DR. SAUTER: If the Tribunal please, about that point mainly General Loehr, we cannot have him as a witness because he is deceased but his ADC has given us an affidavit and I have submitted it to the Court as part of my document book 1, the document number is No. 4. It is contained on page 14 of that volume and this affidavit will become exhibit Lanz No. 1. This affidavit was duly sworn to and certified by the Buergermeister concerned. The affiant is Alfred Grampe who was born on 17 April 1897 the affiant says from January 1943 to April 1944 he was a colonel and adjutant with the High Command of Army Group F, that is to say, he was an adjutant of General Loehr's. His affidavit concerns the efficiency rating by General Loehr and his qualifications for passing judgment on General Lanz as an NS leader and the date of that judgment was 1 March 1944. I would like to draw the court's attention to the fact that the judgment of General Lanz' character was given on 1 April 1944, that is to say, at a period of time when the affiant, Alfred Grampe, was General Loehr's Adjutant and on this matter the affiant testifies as follows on page 14 of Document Book I:
To the above mentioned efficiency rating of General Lanz, in which he is described by Gen. Loehr as a person possessing the qualities expected gtom a N.S. Leader, I as the latter's Adjutant, have to add the following comments:
As far as I can remember, an efficiency rating of General Lanz had been requested from the highest quarters, in order to decide whether or not he was suitable for the next higher position. As he had already commanded an Army Group in the East on a difficult sector of the front, but had subsequently again been given a corps in the Balkans (a secondary theatre of war) much depended for General Lanz on the requested efficiency rating. In order to give further weight the favorable efficiency rating General Loehr described General Lanz as a person possessing the qualities expected in a National Socialist Leader.
He thereby meant to express that the General possessed the qualities of a military Leader in the National Socialist State. That description does not call for another interpretation; General Lanz being a professional soldier, could not be a Party member, nor was he ever active on behalf of National Socialism.
The above named and similar descriptions were frequently used in the efficiency ratings of military leaders by request of the ChiefAdjutant.
Oestrich, 24 Sept. 1947.
Signed: Alfred GRAMPE.
Q Witness, having thus explained your personal background I shall now deal with the indictment itself. The indictment alleges that you were a party to and had knowledge of a plan of terrorizing the Balkans, is that correct?
AAny such plan as the indictment mentions came to my knowledge for the first time in my life from the indictment. Throughout that period of time when I was serving in the Balkans it never occurred to me that any such order existed nor did I ever hear anything about it, not even privately. I assume that this alleged plan is either an error or an anachronism on the part of the prosecution.
Q Witness, the indictment submitted by the Prosecution on 10 May 1947, charged under numeral Arabic 12-b, you as well as the other defendants with having passed on and carried out what is known as the Commissar Order. You know, witness, from this trial, that this order is contained in the Document NOKW 484, in Document Book I, on page 33-A and page 48-A in the English Book and the other document relevant here is 1076, which is Exhibit 14 also contained in Document Book I, page 34 of the German and page 49 of the English. What could you tell us about that?
A The Commissar Order, as I remember it today, is roughly still known to me, having perused the document submitted to us here my memory has been refreshed, of course. This whole affair goes back more than 6 years. For that reason - I need hardly express that I have no precise memory on what I did about it at the time, but as far as I can recollect those things, this is how the matter went as far as I was concerned. A few days before the opening of the Russian campaign I was informed by the Corps, which was my superior, about this Commissar Order, as it was called. I think this was done orally, but I am not absolutely certain. And just before the attack began, that is to say perhaps on the 19th or 20th of June 1941, I told my commanding officers, that is to say the regimental and other independent officers, inasmuch as they were subordinate to me themselves, about the Commissar Order again orally.
But I couldn't say today whether I told then verbatim or whether I merely interpreted the order to them, but once the order had been announced I told these gentlemen that needless to say Commissars were to be shot only in combat. I want to express particularly, only in combat. That condition I expressly passed on to my commanding officers.
