Q Just one moment, General Lanz. I will come back to that later. Before we do that, I would like to ask the Tribunal to accept one document which also deals with the Salminger instance and with Akmotopos. That is an affidavit of Captain Eisl whom defendant Lanz has repeatedly mentioned. He was the man who carried out the mopping-up-operation at that time. The affidavit is contained in Document Book IV for Lanz; it is Document 126 which will be given Exhibit No. Lanz 56. It is an affidavit of the then Captain Alois Eisl which has been duly sworn to and properly certified; because this document is so very important, I beg to be allowed to read it in full. It is contained in Document Book IV for Lanz on page 33, Document 126, affidavit by Alois Eisl, Document 126, page 33, Exhibit 56. In consideration of the special importance of this affidavit, I beg to be allowed to read it in full; it is about a page-and-a-half. The witness first states that he served under Lanz in his corps as Battalion Commander during the period between June 1943 until October 1944. That covers the time which was concerned in the action against Akmotopos. I am now reading from page 33 and I quote:
"On 1 October 1943, at 7 a.m. I was driving, by order of the 1st Mountain Div., with a convoy of 7 trucks and about 50 men, put together at Joannina, from the road block Joannina, Southern exit, in the direction of Prevesa. At about 3 km from the village of Klisura the road was, in a narrow curve that was difficult to survey, suddenly blocked by telephone wires pulled across the road, by stones piled up and sawn off poles. Furthermore, the road had also been made impassible by poles laid down in the same direction. A smashed in truck was lying about 30 meters away from the block, showing bullet marks on the fore-front. A renewed attack was likely, since armed men were clearly perceptible in the hills. Security patrols were sent out at once and the place of the raid was searched as to survivors and killed German soldiers. Close to the car we found the driver, in a distance of about 60 meters, Lt. Col. Salminger, Commander of the Mountain Inf. Reg. 96, both killed. Both bodies were taken to Prevesa. There I received, towards noon of 1 October 1943, the order from the division by radio to return at once to Klisura, in order to rid the hilly country to the East of Klisura of the enemy with additional forces (1st and 2nd comp.
of the Mount. Inf. Reg. No. 98 and 1 howitzer platoon of the 6th battery of the Mount. Art. Reg. No. 79) The enemy (here it was a strong Communist band) mostly harmlessly working in the fields as civilians, immediately took up the hidden arms, whenever a suitable opportunity was offered to them.
The road was usable only for several vehicles and for convoys in view of the continuous raiding. Special re-enforcements were sent into action in order to repair the disrupted communications by wire.
Towards the evening of 1 October 1943, the troops arrived near Klisura. On 2 October 1943 at 5 in the morning the combat group began the ascent in the direction of Jumnopolos-Akmotopos. The troops were fired at from the mountain tops, which was meant to stop the advance. The opposition was fought and the advance towards Akmotopos continued. When reaching this mountain village, the combat group met with sudden machine gun and rifle fire from 3 sides i.e., the mountain ranges surrounding the settlement closely, and most dangerous were the 2 enemy machine-guns firing out of the village, as they were hardly perceptible. Both the companies attacked with the assistance of their heavy grenade throwers under the direct fire of the howitzer platoon. Through the effect of the fire of these arms the village had been set on fire. The companies stormed the village and killed in the adjoining fight the baud members who were there defending themselves. Among them there were also civilians who had fought together with the bands. The majority of the inhabitants had fled to the mountains lying to the East. The village was destroyed as a strong point of the bands, in as far as it had not been burnt down during the fighting.
The following day mopping-up operations continued against various villages and ended in the evening of the 3 October 1943. The inhabitants reported as killed were members of the bands who had taken active part in the fighting with arms, or, who had been killed by the effect particularly of our heavy arms, when staying in the combat area."
The affiant who, at present, is thirty-five years of age and living in Miesbach has sworn his statement in due course.
Witness, just before you started to tell the Tribunal that at that time you yourself issued an order which was concerned with the incident Salminger, what were you talking about?
A On the day when I learned of Lt. Col. Salminger's murder, under the impression of this news which impressed me deeply, I issued a Corps order of the day which in its main features was an epilogue to the deceased Commander of the regiment.
