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.
That, of course, is quite natural, but for the deed by reason of which I sit here, the conditions at that time are the most important ones. I think that at that time we were all convinced that this order was necessary in order to regulate the conditions which arose by the capitulation of the Italians, because something had to be ordered about what was then to be done; and this order regulated from the highest quarters the measures which were then to be taken after the Italians had left our alliance and had unconditionally surrendered to the allies, because at that time, for us, a new and a very dangerous situation in the Balkans had arisen. That is how things looked to us at that time.
Q. General, you are talking about the military necessity for these orders. which came to you at that time. I am interested in something further. Did you think end did you check, as far as you could, whether these orders were in accordance with international law and did you have a practical possibility to do this? Or how, as a general--that is as a non legal man--did you deal with the question of whether an order was in accordance with international law or not?
A. Dr. Sauter, your question whether I checked to see whether the order was in accordance with international law is a typical question which is put in Nurnberg. At that time, nobody, not one single man ever thought of asking that a commander of troops should check whether an order was in accordance with international law, an order which he had received from his highest superiors; not one single soldier in any kind of army would have dreamed when he received an order from his superior quarters in the middle of a crisis to check whether this order was in accordance with international law. This is a construction which has arisen in Nurnberg. Today, everything is taken and looked at under a magnifying glass and looked at from a point of view which didn't exist at that time and couldn't possibly exist at that time.
I, Dr. Sauter, as well as all my comrades, was of the point of view that if the OKW -- that is the highest military authority in the Reich -- sent me an order and they said that this order is legal because the OKW of course had such a lot of experts up there and they all knew such a lot, then if they issued an order then of course it must be fool-proof. It cannot be my task as a commander of troops to say when I got an order from the OKW, "Well now, let's sit down and see whether the people in Berlin have issued an order which is in accordance with international law." I can only tell you how it was.
Q. General Lanz, I have to put this question to you because the prosecution have charged you here that by having carried out or passed on this order you had violated international law and that is the only reason why I am putting this question to you, so that you can tell the Tribunal the situation you were in as commander of troops in action and in this connection, General Lanz, I am interested also in the following. As commander of an army corps, did you have any kind of legal department with your staff which, for instance, checked such orders before they were carried out, providing of course that they had time to do this, whether they checked them to see whether they were in accordance with international law or did -- you have to cope with that situation single handed -- I mean in a legal connection?
A. I would like to say the following about this. With the corps staffs, there was no court.
Q. No what?
A. No court. I don't know why not. At any rate, there was nothing as we say competent. The corps had no courts. The courts were with the divisions and there were judicial officials with the armies but the corps had no courts. And now this of course deals with the question, - when I took over the corps in Greece, I wanted to have a court and at once, when I set up the staff, through the ser vice channels, I asked for the direction for a court and then after considerable urging and because by accident I knew the competent judicial authority in Berlin I applied to him and in January, 1944, I succeeded in getting a court but that of course was an exception.
Q. Just a moment, that was in January, 1944. These two orders which we are discussing at the moment are dated from 1943. That is a period when you had no court, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Please continue.
A Now with regard to the question, let us assume that I had a court, and I received this order and I suddenly thought that this order could be checked by my court martial adviser. Then I think that the court martial counselor would have said to me, "The order comes from OKW. I haven't got anything to check about it." That is probably what he would have said and if he had checked it I don't know what the result would have been of his checking because in this order, for instance, there are very difficult concepts and terms of international law. Today I must remain by my standpoint that if the OKW gives such orders, then I must assume that the order has been checked because the OKW has all the experts in order to make Such an order absolutely fool-proof. There could not be the slightest doubt about it in my mind, not for one single moment.
Q Witness, at that time, approximately about the time when you received these orders, did you know that the OKW, that is the High Command of the Wehrmacht as well as the OKH, that is the High Command of the Army had their own legal departments with the task of investigating all questions of international law and to give expert opinions on them? So that in this way the OKW on the OKH and finally Hitler had all this available?
A Yes.