Q Witness, why did you accept this order at all since you made this qualification anyway?
A Well, conditions at that period of time were very different from what they are today. At that time, in the summer of 1941, I regarded it as my natural duty as a soldier to pass on to my units an order which came from my highest superior officer. That was quite beyond any doubt as far as I was concerned.
Q If you had not done that in 1941, what consequences would you have conjured up for yourself -- supposing you would simply have suppressed the order?
A Well, that is a question which you raised once before. It is always the same pet question to ask a man today what would have happened then. I can't say; I can't tell you because it didn't happen. Perhaps nothing would have happened -- perhaps I would have been hanged. I can't tell you. This is purely an academic question which I can't answer. The fact of the matter is, I passed the order on with the qualification I have mentioned now, and I did this for the reason because on the one hand I considered it my duty to pass on an order which came from my highest commander in chief. I remember we are now talking about the summer of 1941. But on the other hand I had misgivings about the order. I had misgivings, it seemed to me too severe. It was too extreme, I am inclined to put it, and I also had misgivings as to the fact that this order would offend against the inner attitude of my troops, it would make them more extreme and radical, so to speak, which is the thing I wanted to avoid, because we as soldiers did not feel that way.
We weren't accustomed to these things, and that is the reason why I made this actually qualification, so that this order might become legal, if I can put it in a lawyer's language. I wanted to put it on a correct soldierly footing. That is what I wanted to do. That is simply an emergency measure. That is all I could have done.
DR. SAUTER: About this matter. Your Honors, please, I ask to offer in evidence a few affidavits contained in Document Book Lanz II. The first one is an affidavit given by one Ludwig v. Eimmansberger on page 2 of the Document Book. He was born in Przemsl, Poland, and is now a resident of Innsbruck, Austria. He is an Austrian national, and the affiant says: I shall read from page one. This document will become Exhibit Lanz 2, and the affiant says:
"From May 1940 till April 1942 I was Second General Staff Officer of the First Mountain Division, The former General of the Mountain Troops, Hubert Lanz, in his capacity as Division Commander, was my immediate superior beginning October 1940.
"I can make the following statement under oath with regard to the so-called "Commissar Order" decreed in 1941: I personally have never seen this order in writing. One or two days prior to the 22nd of June this order, on the occasion of a meeting of the commanders, was read to the commanders by General Lanz - I do not know whether the entire contents were read since I was not familiar with the criminal. General Lanz added a personal comment which clearly indicated his point of view that Commissars should only be shot in combat if at all. Actually not a single case has come to my attention that a Commissar had been shot in the area of the First Mountain Division, although in my position I probably would have been informed about it.
"By way of supplementation I like to add that, as one of the closest assistants of the former General Lanz at that time, I also had the opportunity to become more closely acquainted with him from the human side. Again and again I convinced myself of his deep religious conception of life which, as far as possible greatly influenced all his deeds. I can ascertain under oath that General Lanz endeavoured, to an extent which by far exceeded the usual practice, to ease the hardships resulting from the war, not only for his own troops, but also for the captured enemy and the affected civilian population. Innsbruck 18 September 1947".
And the affidavit has been duly sworn to, which can be seen from the introductory paragraphs, and it has also been properly identified.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I don't wish to make any actual objection to the admissibility of this document, but I would like the record to show that it does not comply with Rule 21 Sub-Para. 5 of the Uniform Rules of Procedure.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire for purposes of later study as to what that particular section is, and to what you are directing the, well, as least the suggestion that is not an objection?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, subject to Para. 5, Rule 21, which states: "That the statement in lieu of an oath shall contain a preamble which shall state "I (name and address of the witness) after having first been warned that I will be liable for punishment for making a false statement in lieu of an oath, state and declare that my statement is true in lieu of an oath, and that my statement is made for submission as evidence before Military Tribunal ____, Palace of Justice, Nurnberg, Germany, the following:"
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't that what it says in substance in paragraph I?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: The first paragraph, if your Honor please, does not state that the statement he proposes to give is true. It maybe assumed. On the other hand there are several other affidavits in these books which comply precisely with Paragraph 5. For that reason I have no objection to the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you.