Q This Corps order of the day which you mentioned just now--is that identical with the document submitted by the prosecution NOKW-867contained in Document Book 19 of the prosecution on page 128 of the German and page 104 of the English. I repeat--NOKW-867, Exhibit 452, Document Book 19, page 104 of the English text.
A Yes, that is the order.
Q This is a Corps order of the day--that is an order of the day which the Commander of an army Corps has issued. Can you tell the Tribunal whether that is an ordinary order and what is usually understood by an order or why this announcement of yours is called a Corps order of the day? Is it really an order which causes the troops to take certain action?
A I would like to put it this way. It is not a tactical order. The commitment of the troops, as is known, was regulated by so-called tactical orders. Aside from the tactical order, there is an order of the day and aside from the order of the day there is a staff order. Those are the three kinds of orders which are provided in the German service regulation. An order of the day as is the one concerned here, is issued on special occasions. These occasions can be of various kinds. They can be festive occasions or sad occasions. E.G. in order to praise certain soldiers, decorate them or celebrate an anniversary, present decorations or announce decorations.
To announce a congratulation or, as is the case here, in order to issue an epilogue for a killed comrade. In this sense of the word, it is not an order; it is an announcement in order to put it more generally.
Q You told us before that you wanted to honor the killed Regimental Commander in this order of the day and in a manner which is customary amongst soldiers you wanted to praise his name?
A That is right, that was my intention.
Q Did you yourself issue that Corps order? And sign it in your own handwriting?
A Yes, I signed it in my own handwriting.
Q Will you please take up now this Corps order of the day and explain to us why you added the concluding sentence to the epilogue contained in this order of the day?
A I added the last sentence because I thought it was necessary to do this at the time and even today I am of the same opinion in this respect. I am of the opinion that these attacks against the troops as described before should once and for all cease. A counter-measure had to be taken to finish these continuous attacks by the bands. I believed that I owed it to my men in this moment to announce a counter-measure that was to be taken against those bands. I could not in silence pass over these incidents. That was not possible. After all, that had not been the first incident. Several incidents had preceded this one. Something had to be done eventually.
Q General Lanz, it might be expedient-
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: At this time, Dr. Sauter, I think we will conclude the afternoon session and resume at nine-thirty in the morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned to 21 November 1947 at 0930 hours.)
6484a Official Transcript of Military Tribunal V, Case VII, in the matter of the United States of America against Wilhelm List et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 21 November 1947, 0930, Judge Burke Presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please take their seats.
The Honorable, he Judges of Military Tribunal V. Military Tribunal V is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you will ascertain as to whether or not all defendants are present in the Court room.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in the Courtroom with the exception of General von Weichs, who is in the hospital.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Sauter.
KARL HUBERT LANZ DIRECT EXAMINATION (continued) BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Witness, yesterday towards the end of the session we stopped when we were discussing the case Akmotopos. This is the the incident when after the murder of Regimental Commander Salminger, a mopping up operation had taken place and in the village of Akmotopos had been destroyed. Allegedly all inhabitants of this place had been killed. Yesterday you told us that that had been an independent order issued by the Commander of the 1st Mountain Division to whom the Regiment Salminger had been subordinate. Furthermore, you told us yesterday that you had issued a so-called corps order of the day in order to hold an epilogue for the deceased. I would now like to go on from here and ask you, witness, how did the Regiment of Lt. Col. Salminget take the murder of its commander?
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me just a minute, Dr. Sauter. Reference to this Order that was given by General Lanz, -- at least I didn't and I believe the other of the judges didn't get the particular reference to the Corps order you had in mind.
Will you kindly give us this Corps order you have been referring to so we may have knowledge of it and a record of it?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, I can give you the reference immediately.
May it please the Tribunal, this Corps order of the day of the defendant Lanz can be found in Document Book of the Prosecution, No. 19. This is exhibit, -- I beg your pardon, Document NOKW 867, which was given the exhibit number 453. The page in Document Book 19 is in the English version page 104 and page 128 of the German text. The Corps Order of the day is dated 1 October 1943, and is headed "Corps Order of the Day," and signed by General Lanz personally.