Q And did you also rely on that at that time?
A Yes, of course.
Q Now, witness, you know that Control Council Law NO. 10. dated the 20th of December, 1945, in article II, figure 4-b states that the fact that someone who has acted according to orders from his government or his superior is not exempted from responsibility for a crime? You know that. Now you know that?
A But I would like to say the following about it. Today--that is, I mean for some time I know this order but I would like to emphasize here expressly that this law did not exist during the war and here there are facts. The facts are judged which were supposed to have been committed during the war when there was no such law.
Therefore, this is a law which was drawn up after the war by the four occupation powers, a law which was given retroactive power, a thing, which according to what I know of legal matters I would like to call a juristical enormity i.e. to make a law retroactive; it was charged against the nazis that they did such things. One has said: this is an impossibility to make laws of that kind, and here is a law which was created in December 1945 and it is made retroactive. I would like to state that quite plainly and definitely here.
Q Witness, of course you are not looking at this law as a legal man but as a soldier, as a general. What have you to say about this law as a general, as a soldier, with regard to the question of the effectiveness of a military order to subordinates?
AAs a soldier, one reads from the law or perhaps one must as a soldier read from this law that the subordinate--it doesn't matter what rank he carries--is responsible for the order which is given to him by the superior because he carries out this order; but in general, orders are given so that they are carried out but if a subordinate is made responsible for carrying out an order, then - as a logical conclusion the subordinate must be able to have the right to be able to check the order before it is carried out to see whether this order contains anything at all which can possibly be of some disadvantage to him, the subordinate, because otherwise he can be made liable for it. I, as a subordinate, must read through the order when I get it to see whether it has any disadvantages which might arise from this order and which might make me liable in any way, and when I have once thought about it sufficiently and decided that this order has some disadvantage for me, then I set it aside and says, "No, I don't carry out this order."
That would be the practical consequence of such a law and then the dignity of military obedience is taken away. That is my opinion of this law.
Q General, with regard to this-
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Pardon me just a moment. General, in order that it may be shown on the record, I take it that you are making as a part of your plea and as part of your defense that the giving of a superior order excuses you from liability--that the following of a superior order relieves you from liability?
A Yes, basically yes. We will talk about the paragraph 47 of the German Penal Code--it states something about this and I will talk about it later on.
Q But as a part of your plea to this Court, it is your claim that your following a superior order relieves you of liabilities? I want to get that into the record here and I want your statement.
A Yes, yes indeed.
Q Very well.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Witness, therefore, your point of view is that in general-of course there may be certain exceptions which we will talk about later--the soldier is obliged to carry out the order of his military superior--that is an order in military matters, and that the soldier is not obliged and is not even justified, if I understand you correctly to check this order for its legal correctness, in general, apart from exceptions which we will talk about later?
A Yes, absolutely, that is my standpoint and I remain by this.
Q Witness, and now I am interested in the following--this standpoint of yours--does it only refer to the conditions in the former German army or do you as an experienced general with decades of service behind you, do you assume that conditions in other armies outside Germany must be exactly the same?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I object to the question; I don't think the witness has been qualified to speak about the regulations which exist in other armies on this point.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, I am not asking the witness to comment about regulations.
That is, about laws in other armies, but I am trying to get from the witness whether he, as an expert and by reason of his knowledge of the conditions, thinks that in other armies every soldier has the right to check the orders of his military superiors--that is, in military affairs of course--and simply to reject them if he comes to the conclusion that in his opinion the order is against international law.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me, Dr. Sauter, that to go into this will permit us to go into the realm of the academic and we wouldn't gain anything by it. It is somewhat immaterial as to what rules of other armies may be. I think we are interested in what happened in this particular instance. To that extent, the objection will be sustained.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, might I say just one thing about this? I think that nevertheless it is of interest to find out whether, for instance, an English general or ah American general would allow it; for instance, let's say a colonel or a captain rejected an order for the reason that in his opinion it was a violation of international law. General Lanz's point of view is that in other armies, too, it could not be tolerated and would not be tolerated, of course, I will abide by the ruling of the tribunal and will not continue further with the question; but in this connection I would like to ask another question.
