correct?
A. Yes, it was a political job; that is correct.
Q. Isn't it thus quite clear that all that which the 20th Mountain Army at the beginning of October suggested in doing in the line of what should be destroyed could rightfully be called "military necessity", anything which was incorporated into the order of the 18th of October 1944 at the suggestion of Terboven and thus went beyond that what the 20th Army considered militarily necessary? It was done for political considerations only?
A. In my last answer which I gave to defense counsel on direct examination I stated the reasons why we regarded the instructions of the OKW as a military necessity and recognized them as such. Whether or not this order beyond that was also given for political reasons or whether, from the point of view of the Reich Commissioner-it was given mainly for political reasons or even whether the Fuehrer gave it for political reasons, does not represent a decisive factor, in connection with the fact that we recognized its military justification.
Q. Mow, witness, let's go over this again and maybe you are kind enough to give me the answer again rather than refer me to your previous testimony. I wanted to know from the following: you are prepared to destroy certain installations for reasons of military necessity at the beginning of October, were you not?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. On the 28th of October, or thereabout you received an OKW order, or a Fuehrer Order in this particular instance, telling you to destroy all of Finmark and, if necessary, evacuate the indigenous population forcibly. Is that correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. The order of the 28th of October went way beyond that what you intended to do at the beginning of October. Is that also correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. You told us, and you even referred us to the order, that it is apparent that Terboven had his fingers in that particular "pie."
Is that correct?
A .Yes, it is.
Q. You furthermore told us that Terboven was the political representative of the Reich and was not a qualified military expert.
A. Yes, I said that.
Q. Nevertheless, the OKW , for reasons unknown to us at this time, seemed to have followed his suggestions and incorporated political considerations into this destruction order. Is that correct?
A. Yes, I am quite sure political reasons were also considered.
Q. Isn't it true that, in view of that, all those things which were destroyed , or which had to be done for political reasons upon the suggestion of Terboven could not clearly be called military necessity despite the fact that you got this order from a military office; namely, the OKW?
A. Well, that is a debatable point. At that time we were of the opinion that this order was a military necessity and we in the beginning decided on the "minor" solution because we anticipated particular difficulties in the leading back of these people. The OKW order was undoubtedly basically a measure which was completely accepted by us.
Q. When you received this order -- I am referring to the one of the 28th of October -- you told us that your Commanding General defendant Rendulic, got in touch with the OKW and wanted to get further explanations, if possible, that he even tried to play down the severity of the order. Is that correct?
A. I testified yesterday that the General tried to stick to the original direction of the OKW order of the 4th of October.
Q. Just when did you try that?
A. After this order had been received by us as a teletype.
Q Up to that time, in other words, none of you, including your Commanding General, were convinced that it was a military necessity; otherwise, he wouldn't have telephoned, would he?
A From the very beginning we realized that a racial measure -- by this I mean an evacuation and subsequent destruction of the accommodations -- would be most secure measure to keep the enemy from us. We did not on our own initiative carry it out because we considered the human factors. We considered the Norwegian population and we did not want to put them in such a position with winter coming.
Q Witness, any time that you can afford to let human consideration enter into your judgment, if you even play with that thought, in reference to a severe military necessity then the word "military necessity" is not applied in its proper sense. Either it is a military necessity or it is an arbitrary decision; it can only be one of the two?
A It always remains a military necessity. Not every military necessity has to be carried out.
Q Witness, that brings us to the next point. Was this order carried out because it was a direct Fuehrer order?
AAfter the discussion of matters between General Rendulic and General Jodl there was no further talk about this subject. The order had been clearly given and it was carried out by us.
Q Will you answer my question, please, witness, whether or not you carried out this order because it was a Fuehrer order? I know that you carried it out. I just want to know why.
A Soldiers are used to carry out definite orders which are given to them.
Q In other words, if I understand you right, it was carried out because it was a Fuehrer order. Is that right?
A The order was carried out just because it was an order.
Q And where did the order come from?
A The order came from the OKW.
Q Is that the same as the Fuehrer?
A The Fuehrer is one person. The OKI is a Command Agency.
Q Who was the supreme commander of the German armed forces?
A The supreme commander of the German armed forces was the Fuehrer.
Q Was the OKI subordinate to him?
A How do you mean that?
Q -
A Yes, of course.
Q Was every Fuehrerbefehl of military necessity?