DR. SAUTER: Reading the first paragraph of this affidavit of 18 September 1947, I cannot find that an affidavit could be more clearly formulated than is done in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, there has been no objection made, and I think you may proceed.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
The next document I beg to offer in evidence is an affidavit about the same subject matter. This is Document Lanz 27, contained in Document Book II for Lanz. It begins on Page 3. This document will become Exhibit 3. It is an affidavit given by Dr. Hans Otto Hofmann, who was born in 1893 in Bruecks, not of course a relative of General Lanz, or a relative of his family. He says:
"I have known Herr Hubert Lanz since the fall of 1940 when he took over command of the First Mountain Division, General Lanz was my immediate superior till the end of 1942. I was with the First Mountain Division from September 1939 till the end of 1942 and during this period I was in command of the supply troops of this Mountain Division as a unit leader (at first as a Captain of the Reserve, then Major of the Reserve, and eventually, as Lieutenant Colonel of the Reserve.) At the end of 1942 I separated from the division because of serious physical disability. I can make the following sworn statement with regard to the so-called "Commissar Order" decreed in 1941:
1.) Two days prior to the start of the war with Soviet Russia, in the late afternoon of Friday 20 June 1941, a discussion of the commanders took place at the division command post which the individual regimental and independent unit commanders were ordered to attend. I personally participated in this discussion. The place, time and more detailed circumstances are still clear in my memory. Subjects of the discussion were: The situation and the latest orders. At this time report was also made of the so-called "Commissar Order", given by Hitler. The result was that all persons present spontaneously expressed their horror by shaking their heads in disagreement and General Lanz added his own words in a restrictive sense that Commissars obviously were to be shot only in combat, by putting the stress on the word "only". General Lanz, therewith, expressed his absolutely disagreeing attitude in regard to this order, a fact which could not be doubted by anyone participating in the discussion. We did not receive any written material pertaining Court No. 7, Case No. VII.
to this so called "Commissar Order".
2.) Following the discussion of the commanders I had to discuss a few official matters in the Divisional Staff Headquarters with my unit physician, Dr. Rolf Maeusel. After this was completed we happened to meet General Lanz by chance. As usual he addressed us in a friendly manner and we accompanied him to his car. On the way he briefly spoke about the preparations made hitherto and about the things to come. Referring to the so-called "Commissar Order" he made a negative gesture with his hand and his only remark was: "madness". This event can also be substantiated by Dr. Maeusel.
3.) The troops of my unit were never given an order to shoot captured Commissars and no Commissar has ever been shot in my unit. These facts can be confirmed by Dr. Rolf Maeusel who was my unit physician at that time, since unfortunately both of my Adjutants Staffler and Daeuwel (1941 and 1942) were killed in action. However, I am in a position at any time to nominate further witnesses for this purpose.
4.) I have never heard or received information that the troops of other units in the First Mountain Division were ordered to shoot captured Commissars and I have never heard or learned that captured Commissars were killed in the area of the First Mountain Division." And the affidavit has been duly sworn to and properly certified.
The next document I would like to offer will be Exhibit 4. This is an affidavit by affiant Rudolf Lang. It is contained as Document 28 in Document Book Lang 2 on page 6 of the English. This is offered as Lang Exhibit 4. The affiant Rudolf Lang was born in 1898 in Neustadt in the Danube. He says:
"As far as I remember on the day before the attack on Russia, that is on the 21 June 1941, perhaps even on 20 June, General Lanz informed the subordinate independent Commanders of the First Division of whom I was one, being Commander of the Mountain Armored Infantry Battalion 44, that a Fuehrer order deals with the shooting of Russian commissars. The text of the order was not read out. I still remember distinctly Court No. V, Case No. VII.
that General Lanz said the Commissars are to be shot only in combat. Whether this was already expressed in the Fueher Order or whether it was an attentuating addition of the Generals, I do not know. From my knowledge of General Lanz I am certain that the limitation was ordered by him.
