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?
A No, I can't remember it. I found this order here in the files. This is an order which deals with certain geographical and administrative questions to do with the 1st Mountain Division and On figure states that because of the continuous attacks in future instances hostages would be shot at the ratio of 1:10.
I am sure that the Division issued these regulations only for their sphere and that these regulations did not come to the knowledge of the Corps.
Q. Now, a similar order of the 1st Mountain Division has been submitted. This is also contained in Document Book XIX. It is page 150 of the German and page 139 of the English. This is Document NOKW-864, Exhibit 454. Did you know this order?
A. I knew this order principally because in the Opening Statement of the Prosecution this order was made the main count against myself. I read this order afterwards and from the distribution list of this order it can be seen that this order did not go to the Corps Headquarters but went from the Division , in the same way as the special regulations which we have talked about before, to its subordinate troops, to the regiments and to the battalions. This can be clearly seen from the distribution list of this order. That is, as we say,"an internal affair of the division"; in any case much as I would like to, I can't remember that I saw t he order.
DR. SAUTER: The distribution list, your Honor, about which the witness is talking reads, I quote from the Document 864, Exhibit 454: "Distribution down to battalions, detachments, et cetera."
Q. Witness, did you know whether , by reason of these special instructions, No, 6 and No. 9, of the 1st Mountain Division in the Ic sphere, shooting of hostages was actually carried out by the 1st Mountain Division, leaving aside whether you know the order or not?
A. No, I will be more precise. I know nothing at all about any shootings of hostages. It was never reported to me that the Division had carried out shootings of hostages, but I know from the documents -- just a minute; I must find the date -- that on the 29th of September 1943 that is, at the time when I was already there -- the Division -- that is, the 3rd Battalion of the 99th Regiment near Paravisia -- shot 50 Greeks; but, at any rater, this incident is set down in the War Crimes Documents of the Greeks, "50 Greeks shot as reprisal for a surprise attack on a German reconnaisance troop," a fact which wasn't reported to me but which the battalion had reported to the Division and there it remained; but it wasn't passed on to me.
They certainly had a good reason for not doing this.
DR. SAUTER: With regard to this subject, your Honors, I would like to submit a few documents which refer to this. These are contained in Lanz Document Book No. III and the first document is Lanz No. 60 on page 3 of Document Book III, and I give this the Exhibit No. 12, Lanz No. 12. This is an affidavit by Wolf Christian von Loeben living in Bremen.
The affiant states on page 3 that, first of all, he was Ia of the 22nd Mountain Corps during the time between the 24th of August 1943 and the 25th of June 1944; that is, he was Ia with General Lanz; and then I quote:
"I do not know anything about the orders of the 1st Mountain Division Ic, No. 612/43 or 13 September 1943 and No. 751/43, Secret, of 25 October 1943. I also do not know anything about the regulations contained therein concerning the proportion of hostages of 1 to 50 or 1 to 10. I also do not know by whom and when the 1st Mountain Division received these regulations.
Further, I do not know if such an order was received by the Corps' Headquarters of the 22nd Mountain Army and was then passed on the Division. I also do not know whether General Lanz himself was informed of this order,either by presentation of the written order or by word of mouth.
Finally , I also do not know whether the above mentioned orders were carried out by the troops. I also do not know whether the indigenous population was drafted for Air Defense of fixed installations. I also do not know if hostage orders were ever given by General Lanz."
The affidavit is duly signed by the affiant and certified by a notary.
Your Honors, it has just been pointed out to me that by a mistake on the part of the notary the signature of the affiant in his own handwriting is not given. The signature is only written with a typewriter.
I would like to ask that for the moment this document be temporarily accepted in evidence and I will try to get the handwritten signature for this document as soon as possible. As I said, it is a mistake on the part of the notary.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, you are withdrawing the offer of this particular exhibit.
DR. SAUTER: Perhaps it would be more expedient if at the moment this document is admitted as Exhibit No. 12 until I can get the proper signature. I think perhaps that would be more expedient.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Up to the present time, Doctor, there has been no objection and there is no occasion for any delay then, so you may proceed and the Court will receive it.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, your Honor. Now, as the next document I submit an affidavit. This is the next one in Lanz Document Book No. III, Document No. 62. This becomes Exhibit No. 13. This is to be found on page 5 of Document Book III for Lanz. This is an affidavit by Gebhard von Lenthe who also belonged to the staff of General Lanz, and who has also given affidavits which have been submitted about other subjects. This affidavit concerns, as it states, the orders of the 1st Mountain Division dated 13 September 1943 and 25th of October 1943, "Special Regulations concerning Ic Duties," and the affiant states the following with regard to this:
"I did not know of these orders up to the present time. They were obviously internal regulations of the 1st Mountain Division which were at that time not presented to the Corps Headquarters. I am interested to see Order 9 of 25 October 1943 as in this I have, for the first time, come face to face with the regulation that 50 Greeks must be shot for one German.