THE PRESIDENT: The reason I am making the inquiry, Dr. Sauter, is that we couldn't find it yesterday, and you gave us the exhibit number 454, -- at least we got the Exhibit number 454, so this clears it up, and thank you very much.
DR. SAUTER: I beg your pardon. That was a slip of the tongue.
Q Witness, I asked you just now a question which I would like you to answer, -- how did the Regiment take the murder of its Commander at that time? What effect on your own attitude did the news about the murder create in you?
A Lt. Col. Salminger had been a particular brave man, above all in Russia he had through his bravery and through his actions gained the highest esteem of the whole division. Not only was he an extraordinarily brave soldier, but he was also an unusually good superior. He showed any amount of feeling for the men under him in his regiment. He took great care of his soldiers, and I would particularly like to stress that he also took care of the relatives of those soldiers who had been killed. Therefore, he was quite rightly greatly esteemed and very popular. I might at this point say, out of my own, that I would like to show in this way my esteem and love of this comrade of mine. It was very tragic that this great man and soldier should die in this horrible manner. His Regiment was very excited and very shocked because of this incident, and that can be well understood.
The danger existed also that the indignation of the soldiers would find a let-out, which was not desirable. Therefore, it was necessary to deal with this matter in some way, so that it would not just rest within itself.
Q General, in this Corps order which you issued you talked of reprisal action; what purpose did you pursue with this notice that you put into your order?
A I would like to admit here that I wrote this order under the impression of the events, that after all I am only a human being. I was excited and disgusted about what had happened, and that we had lost such an extraordinarily good man. The words which today might be found very harsh words were at the time written by me. After all one can only understand such facts if one considers the circumstances under which they took place. I talked about a revenge, because I was indignant about what had repeatedly happened, about the terrible attacks, about the killing of my soldiers along this highway, and because matters could not go on like this. It had to stop sometime. Some time one's patience was bound to give way. I wanted to hit those elements whose fault these surprise attacks wore, and I wanted to eliminate them once and for all. That was the idea of the order.
Q Witness, what strikes me is that is this so-called corps order of the day in the concluding sentence of it you mentioned just now you did not use the expression "I order," as one would ordinarily expect that in orders of a Commander, Instead you said, and I quote laterally "I expect." Is there a certain reason for deviating from the usual expression "I order," and instead using "I expect."?
A Dr. Sauter I again have to confess here that at the time I did not formulate the order with such precision, as it is expected here in this court. Those were entirely different circumstances. I gave the order in accordance with the situation which I faced. I wrote at the time "I expect," instead of "I order." This is merely an order of the day. It is not a tactical order. As I said yesterday, in a tactical order one would write "I order." In an order of the day, which in this particular case is an epilogue for a killed comrade, this is only one sentence of many sentences. It is only a small part of the order, and I used the expression "I expect." If an order of the day is concerned one uses other language than one uses in a tactical order. In a tactical order one tails soberly, factually. In an order of the day, and in an epilogue one uses a completely different language, a more flowery language probably. That is the same in civilian life. If one publishes an obituary notice for someone one uses expressions which might not in detail stand up under criticism before a Court.
Q General Lanz, but possibly you can give us an explanation although you say that your expressions in the order were more or less rhetorical. They were not sober an factual. In this corps order of the day you say where you talk about the idea of a revenge action, about a local revenge action; can you recall the text from your own memory?
A You can be convinced, Dr. Sauter, that I know this order only too well in the meantime.
Q General, I would like you to tell the Court why, in your corps order of the day in the epilogue for Salminger, you made this local limitation of the revenge action, while on the other hand you considered such a revenge action a matter of course where the corps were concerned?