Signed: Rudolf Lang."
And again this affidavit has been duly sworn to and properly certified by the American Adjutant of the camp.
And the next exhibit which I beg the Court to receive in evidence is Document 29, contained in Document Book Lanz II on page 7 of the English and the German Book, and it is offered as Exhibit 5. This is an affidavit by Max Winkler. About himself, the affiant says:
"In 1941 I was Commander of the Mountain Artillery Regiment 79 in the 1 Mountain Division. As far as I remember, Brigadier-General Lanz who was then Commander of the 1 Mountain Division announced the so-called "Commissar - Order" at a conference of Commanders one day before the German march into Russia. He added that Commissars were to be shot only in combat. I remember that the fact that the Division-Commander, by this addition, deprived the order of its atrocity element and this eased my mind. Nor did it even come to my knowledge that a Commissar had been shot by any unit whatsoever of the 1 Mountain Division."
The affidavit has been duly sworn to and properly certified.
The next document which will become Lanz Exhibit 6 I offer as Document 30, contained in Document Book Lanz II on page 8. This is given by Brigadier General Steets, and he says on oath:
"The 1 Mountain Division received the Commissar Order in writing from the 49 Mountain Army Corps. This order was not passed on to the troops. It was destroyed.
"The former Division Commander Lanz announced the order orally in a conference with the Regiment - and independent Commanders on 20 or 21 June 1941 in the sense that Commissars were to be shot only in combat signed:
Hans S t e e t s Brigadier General" Court No. V, Case No. VII.
And the document has been properly sworn to and duly certified. The introductory paragraph shows that at one time Hans Steets was the Ia of the First Mountain Division. This affidavit is also duly certified by the American Adjutant of the camp.
And my final offer of a document in this connection, the last but one document in this connection, concerns Document 31 contained in Document Book Lanz II on page 9, from which I would only like to read paragraph Arabic 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, please?
DR. SAUTER: I offer this as Exhibit 7.
THE PRESIDENT: I was just going to inquire whether you are giving that an exhibit number?
DR. SAUTER: I offer it as Lanz Exhibit 7, Your Honor. It is Document 31, page 19, and it is offered as Lanz Exhibit 7. I would like to read only paragraphs two and three. The affiant says:
I would like to read only paragraphs 2 and 3. The affiant says:
"Approximately on the 5th day after the start of the war with Soviet Russia, General Lanz visited our Battalion, which was commanded then by Major of the Reserves, Dr. Hofmann, and in which I was serving. On this day I asked General Lanz about the carrying out of the so--called Commissar Order. General Lanz answered me: 'In accordance with the tradition of our Mountain Division, the German soldier kills his enemy only in battle' I still remember these words accurately.
"I never admitted as true, nor have I ever witnessed, that a Commissar had been shot after having been taken prisoner within the area of the 1st Mountain Division which was led by General Lanz." I would appreciate it if the Court would take judicial notice of the balance of the document . Dr. Maeusel has sworn to his affidavit and his signature has been properly certified.
My final offer in this connection concerns Document No. 32, contained in Document Book Lanz No. 2, which is contained on page 11, and I offer it as Exhibit Lanz No. 8. It is a brief affidavit and reads as follows, The affiant is called Egbert Picker; he was born in Nurnberg in 1895 but he now lives in Upper Bavaria. As to the Commissar Order, he says this:
"As far as I can recall, the above mentioned order was orally published during a conference of the commanders shortly before our start in Russia. In consequence of some obstacle I could not participate in this conference and I therefore arrived at the Division later on, alone; but, as far as I know, I did not find General Lanz there. I was informed there of the order by an officer of the Division Staff to approximately the effect that it was only permitted to shoot commissars in actual fight, otherwise they were to be treated as prisoners. However, I cannot recall the exact wording."