Q Witness, do you know of cases in which Control Council Law No. 10 or a similar law was also applied against members of allied armies, if they had committed war crimes against humanity?
A I do not know of any such cases but--if you know it better than I do please conect me--but in my opinion this law is only applied against Germans and not against anybody else. I have not heard that the colonel -- I think it was a colonel--who dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima whereby 1000 000 people were killed was charged with anything at all. That is, to quote only one example but, in any case, it wasn't a German who did this.
Q Witness, I have already mentioned that the standpoint which I have taken today and formerly -- namely, that the soldier has no right to check the military orders of his superior with regard to military affairs and to reject this order -- according to German Law there is one qualifications and this is in Article 47 of the German Penal Code.
A Yes, this is correct and when his Honor asked me earlier I referred to this exception. Article 47 of the German Penal Code was also in existence during the war and I repeat was completely valid at that time in contrast to Control Council Law No. 10 which did not exist. Paragraph 47 has been spoken about frequently here but I am only referring to Paragraph 47 with regard to this order of the 15th of September.
Q General Lanz, now I will give you the text of paragraph 47 to refresh your memory. It states -- I quote:
"If, by carrying out of an order in service matters a criminal law be violated, the superior issuing the order is alone responsible. However, the subordinate who obeys such an order will be punished as an co-responsible.
"1) If he has exceeded the limits of the order issued or I respect it..
"2) If he knew I respect knew that the order of the superior officer implied an action, the purpose of which was an ordinary or a military crime respectively offense.
"Should the guilt of the subordinate be small, he does not need to be penalized."
General Lanz, what is your attitude with regard to the subject here about paragraph 47 of the German Penal Code?
A Paragraph 47 states quite clearly if I knew that this OKW order about which we are talking as its aim a crime and if then I carried out this order then I am also implicated in the punishment as an accessory according to German law; now this is my attitude with regard to this. I did not know that this order had as its purpose a crime. I didn't know anything about that at all. For me an order was given. This was my opinion because through the capitulation of the Italians -- which was not our front -- I knew a dangerous military situation had been created and, therefore, an order was given which had to have this situation into account. That was the purpose of this order. That is why it was given but it certainly wasn't given in order to commit a crime, at any rate, not according to my inner convictions and in any case is an interpretation post festum.
Q At that time -- we have already answered this indirectly --did you think that these orders which were given in order to liquidate the Italian capitulation were necessary from a military point of view?
A Of course, that is without any doubt whatsoever.
Q General Lanz, now I come to another subject in the indictment. The indictment of the 12th of May 1947, under figure 1, that you, too, issued orders to the effect that a hundred hostages were to be shot as a reprisal for one German killed fifty hostages for every German soldier wounded and, in addition, ten hostages as a reprisal for every man under protection killed.
You have already told us that you were never a territorial Commander. Well, then, did you issue such orders or pass them on or carry them out?
AAs far as the knowledge which I have gained from the material in the documents goes, all these orders were before my time. These orders which contain ratios were dated 1941-1942, as far as I know. I arrived only in September 1943.
In my pre-examination I was asked many times about this -- I might even say with a pistol at my head -- whether I had issued such orders; but I could only say I don't know. I don't remember having issued such orders. That is the only thing I can say. I request the Prosecution to submit such an order to me with my name on it. I certainly can't remember such an order.
Q General Lanz, I would have willingly submitted you such orders but the Prosecution hasn't got any with signature and they haven't submitted any up to now; but I would like to refresh your memory about two further orders, two orders from the 1st Mountain Division dealing with the so-called special regulations in the Ic sphere. At the moment I am thinking about regulation No. 6 dated the 13th of September 1943. That is a few days after you arrived in Epirus. This is Document NOKW-1104, Exhibit 451. It is in Document Book 19 of the Prosecution, German page 169, English page 83.
Do you know this order? Can you remember the order or shall I give it to you?