A I don't know that.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat the question again? I didn't got it?
Q Was every Fuehrer order a military necessity?
A If military necessities were concerned, then yes; but there are Fuehrer orders which were issued in an entirely different sphere.
Q Witness, I am obviously talking about Hitler in his capacity as supreme commander of the armed forces. I am not interested in his position as chief of the Nazi Party or any other jobs he held. I am still trying to have you tell me whether or not you put a military necessity on the same basis as a Hitler order.
A In this particular instance the Fuehrer order was for us a military necessity.
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, I would like to ask the Tribunal to instruct the defendant Rendulic to refrain from prompting the witness. I have on two occasions now noticed that the defendant Rendulic nodded his head at very critical points.
THE PRESIDENT: If the statement made by the prosecution is correct, I feel that the defendant Rendulic should desist. This witness can take care of himself and I am sure that the defendant has no desire, and I hope no intention of conducting himself in a manner which would be prejudicial.
You may proceed.
MR. RAPP: Thank you, your Honor.
Q Witness, in view of the fact that the Russians were well equipped and well trained, wasn't it quite apparent to you that if they had chosen to invade the province of Finmark during that time of the year they could have done so any time they pleased whether you destroyed these fishing huts and small villages or not?
A Settlements of any kind represent in this Arctic area a means of fighting, in the fight against the enemy, winter and cold, and in order to take this means of fighting away we had to do these things.
Q Did you ever think about the fact that the Russians may have guessed that you would apply a scorched earth policy if it became apparent to you that they would follow you up and consequently that they made preparations as far as equipping their troops is concerned, accordingly?
A The units which operate in that area have to be equipped accordingly because every military operation up there has more the characteristics of an expedition than the characteristics of an operation and that if of an expedition to the Arctic area and equipment has to be according and the equipment has to include means of accommodation if the houses are destroyed and it can include less such equipment if the houses are still standing.
Q Would you say that the destruction of Finmark and the evacuation of the native population had a palliative result or did it actually permanently prevent the Russians from following you up?
A It would have certainly made things a good deal more difficult for them irrespective whether or not they would have pursued on the land route or on the sea route; besides, this measure was not taken up there the first time. The Russians, the time when we entered Karelia burned down everything and the Finns did exactly the same when they had to evade the Russians in the winter war.
Q Witness, do you believe that the destruction of Finmark and the forceful evacuation of the native population made the Russians change their mind not to follow up?
A I don't know that.
Q What was the furtherest advance the Russians penetrated into Finmark?
A Up to the Tana River.
Q Was the in the nature of a reconnaisance or by force?
A The Russians moved up to the 19th Corps so quickly because the destructions in the Kirkenes area and in the Varanger Peninsula allowed this. We considered the Russian spearheads at the Tana River and as the spearheads of the enemy who was pursuing us.
Q What happened to your air reconnaisance?
A Our air reconnaisance was carried out as far as this was possible around that time of the year. I described this session yesterday; twilight and only a very few hours of daylight, et cetera.
Q Did the Russians actually penetrate beyond the Tana River that winter?
A I don't know that.
Q When did they reach the Tana River?
A That was around the end of October, roughly around that time. It might have been during the first days of November.
Q You were the Chief of Staff of the 20th Mountain Army under the successor to the defendant Rendulic, General Boehme? Is that correct?
A Yes, it is correct.
Q Right up to the surrender of the German forces in Norway in May 1945 -- is that right?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Just how long did the destruction of Norway continue under the 20th Mountain Army led by General Boehme?
A I don't know whether at this late date any destructions of importance were carried out at all. The only outposts could have been concerned from which material of importance could have to be secured. I could not imagine any other reasons.
Q. Well, first of all, you ought to know them as Chief of Staff, Certainly I didn't suggest to you any time factor. Will you now tell me just how late destructions were still carried out?
A. I'm afraid I can't answer that. Will you please give me any details as to area or to date?
Q. The only suggestion I can give you in the State of Norway. And the only time factor I can give you is around the 6th or 7th of May. Now, up to that time you have to help yourself.
A. Around that time, you are saying, there were destructions in Finnmark?
Q. I don't think you followed my question, Witness. I will repeat it. I'm now talking about all of Norway, including the province of Finnmark, destructions by the XXth Mountain Army when you were Chief of Staff, when you were there. Until when did the destructions last?