A I made this local limitation because to the best of my recollection today I assumed, and I think justifiably assumed, that the band groups which were guilty of those attacks would stay in the vicinity, and a little further from the road where the attack had occurred. That could be assumed. It was logical. These people were somewhere in a hidout in the mountains where they felt secure, and from these hideouts they could at the right moment carry out their surprise attacks. This is quite clear if one considers the conditions of the bands. This is one reason why I made the local limitation, and the other was that I didn't want it to happen somewhere far away in the country there would take place a reprisal action for Lt. Col. Salminger, in a district which was not connected with the incident. I wanted to avoid that.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, in this connection I would like to offer two affidavits, both of them are concerned with incident Akmotopos, the Incident concerning Lt. Col. Salminger. The first one of those documents which I am going to submit now is in Document Book III for Lanz. It is document No. 70, and page number 22. Document Book III Lanz, Document 70, page 22. I shall offer this document under exhibit number 57. This document is in affidavit by Wolf Christian von Loeben of Bremen. I may anticipate that this is the same witness from whom I have read an affidavit yesterday which was Document 60, which I had offered as Exhibit 12 in Document Book Lanz III, page 3. I repeat, Document Book Lanz III, page 3, Document 60, Exhibit 12. This was the document where the Prosecution objected because the document was not duly signed by Loeben. The same will apply to the document which I have just offered as an exhibit. I have now made inquiry with a competent authority and I have established that the manner of the certification which has been used by the same Notary in both documents is in order. In Prussia the Notary may, in the certification of such affidavits, use the manner as has been used in the document put to you just now, that is that the Notary by virtue of his office as an official certifies that the affiant has appeared before him, that the document has been read to him and that the affiant has duly signed the document.
The Notary has chosen this form according to these Prussian regulations, and as was used considerably in Prussia. He gave the affiant, Wolf Christian von Loeben a copy, where the Notary certified the copy and original were identical. I don't therefore believe, Your Honors, that those two documents which I have just mentioned, namely Document 60 and Document 70, in Document Book III, could be objected to. I would be obliged if the Prosecution would make a statement to the effect whether or not after my explanation, he agrees to the presentation of those two documents.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I made no objection to the proceeding document to which Dr. Sauter referred, and I of course have no objection to this one.
DR. SAUTER: This eliminates this formal difficulty, and I may road the document which I have offered as Exhibit, Document Book III, and it is Lanz Document 70, page 22. It is an affidavit by Wolf Christian von Loeben in Bremen, who states in the initial sentences of the document that during the war he was Ia with the 22d Mountain Corps during the period August 24, 1943 until June 25, 1944, and served under General Lanz, who is today a defendant before this Court. In his brief affidavit the affiant von Loeben states the following:
Late in the afternoon of the 1 October 1943, the day on which Lieutenant Colonel SALMINGER had been attacked during the early morning hours, I was returning from Saloniki to Jannine. Already in the course of my drive home I learned of the attack on and the death of Lieutenant Colonel SALMINGER. On my arrival in Jannine I heard further particulars of the attack. General LANZ, to whom I reported back, expressed to me his indignation at this outrageous assassination of an officer of great merit and highly esteemed by him. In this connection he further told me that on this occasion he had issued an order of the day in which he had first expressed his regret evoked by such act of crime. As he further told me, the order of the day had the purpose to get at the offenders whom he assumed to be in the vicinity. The opinion that only the persons guilty of this attack and not somebody absolutely not concerned should be affected by the atonement, was completely in consistency with the whole inner attitude of General LANZ which I had come to know during my period of work, with the staff. That the foregoing statement is true, I hereby declare under oath.
The affidavit has been duly signed and certified by a notary.
In connection with this incident, I offer as a further exhibit the next document in the same document book III, which is document 71 on page 42 and I shall offer it under exhibit 58, Lanz No. 58. The affidavit was sworn by Fritz Doeppenschmitt, who has executed one other affidavit which I have submitted in another connection. The affiant is 54 years of ago and states here that during the war he was a clerical officer under General Lanz in the period from August, 1943 until August, 1944. Concerning the Corps order of the day of 1 October 1943, the witness Doeppenschmitt says the following, and I read from page 24:
In my capacity as clerical officer of General Lanz I was often together with him the whole day. General LANZ frequently without restraint discussed events occurring within the corps area with me. Thus I also recall the circumstances connected with the slaying of Lieutenant Colonel SALMINGER in the night between 30 September and 1 October 1943 by partisans as follows:
As the attack on Lieutenant Colonel SALMINGER and the slaying of him by the partisans were reported to General LANZ in his quarters in the morning of 1 October 1943, he was deeply shocked and in great excitement because of the line of action taken by the partisans. Lieutenant Colonel SALMINGER was an officer of outstanding merit, very highly esteemed by General LANZ because of his excellent achievements at the front in Russian and also very popular and highly respected by the men of his regiment because of his extraordinary welfare measures. In the course of the morning General LANZ talked to me about this incident, remarking that he was going to honor this excellent officer through an order of the day, and that he hoped the 1st Mountain Division would finally succeed in disarming the partisans responsible for the attack, who had shortly before shot to death maliciously also another officer Captain STITZINGER.