He signed his affidavit and duly swore to it. His signature has been properly certified.
DR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I wonder if Dr. Sauter would make a statement as to who this affiant is and how he happens to have knowledge of the facts to which he swears?
DR. SAUTER: The affiant says that he himself was a member of the Division. That becomes clear from the text of the affidavit.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. General Lanz, I shall now read to you Prosecution Document NOKW258, which is Exhibit 53. It is contained in Prosecution Document Book II, on page 52 of the German and 67 of the English. This is a decree by the O,K.W. concerning Communist Terror. The order has been signed by Field Marshal Keitel, who was then Chief of O,K.W., that is to say, the High Command of the Armed Forces. The date of the order is 16 December 1941. Do you know this order?
A. At that time I was a troop commander, fighting at the front. I was then in the Nogaj Steppe, in Russia, I do not believe that order reached me at that time. Anyway, I can't recall this order. As I remember it, it was here in Nurnberg that I became acquanited with this order for the first time. That is all I can say about that .
Q. If you had not received the order, according to your memory, then of course you did not pass it on to your troops, did you, as far as you remember?
A. No, I couldn't have done it, could I?
Q. Another Prosecution document I would like to show you, witness, is contained in Document Book II of the Prosecution. This is Document NOKW-458, Exhibit 69. It is on page 106 of the German and 138 of the English. This again is an O.K.W. order. The date is 28 September 1941. It concerns the taking of hostages. Will you please look at this order and tell us...
A. I have read the order meanwhile. That order is even older than the one you have mentioned before. For me the same conditions apply also to this. I was still fighting, as I said before, with my Mountain Division in the Nogaj Steppe. I was right in the front line. I cannot assume, nor do I believe, that this order reached me at the time. One can deduce from the order that it concerned more the conditions in the rear, not so much in the front lines.
Surprise attacks on members of the Wehrmacht where we were at one front were done, if at all, by the enemy himself, that is to say, they were proper combat activities. I cannot recall that I saw that order at that time or passed it on. In other words, the same applies which I have said concerning the previous order.
Q. Witness, another order which you also have been charged with, is what is known as the Commando Order, -- The Commando Order, which is contained in Document Book IX of the Prosecution. It is on page 28 of the English and 41 of the German. This is the famous Document NOKW 1081 and the Exhibit Number was 225. Did you receive this order, and pass it on, or carry it out?
A. The order you mentioned, Dr. Sauter, is not really the Commando Order. It is an explanation given by Hitler, following up the Commando Order, but I quite realize what you are getting at. This explanation of Hitler's -- unfortunately I cannot find the distribution list in this document -- but these explanations give by Hitler I should think at that time would scarcely have reached as low down as divisions in Russia. I was fighting in the Caucasus at the time. I cannot recall the Commando Order.
I therefore made an inquiry to my commanding general at the time, whether he knows anything about it, whether he had received the order or whether he had passed it on to me, and he told me, or wrote to me, rather, that he had not received the order and he did not know it himself. I am bound to assume, therefore, that the Commando Order did not reach me at that time. I do not know whether I am right in assuming, this is a highly debatable point, as you know, whether that Commando Order applied to the Eastern Front at all. I could not give you an unequivocal answer in that respect, you know. The Commando Order and the explanation given by Hitler was not known to me.
Q. Witness, you said just now that you had addressed yourself to your commanding of the time, that is to say, the superior officer above you at the time, to get information. Who was that?