A. Up to now we've talked about destructions within the scope of the Operation Northern Light.
Q. Now, pardon me, Witness. I'm not asking you about that. I gave you a specific question. I have reasons to ask you that question.
A. Well, with the best will in the world I don't know what you are driving at with this question.
Q. You must leave that up to me. I'm asking you a question. If you can answer it I think you ought to answer it; if you cannot answer it because you do not know the facts...
A. I cannot answer that question because I do not know what you're asking of me.
Q. All right, I'll give it to you now for the third time. You were Chief of Staff of the XXth Mountain Army up to the surrender of the German forces in Norway. Is that correct or not?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. And at that time the XXth Mountain Army was commanded by General Boehme who succeeded General Rendulic. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is also correct.
Q. You told us previously that the Russians did not go beyond the Tana River. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And what date did you fix for that?
A. The beginning of November and the end of October 1945.
Q. You didn't mean 1945 but 1944.
A. I'm sorry; I mean the end of October or the beginning of November, 1944.
Q. Now, you have got all the facts on which we agree. Now, my question: How long did the XXth Mountain Army continue destructions in Norway?
A. Apart from destructions within the scope of the Operation Northern Light I do not know what was done in that way by us at any later date, up to the spring of 1945.
DR. FRITSCH (Counsel for the Defendant Rendulic): May I point out a mistake in the translation which might have influenced the answer? It has been translated "What destructions were you to carry out?" I believe the question which Mr. Rapp asked was slightly different.
MR. RAPP: I'm somewhat at a loss, but I think the Witness answered the question in any event.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it that the statement made by the Counsel for the Defendant was repeated so that the Witness now understands what was said and the suggestion made by Counsel; and, if, in the light of that, he wishes to make any change or make any further statement he's privileged to do so.
WITNESS HOELTER: I'm afraid I can't answer the question any differently than I have answered it just now.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; you may proceed.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q. You did not know, in other words, that Hammerfest was raided and completely destroyed up until February, 1945?
A. I know that in January or February the destruction of Hammerfest had been concluded.
Q. Now, just how long did the Operation Northern Light last?
A. The Operation Northern Light lasted into the months of January and February. During that period evacuations were still carried out from the Alta area etc.
Q. That is, not less than two and possibly not more than three months since the date that the Russians had not advanced beyond the Alta River. Is that right?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Witness, you spoke about the fact that there was a constant threat of an Anglo-American amphibious invasion in Norway, especially in the neighborhood of Narvik. Did you make that statement?
A. Yes, that is what I said.
Q. Will you tell us what that particular threat has to do with the destruction of the province of Finnmark?
A. This particular threat has nothing to do directly with the destruction of Finnmark. Only then would the province of Finnmark play a part if a joint operation from the East through the province of Finnmark and from the sea against the area of Narvik would be carried out.
Q. Witness, would you be so kind and point out for us where Narvik is? And then...
(WITNESS STANDS AT THE WITNESS BOX AND LIFTS POINTS TO CHART BEHIND HIM)
A. Narvik is here (POINTING).
Q. And would you then point out to us the province of Finnmark?
A. The province of Finnmark is the area around the Lyngen-fjord to the Kirkenes area via the Northern Cape, and It includes the entire island area, right down again to the Lyngen-fjord. And that is the area which I am outlining with my stick here.
Q. Thank you. Witness, assuming that you gave serious consideration to the possibility that the Allies would select an arctic winter to invade the province of Finnmark, do you believe that the Allies had been prevented from doing so because you had destroyed that province, especially in view of the fact that the allies just gave a pretty good account of themselves, of what they could do, in Normandy?
A. The destruction of the province of Finnmark was in no immediate connection with those combat action which we expected the Western forces to carry out against the area of Narvik. The destruction of the province of Finnmark was to keep the enemy away who was threatening from the East and from the Finnish area and whom we expected to push up.
Q. But you still expected the Russians to follow up. Isn't that correct--either by land or by sea?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. And you must have expected the Russians to follow you up right up to February 1945 because you still were carrying on destructions in the Finnmark as a military necessity. Is that correct?
A. Yes, it is correct.
Q. At that time Germany was practically sliced in two. Isn't that correct?
A. Is this a statement, or am I to comment on it?
Q. I am asking you whether you know that.
A. Yes, I know that.
Q. But you still thought, if I understand you correctly, that the Russians still would make these advances up there, despite the fact that they were doing rather well in the heart of Germany?