He was inclined to assume, General LANZ said, as far as I can still recall, that these guerillas were hiding somewhere in the mountainous region in the vicinity of the place of the attack.
Everybody knowing General LANZ realized fully that the retaliatory action envisaged in the corps order of the day was directed against those having executed the attack and not against any other irrelevant persons. This basic attitude of General LANZ not to impose punishment on anyone innocent was known not only to us, the people of his staff, but also among the soldiers in general.
The witness has duly sworn to his statement and I, as defense counsel, have duly certified the statements since the witness has been available to me personally.
Witness, I still have a few more questions concerning the incident Akmotopos. You issued the Corps order of the day, which you regarded as an epilogue for the Corps officer Salminger. As a result of this Corps order of the day, did the 1st Mountain Division do anything or take any action and if so, what kind of action?
A This Corps order of the day was sent to the 1st Mountain Division during the course of the afternoon, and as can be seen from the copy which is amongst the documents the order of the day was received there around 1900 hours in the evening. The receipt notice is on the copy which we have among the documents.
Q Possibly you would read to us the passage, which gives the receipt stamp, since this seems particularly important to me.
A I believe it is contained in all copies. It says here, "Handwritten 1-A," which is the one of the 1st Mountain Division, 1 October, 1900 hours, initials which means the initials of the 1-A. Below that it says, "Commander," who was at that time General von Stettner and then 1-A and Kr., and two other initials.
Q I see.
A When the order arrived at the division, the division as I stated yesterday, had already issued its own orders for the very easily comprehensible reason because the division had been informed of the incident Salminger before I had been informed of it. The division had ordered tho Captain Eisel with two companies and some artillery was to mop up the terrain where the band members were supposed by the division to be staying, because after all this concerned the divisional area. The two companies were to mop up this district. That was what the division had ordered in the meantime.
Q Witness, did the division -- the 1st Mountain Division -- inform you, General Lanz, about the measures which had been taken by the 1st Mountain Division, by that I mean those measures which you have described just now as being taken independantly long before your own corps order of the day had reached the division around 1900 hours; were you informed by the division about the measures?
A Yes, the division of course received my order and reported to me what measures they had taken.
Q On the basis of these reports by the 1st Mountain Division, did you assume that the purpose had been achieved, which you, General Lanz, in your Corps order of the day had indicated? I mean the purpose to eliminate the guilty band members and to avoid the recurrence of such attacks?
AAt least I did not interfere with the measures taken by the division, as I thought they were sufficient and adequate and I also thought they were alright from the tactical point of view.
Q Witness, when the ports about the action carried out by the 1st Mountain Division reached you, did you, as a result, order anything or did you not see any cause to take any measures?
A I no longer am in a position today to state with certainty in which manner the execution of the operation was reported to me. I no longer know whether the reports were submitted to me or whether my chief of staffer my 1-A, as was customary and usual, orally reported to me. As I say, I am no longer in a position to tell you that. I do recall however, since this incident of course touched me deeply, that I got in touch with the 1st Mountain Division and ordered to be informed by them about this carrying out of the measure. I also recall that at that time it struck me that the reports talked about the shooting of inhabitants, which after all was something unusual. Therefore, I contacted the division, I believe it was General von Stettner and I asked for information.
Q Did you then examine the facts as they were reported to you, or did you ask for an investigation; if so what were the results of such an investigation.
A That is another thing which unfortunately today I cannot answer with any certainty. I do not know any longer in which manner this investigation was carried out. I know, however, that i concerned myself with the matter. I also know that it was reported to me that the inhabitants, who had been reported shot, participated in the band fighting and were shot in the course of this fighting, killed or shot in action.