A. At that time it was General Konrad, General of Mountain Troops.
DR. SAUTER: If Your Honors please, General Konrad has given me an affidavit about the point mentioned. This is contained in Lanz Document Book II, on page 12, It is Document No. 33, which I give Exhibit number Lanz No. 9. It is an affidavit by General of the Mountain Troops Konrad, dated 18 June 1947, and it concerns the Commando Order and 1st Mountain Division . The affiant says:
"I neither personally forwarded the Commando Order in question to General Lanz and to the 1st Mountain Division, nor had it been forwarded by my headquarters. I did not receive this order either from General Ruoff, my Commander-in-Chief, nor from his headquarters. The complying with and the forwarding of such an order would not have been in concordance with his character."
This gentlemen, who was then General Lanz' superior officer, has duly sworn his affidavit and it has been properly certified in the camp. About this point I beg to offer another document, if Your Honors please, and this is document No. 34, contained in the same document book, Lanz No. 2, on page 13, and it is offered as Exhibit Lanz No. 10. This is an affidavit from Johann Steets, who was born in 1903 in Neustadt near Marburg and the affiant says :
"As 1st General Staff Officer of the 1st Mountain Division, I cannot recall that the Division received the Commando Order during the period it was under the command of General Lanz, nor that General- Lanz give a commando order."
Signed by Johann Steets and has been duly sworn to and the signature has been properly certified, the adjutant of the camp.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take our noon recess.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session HUBERT LANZ (Resumed) DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Witness, before the recess we dealt with the Commando Order, and you commented upon it. Apart from the one which dates from the 18th of October 1942, the Prosecution has submitted another order, namely, the order about the so-called military missions. This is an order dated the 30th of July 1944, and this is contained in Document Book 21 at page 65, English Page 75. This is document NOKW-537-PS, Exhibit No. 488. It is maintained and charged against you, as well as all the other defendants, that you also passed this order on to your troops. What have you to say about this?
A. As far as I can remember, in the summer of 1944 this or a similar order came to my staff at that time. However, at that time I forbad this order being passed on; the order remained with my staff and nothing further was done in the matter.
Q. And why, witness, did you not pass on this order? What were the reasons for not doing so.
A. As far as I can survey these reasons today, after four years, the main reason was that I did not think this order was a military necessity for my sphere.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, there is one affidavit with regard to this order; that is, the order about so-called military missions. That is to be found in Document Book II-Lanz, and it is document No. 35. It is to be found at pages 14 and 15 of this document book, and I give it the Exhibit number Lanz No. 11.
This affidavit was deposed by an attorney Gebhard von Lenthe, from whom other affidavits are in existence about other subjects, and I would like judicial notice to be taken of the whole Document is also of the parts which I do not read.
I would like to read from the second paragraph, which is to be found on the second page of the document. There the affiant Gebhard von Lenthe states that he belonged to the staff of General Lanz at that time:
"For an order had been issued by Hitler, according to which members of the so-called commandos of the British Army, who would be taken prisoner by us in Greece, were not to be treated as prisoners but were to be delivered to the Security Service. When General Lanz became aware of this order, he declared to me that this order must by no means be executed, and above all must not be passed on to the troops, as we were no hangmen. On the contrary, strictest attention must be paid to treat such prisoners exactly in the same way as all the other prisoners of war, according to international regulations. On that occasion the General furthermore ordered to make sure that these prisoners were registered by the representatives of the International Red Cross, in order to prevent their being delivered up later on to the Security Service by other loss conscientious agencies. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible that General Lanz would ever have passed on such an order, or would have it executed, as he is accused by the Prosecution."
That was sworn to in Celle on tho 16th of June, 1947, and signed "Gebhard von Lenthe".
This affidavit, as can be seen from the beginning, has been duly sworn to and the signature has been properly certified to.
Your Honors, in connection with a statement which was made yesterday, I would like to point out that by chance, in this affidavit, the term "erfassen"--that is, registration--cropped up again. You will remember that there was a long discussion yesterday about the meaning of this word "erfassen". From this affidavit, where by chance the same word occurs, the Tribunal can see how, in the German language--as was usual in the German Wehrmacht--the word "erfassen" means nothing else except that the people concerned are to be entered into a register or into a card index, so that it can be established at any time which people belong to the category concerned.