"Up to that time, though we had heard in the staff Lanz that such an order existed, we had never actually seen it.
That this order must have been issued at an earlier date ---- even before the Corps existed -is proven by the first paragraph of the Order No. 9 which says that the execution order his to be suggested by the Military Commander of Greece. It is, therefore, clear that a previously given order had been taken up and worked on again.
"General Lanz would never have issued such a regulation. He objected to retaliation measures and the shooting of hostages. I actually do not know of a single case in which shooting of hostages was proposed or carried out by the Corps Headquarters following such a regulation of the 1st Mountain Division or of such an order being given by General Lanz."
This affidavit is also duly sworn to by the affiant Gebhardt von Lenthe and certified by a notary.
As Lanz Exhibit No. 14 I offer to the Tribunal an affidavit by Friedrich Erdmann, German national living in Duesseldorf, and , as he states, he was ADC with the 22nd Mountain Army in the time between 1 September 1943 and the end of the war.
He states and I quote on page 7 of Lanz's Document Book No. III:
"The following orders, copies of which have been presented to me, Special regulations on Ic matters No. 6 and Special regulations on Ic matters No. 9, are not known to me.
"The regulations contained therein, especially those concerning the proportion of hostages of 1:50 or 1:10 are not known to me.
"I do not know who has issued these regulations nor do I know from whom and when the 1st Mountain Division may have received them.
"I do not know of such an order having been received by the Corps headquarters of the 22 Mountain Army and having been passed on to the divisions.
"I do not know of General Lanz having been informed of such an order either in writing or by word of mouth.
"I do not know of a single case in which the troop made any suggestion concerning 1a) of the order of 25 October 1943 to the Military Commander of Greece or shootings based on these orders, especially in sub-paragraphs 1b) and e) of the order of 25 October 1943 and sub-paragraph 10 of the order of 13 September 1943 having been carried out."
I would ask that judicial notice be taken of paragraph g) without reading it. The affidavit is duly sworn to and certified. As the last document in this connection I offer Exhibit No. 15, This is the next document, a short document, on page 9 of Lanz Document Book No. III. This is Document No. 63, Lanz Exhibit No. 15. This is an affidavit by Dr. Karl-Heinz Rothfuchs living in Frankfurt/Main. He states that he was Ic with the 1st Mountain Division from June, 1942, until the end of the War, and his testimony concerns those two special regulations. He states:
"The Special Regulations No. 6, 7 and 9 of the 1st Mountain Division are internal orders of the Division which were issued only for the area of the Division. They were distributed only to troops and offices underthe command of the Division (see distribution list on Special Regulations No. 9). The Corps-Headquarters was not issued with a copy.
Quotas of hostages stated in the Special Regulations No. 6 and 9 may he part of the orders of Army Group E with which the division has probably been issued at a time when it was still under direct orders of the Army Group E and before Corps-Headquarters XXII Mountain Army was set up. I do not know of any case in which any of the hostages who were taken along in meter vehicles came to bodily harm.
signed: Dr. Karl Heinz Rothfuchs.)
and the signature is duly certified, and the affidavit is duly sworn to. These affidavits, Your Honor, have mostly only negotive importance and, therefore, we only submitted them because they are done by the closest collaborators of General Lanz, and because these Special Regulations in our opinion could not have escaped the notice of these affiants if they had actually come to the staff of General Lanz.
Q. Witness, the last affiant mentioned that hostages were taken along in lorries or supposed to have been taken along in lorries as a protection against terror actions. Did you know anything about that, about the fact that the 1st Mountain Division set this down in an order dated the 5th of October, 1943. This is the order in Document Book 19 of the Prosecution German page 144, English page 129. It is document NOKW-909, Exhibit No. 454. Did you know about that?
A. I know about the order as such from the documents. Whether actually the Division knew about it at that time I don't know. I can't say for certain, but in any case, I don't know of any case or I don't remember any case in which hostages lost their lives in an army lorry. I didn't hear anything about that, at any rate.
Q. Witness, speaking purely hypothetically, of course if you at that time had heard about this regulation, would you have done anything about objecting to these regulation, or would you have thought that it was justified and admissible?
A. Well, this is another one of these famous hypotheses. I can't answer with absolute certainty. I can only say in any case I would have certainly convinced myself how this protection was carried out with the hostages.