Q On the occasion of that report, was anything mentioned whether or not the village Akmotopos, which was destroyed during the mopping up action, had been evacuated prior to that by the civilian population or was anything mentioned about the circumstances?
A With the best will in the world, I am no longer in a position to tell you that today. I am only in a position to take these facts from the documents as they were read yesterday. Besides, Dr. Sauter, I have just stressed that it was a certain principle on the part of the bands that those parts of the population who did not in some shape or form participate in the fighting were evacuated from their locality before action took place. Those people just left and only those remained behind who in some shape or form participated in the band fighting.
A Can you recall whether the report, which was given to you when the matter was investigated, caused you to take any measures or did you maintain the point of view that according to the report everything was in order and that you did not have to take any measures?
A I remember that around that time, the beginning of October, 1943, I had on several occasions two or three discussions with General von Stettner. There were several incidents and facts, which did not suit me. During one of these discussions, I commented on this incident, which we are concerned with here. I gained the impression that the necessary strict fighting discipline, which had been demanded by me, was not available. If I remember correctly, it was for this reason that I told General von Stettner, in a serious manner, that in future counter-actions, if I should gain knowledge of similar ways of fighting, I would order a summary courts martial investigation.
Q May it please the Tribunal, in this context, I would like to offer an affidavit to the Tribunal. This is in document book 5, Lanz it is document 162 - 162 - on page 12 of document book 5. It is not possible for me to offer an affidavit of General von Stettner, because he was killed during the war. I instead am submitting a document of his adjutant as document 162.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me, Dr. Sauter, I do not believe that document book 5 has been furnished the Tribunal as yet.
DR. SAUTER: May it please the Tribunal, document book 5 has been translated into the English language. I have received a translation of document book 5, therefore, it must exist somewhere. I am prepared to give this one copy to the Tribunal and I can also have some more copies fetched from my office. Perhaps I could postpone the reading of this affidavit until my assistant has fetched the necessary copies and then I shall turn to reading this document. In the meantime, I could put a few other questions to General Lanz.
THE PRESIDENT: I believe that would be the better procedure, Dr. Sauter.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q I shall therefore for the moment postpone the reading of this document 162. General Lanz, I remind you that your last words were before that during this discussion, you told General Stettner, the commander of the 1st Mountain Division, that in future events when you read from the reports that any doubt could exist about the correctness of the action, you would have the incidents examined by a courts martial and take proper measures; that is what you said?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q I would be interested to know whether such cases occurred, during a subsequent period. Were you yourself in doubt whether the troop subordinate to you acted correctly and were you starting a courts martial procedure? If this was the case, can you give us an example?
A These facts were realized shortly later, shortly after the discussion a mopping up operation had been started in the area of Lingiatis. This was a place which was not too far distant from Jeannina, along the highway to the Mezovon Pass. In that area there was a band group, which had been known for some time, in the mountain group Mizikol. This band group, which was known to us, blocked the road there, attacking localities and attacking our security troops, which were posted along the road. The 1st Mountain Division started an operation of a local nature against the band groups. The band stayed in the place Lingiatis. On this occasion a number of band members and civilians were shot and the place Lingiatis, as was mentioned in the report, was burned down.
That was not, because soon after that I convinced myself that only a few houses were burned down. This incident was also repeated to me. I had a very strict investigation made of this incident. I remember that I went the police officer of my staff there immediately when I received the report and he interrogated the inhabitants of the village who had remained behind. I further remember that I ordered that the civilian authorities of Joannina then concerned themselves with the incident. To put it briefly, I tried hard to get at the bottom of the incident.
Q May it please the Tribunal, I would like to submit an affidavit in connection with this statement by General Lanz. This affidavit is quite brief and it is contained in document book 3, document book Lanz 3, this is document No. 80 on page 42. I shall offer it as exhibit 60 - exhibit Lanz 60. This is an affidavit of an officer, who participated in the operation just mentioned. This officer makes the following statement concerning the operation. I read from page 42 and I quote:
At the end of September or beginning of October 1943 I and my former company of the Mountain Jaeger Battalion 54 fought a group of partisans about 3 km east of Joannina, near the Mezovon-Pass.