That was just by way of comment.
Q. Witness, during the period which followed, do you know whether, within your sphere of command---that is, in Epirus, in Northern Greece-such a military mission was ever captured?
A. I know that in my sphere such military missions were existent, that is, on the various partisan staffs, and I even know the names of the people who were there; but I will come back to that later. I also know that British officers and men---and these were the people mainly concerned in the military missions--were taken prisoner by us during partisan operations, and the names are therefore in the files. All of these prisoners, however, were regularly and properly treated as prisoners of war; and as prisoners of war, as is usual, they were sent to the prisoner of war collection centers and then, later on, they came into the PW camps. I don't know of one single case in which these kinds of people, perhaps by reason of this decree, were shot.
Q. During the course of the case of the prosecution, Fuehrer Directive 48, dated the 26th of July, 1943, was submitted. This concerns the chain of command in the Southeastern area. This is Fuehrer Directive 26 of July, 1943, which is set down in Document Book of the Prosecution No. XII, German page 66, and, English page 75, and it is NOKW-1523, Exhibit No. 297, and, witness, I would like to ask you, did you know this order?
A. As far as I know, I saw the order for the first time here. The order is dated the 26th of July, 1943. That is, at a time when I was still in the Kuban bridgehead in Russia. I left the Kuban bridgehead, I think, on the 29th of July. I arrived in the Balkans in Salonika on approximately the 8th of August, and so I don't think that if this order was distributed at all as far as down to the corps, which cannot be seen from it here, I don't think I received this order at all.
Q. And then also charged against you, witness Lanz; and submitted here was an order from the Commander-in-Chief Southeast dated the 15th of August, 1943, about the now chain of command in the Southeastern area. This is a document in Document Book 12 of the prosecution, German page 134 and English page 160. The number of the document is NOKW-1457, Exhibit 310, and as I have already mentioned, it is dated the 15th of August, 1943. Did you have anything to do with this order from the Commander-in-Chief Southeast?
A. Well, when this order was issued, I was either in Salonika or during these days I was at headquarters. I have already mentioned that I went there to clear up some questions about personnel, but at any rate I was in the Balkans and it is quite possible that I received the order but I can't say for certain, because of course during the whole five years of the war, I received an awful lot of orders and moreover, in this order I don't find anything to object to this purely organizational order. Therefore, it is possible that I received it but I can't say for certain.
Q. Do you know whether you passed on the order?
A. If there were copies with the order, then I probably sent them on but I can't see this from the order either. Whether it was passed on otherwise, if there were no copies present, that I wouldn't like to say. I don't know, but I don't see that the whole thing is of so much importance.
Q. At the beginning of September, the Italians capitulated as we have already heard in former examinations. Immediately after the Italian capitulation, OKW decrees were issued dated the 9th of September and 15 September, 1943. The first decree dated the 9th of September is set down in Document NOKW-898, Exhibit No. 317 and is contained in prosecution Document Book No.XIII, German page 18, English page 27, and the second on German page 29 and English page 42. You see that second decree contains the first decree. These orders from the OKW deal with the treatment of the Italians after their capitulation. You, witness, are charged with having passed on these orders of the OKW and with having carried them out and, therefore, I ask you did you receive these orders? And if so, did you pass these orders on and carry them out?
A. I most probably received these orders, especially the one dated the 13th September. This order is the basic order about the treatment of the Italians after the capitulation. I also assume that I passed on this order to my division since this order was necessary in order to regulate the treatment of the Italians after the capitulation.
Q. Witness, did you, as a soldier, and as a general, think that these orders were necessary from a military point of view and were justified from a military point of view?
A. I will try to imagine myself in the situation at that time because that is very important. I already stressed this morning that today, one judges very many things differently from the way in which one did at that time.