A. It is the task of an Army Commander to wage the war in that area for which he is responsible. Now, the developments within the Reich, we could not consider in our operations or with regard to those measures which we considered military necessary.
Q. Now, Witness, you will admit that when you got the order from the OKW for the destruction of the Finnmark in later October 1944 the situation on the Continent was somewhat different than in February 1945?
A. Yes, I admit that.
Q. Did the OKW ever cancel the order for the destruction of the Finnmark?
A. No.
Q. Therefore, what the OKW considered military necessity in October 1944 was still considered a military necessary many months later. Is that correct?
A. Yes, seen from our point of view that is correct.
Q. And in spite of the fact that the fortunes of war had turned considerably against you?
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
A. The fortunes of war had turned against us for sometime.
Q. I meant in relation to the invasion of Germany proper.
A. Those months were certainly very critical months for the development of the final stages of the war.
Q. Witness, was there any disagreement or arguments between Rendulic and Terboven when Terboven permitted some evacuated Norwegians to return prematurely to the evacuated homes, for the purpose of salvaging some scarce goods?
A. I believe that, at one time, some fishery equipment was supposed to be salvaged, and I believe that I can remember that the Army High Command opposed this measure in order not to let any Norwegians re-enter the area, especially not for propagandists reasons and as a matter of principle. I only very vaguely recall this incident.
Q. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "propaganda purposes" or "on account of propaganda purposes"?
A. If, from a built-up area and an area where the Norwegian population and we lived side by side, the people are Allowed to go back to their destroyed homes and houses in order to salvage some goods there, and if they then return and tell their friends and acquaintances that their houses were burned down and everything was destroyed, I am sure that will not contribute to a good relation between the two parties concerned.
Q. Witness, was the creation of a new Norwegian Government opposed to Quisling circumvented by the fact that you destroyed Finnmark and evacuated its population?
A. Will you please repeat the question?
Q. Was the threat of the Norwegian Government in Exile to establish a new government on Norwegian soil opposed to the quisling government, In other words, that the government being opposed to the quisling government, circumvented by the fact that you destroyed and evacuated the province of Finnmark?
A. I know nothing of such a political intention of a change of governments in Norway which we occupied.
Q. You told us yesterday, Witness, that you were afraid that a new Norwegian Government was to settle down in Norway. That is, a government which, of course, would have been opposed to the already established quisling Government. And I'm asking you whether or not you seriously thought that the destruction of the Finnmark and the forcible evacuation of the population prevented such a government from being created.
A. Such a government actually existed. It was located in London. What the OKW or the Fuehrer wanted to orevent politically was that somewhere there would be a Norwegian populated area which was not under our control.
Q. But Finnmark was under your control wasn't it?
A. Yes, out the people had left.
Q. Well, who evacuated them?
A. Yes, that's just why they were evacuated, to prevent this.
Q. Now, to follow that through to the logical conclusion you would really have to evacuated all of Norway wouldn't you?
A. We had occupied Norway to the Lyngen-fjord and, therefore, there was no reason to evacuate all of Norway. Only after the capitulation did we leave the occupied Norwegian areas. That is, we were made to leave them.
Q. Witness, I don't quite understand you. Do you mean that the fact that the German Army was there a Norwegian Government in Exile could not be formed in Norway or the fact that the Norwegian population was there?
A. A government in a territory can only make sense if there are people living in such a territory.
Q. Well, wasn't there a constant threat that such a Norwegian government could have established itself any where in Norway if it chose to?
A. Well, where we were it would not have been possible for a Norwegian Exile Government from London to settle down and take over.
Q. I still can't see the connection of the evacuation of Finnmark and the establishment of an Exile Government.
A. That's not what I maintained either. All I said was that we wanted to prevent that another Norway should develop in a populated area of Norway outside our sphere of control. Whether this Exile Government happened to be in London or whether it would have gone to Hammerfest made no difference whatsoever to us.
Q. But that statement you made presupposes the fact that the German Army would give up Finnmark without a fight.
A. I didn't understand that question.
If you didn't want the Norwegian Government in Exile to return to Norway and you felt that the presence of the Norwegian population would stimulate such a return and you, therefore, evacuated it, the Norwegian Government could only have landed in Finnmark if you had meanwhile withdrawn. Isn't that right? Otherwise the same conditions in Finnmark existed as anywhere else in Norway. That is, you occupied it?