I was consistently fired at from the village and as I an the largest part of my company could see by civilians and women. During the attack it turned out, that they were bandits in civilian clothing and were the entire male and female population of the village. After the village was taken, I found on the floor of a destroyed house the enclosed Greek photograph, which showed a woman and a girl each with a rifle and cartridge case. Without a map, I can no longer remember the name of the village. (If it is possible, I would like the enclosed photographs returned to me after they have been used.)
And the signature, Hanz Zoeberlein.
The affidavit has been duly certified and sworn to by the Mayer. A photostat of the photograph has been added to the document, which has been submitted to the Tribunal. These photostats were produced in the photostatic division of this Court.
I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that a report refers to this operation, which the defendant Lanz has mentioned here and is a document of the prosecution. This is document NOKW-909, offered by the prosecution under exhibit 454. This is contained in document book 19 of the prosecution on page 138 of the German version and page 116 of the English version. This is a report dated 4 October 1943.
Q Witness, you said that you had this incident investigated in order to make sure that the 1st Mountain Division acted correctly during this operation. Whom did you commission to carry out this investigation?
Can you tell us that?
A I said yesterday that at that time, unfortunately, U had not my own court martial. I only received my own court martial around the beginning of January 1944. Therefore, I had to ask the Army Group again to have a court martial detailed to me and asked that for the moment, in order to clarify and investigate this incident, I should be allocated the court martial of the Administrative Subarea Headquarters in Joannina. This Administrative Subarea Headquarters in Joannina was not subordinate to me. It was subordinate to the Military Commander for Greece. This application was granted by the Army Group.
I remember very well that I had the court-martial councillor -- I believe his name was Juergens -- called to me and very clearly commissioned him to investigate the matter immediately, to report to me orally so that I could reserve further action.
Q Witness, where the investigation of this case is concerned which you mentioned just now, did you have the Greek civilian authorities participate in the investigation.
A I mentioned that just now.
Q And what in detail did the authorities establish concerning the participation of the civilians in the fighting and, above all, of those civilians who were shot?
AAs usual in such incidents, the facts were that one side maintained the people did not participate in the fighting and other people maintained that they did participate. It was not, to the best of my recollection, possible to establish matters quite clearly.
Q Witness, this incident took place in the area of the 1st Mountain Division. The 1st Mountain Division had its own court. Why didn't you, as would have been the normal course, commission the court martial of the 1st Division to investigate and judge the incident?
A This question is very justified and undoubtedly that would have been the normal course to take. Normally, I ought to have commissioned the division to clarify the incident. I did not do that, however, and I didn't do it on purpose because I wanted to keep this incident in my own hands. That was the reason.
Q Can you briefly tell us what the result of the whole action was? What was the result of the court martial procedure?
A The affair took quite some time, was delayed and caused much trouble. The result eventually was, because I didn't give in, that the persons who were guilty were punished with prison sentences.
DR. SAUTER: May it please the Tribunal, I would now like to read the affidavit which was in Document Book V which in the meantime has been brought here. I shall after that read another document. In Document Book V for Lanz, I would like to read Document 162 on page 12 which was given exhibit No. 59 by me just before.
I had mentioned before, your Honors, that I could not get an affidavit of the Commander of the 1st Mountain Division because he was killed during the war, to the best of my knowledge. Therefore, we asked his adjutant of that time to give us information about the incident and this adjutant is the affiant, Heinz Groth. He is a Bavarian judicial official and he states that during the period in question he was adjutant of the 1st Mountain Division during the period from April 1943 to Autumn 1944. He says the following and I quote:
"During the first half of October 1943 the Commanding General of the 22nd Mountain Army Corps, General Lanz, had repeated conferences with the Commander of the 1st Mountain Division, Major General v. Stettner. Besides tactical questions of the partisan fighting, the occasion for those conferences was primarily objections to the combat discipline of the troops. General Lanz, who always attached importance to waging war in a correct and decent manner, had already pointed out certain abuses of combat ethics during his troop inspections in the preceding weeks.