I think that similar measures are usual in other armies, too. For instance, I remember a similar measure in an American regulation, and I also know that in Greece during the guerilla fighting, as it is called today i.e, the band fighting, similar regulations were valid and carried out by the Greek commander in chief. That I found out from the press. Such a measure must be judged according to the way in which it is carried out and according to the military necessity for it. That, in my opinion, is the criterion for such a measure.
Well, then, to come back to your question, if at that time I had learned about it, then I probably would have found out how it was carried out, More I cannot say.
Q. Well, if I understand you correctly, General, then you want to say that in itself the German military view is that these measures in themselves are not inadmissible, are not contrary to international law?
A. No, in my opinion.
Q. Witness, an order has been submitted by the Prosecution here dated 3 October 1943. This is an order shortly after your arrival in Epirus. It is contained in Document Book 19 of the Prosecution, page 137 of the German and page 118 of the English -- Document Book 19, English page 118. It is NOKW-909, Exhibit No. 454. Witness, as far as I have been able to find out up till now from all the Prosecution documents which have been submitted, this is the only hostage order which you issued. Did you issue this order? Have you got the order there, or can you remember it?
A. I can remember it, Yes, I issued the order. That is correct.
Q. Why did you issue this order?
A. At that time in the Arta district which is concerned -- this locality is on the map -- continued acts of sabotage were taking place on the telephone cables. These were the telephone cables which ran from our Corps to the 104th Division in Agrinion. Therefore, from a tactical and operational point of view they were very important for us, and we hadn't been able to do anything up till then in order to stop these acts of sabotage.
Thereupon I ordered the arrest of forty hostages. Thereupon the acts of sabotage stopped.
Q. And then what happened to the hostages?
A. The hostages were released.
Q. Therefore, none of then were shot?
A. No, I did not know anything about it.
Q. And on this occasion I would like to ask you a general question. What was your general attitude towards hostage orders or the seizing of hostages?
A. In general I was rather skeptical with regard to these hostage matters, if not to say negative. During the Eisner Republic in Munich so-and-so many hostages had been shot, and because of this I had a negative attitude towards the shooting of hostages. Therefore, if possible, I avoided them.
Q. Nevertheless, witness, why did you in spite of this in this one case, which fortunately had no results, make an exception? This is a completely isolated exception.
A. Because unfortunately there are principles in life which one sometimes breaks. I don't know Dr. Sauter. I can't tell you and I can't think so much about how or why I acted in such a way in such a situation four years ago.
DR. SAUTER: Well, your Honor, with regard to this problem I would like to offer three affidavits. The first one is contained in -
THE PRESIDENT: Before you start on the introduction of these documents, I think we will take our afternoon recess, Dr. Sauter.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SAUTER: May it please the Tribunal, as to the problem of this one order concerning hostages, issued by General Lanz, I would like to offer three affidavits in order to prove that no one from among these hostages was shot or hanged.
The first affidavit is contained in Document Book Lanz No. IV. It is document 112, in other words, the first document in that volume, on page 1, and I offer it as Lanz Exhibit 16. The affiant, Konrad Beteranderl, who was born in Bavaria in 1918 had the position -
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me, Dr. Sauter, the members of the Tribunal did not get the document to which you are now giving reference. Will you be kind enough to repeat it?
DR. SAUTER: Certainly, Your Honor. It is contained in Document Book IV. The number of the document is 112 on page 1 and it is offered as Lanz Exhibit No. 16. It is an affidavit by Konrad Peteranderl who was born in Bad Aibling, Bavaria. He states that his position was Private First Class (Oberjager) with the Arta Garrison from about 10 September 1943 until about 25 October 1943. Us affidavit deals with the order to take hostages of 3 October 1943, in other words, concerning a period of time when the affiant was present down there.
I quote: "Of the hostages who were arrested by order of the Commanding General of the XXII Mountain Army Corps, dated 3 October, 1943, by Major Seidl, Commanding Officer of the Reconnaissance Battalion 54, and who were handed in to Arta local garrison headquarters, none were executed by shooting on the order of Major Seidl. The arrested hostages were released." This affidavit has been duly sworn to and properly certified by the Buergermeister.
Another affidavit in this context is contained in Document Book Lanz No. III. It is Document No. 64 on page 10; repeating: Document No. 64 on page 10, and it is offered as Lanz Exhibit No. 17. It is given by one Matthias Starl of Lindau-Aeschach. The witness says that his position was that of a Captain and First ADC with the 22nd Mountain Army Corps between 3 September 1943 and 14 November 1943.