A. In those areas where we, the occupation forces were, I've never expected a Norwegian Exile Government to put in an appearance.
Q. Listen. From the 18th of December 1944 on General Rendulic in addition to his other duties also became Armed Forces Commander Norway. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. And when General Rendulic left General Boehme succeeded him in the position as Armed Forces Commander in Norway as well as Commander in Chief of the XXth Mountain Army?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Will you explain to us what other duties were involved in being Armed Forces Commander Norway?
A. In what respect?
Q. In reference to his command over the XXth Mountain Army. In other words, which additional tasks did he have to assume?
A. You mean the tasks of the Armed Forces Commander in Norway?
Q. Yes.
A. The Armed Forces Commander had mainly the task to coordinate the three parts of the armed forces around the coastal area, and to prepare this battle according to particular instruction given in the Fuehrer Directive No. 40. And in the event of an enemy invasion the Armed Forces Commander was to lead the defensive fight of all three parts of the Armed Forces around that coastal area. That was the task of the Armed Forces Commander in an operational and tactical respect. Beyond that he had the job to coordinate also the inner work of the three branches of the Armed Forces. That is, he had to prepare quarters, accommodations, flak-batteries etc. as part of the preparation for the war which was to be waged. Generally speaking, he had to give directives for the behavior of the soldiers in public.
To put it briefly he had to do what every commander, in every district, in every town, in every village, does in order to achieve uniformity of the Armed Forces.
THE PRESIDENT: We'll take our morning recess at this time.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom please take their places.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
BY MR RAPP:
Q. Before the recess, you explained to us the mission of the Armed Forces Commander Norway as distinguished from the Commanding General of the 20th Mountain Army. Witness, were there any Russian prisoners-of-war in the Finnmark?
A. There may have been Russian prisoners-of-war with the divisions there in Finnmark but I don't know any details about it.
Q. Have you ever seen any Russian prisoner-of-war camps or inspected them?
A. Not in the Finnmark?
Q. You didn't see any along Highway 50 when you were driving?
A. No, no prisoner-of-war camps.
Q. You can't remember any?
Q. No, and I am not aware that I saw any prisoner-of-war camps on Highway 50.
Q. Who was with the administration of these Russian prisonersof-war?
A. Prisoners-of-war at this time were under the administration of the higher SS and Police Leader in Norway.
Q. In other words, you say that Russian prisoners-of-war who were captured by the German army were turned over to an SS office for safe-keeping?
A. No, I didn't say that. The whole prisoner-of-war system in Germany was subordinate from autumn 1944 onwards to the Commander of the Reserve Army and under him I think there was as an expert SS Obergruppenfuehrer Berger.
Q. Witness, I am familiar with all these facts, but that doesn't answer my question. Are you saying that the prisoners in Norway, pri soners-of-war, were administered by the SS Leader in Norway?
Isn't that what you said?
A. Yes.
Q. In his capacity as SS Leader in Norway or in his capacity as an Army General or something like that?
A. No, in his capacity as SS Fuehrer in Norway.
Q. In other words, then what I said is true, isn't it? That the prisoners-of-war which the German army held in Norway were the responsibility of the SS?
A. Yes, since autumn 1944 there was this change in the responsibility as far as I know.
Q. Well, the fact that you pointed to the fall of 1944 leads me to believe that because the Commander of the Reserve Army was Himmler and he happened to be the Chief of the SS, he turned over the whole prisoner-of-war affairs to the SS. Is that what you meant to say?
A. I don't know the reasons for it. I only know the fact itself, that we were not in charge of the prisoners-of-war.
Q. And you further say that Gottlob Berger, as Chief of the prisoners-of-war.Administration, was not a part of the OKW but became a part of the SS?
A. No, I didn't mean that. I didn't say that, and furthermore with regard to the details about the administration at top level I really know nothing at all.
Q. Yes, therefore I am trying to ask you only about Norway, Now these prisoners-of-war worked with divisions, is that right?
A. Well, it was quite different in some cases. Prisoners-ofwar were used for all possible kinds of work in Norway. The greater majority as far as I know were employed on the railway. Others on the roads, road--building, and in brief on work which needed a large number of people.
Q. Who built some of the snow tunnels across Highway 50?