In Joannina itself our relations with the population was an entirely favorable one. I cannot remember a single case where any major difficulties, let alone conflicts would have arisen.
Q. General Lanz, when in the autumn of 1944 you left the Epirus in accordance with orders and departed from Joannina, how did the farewell from the civilian population look, and what were the conclusions one might draw concerning relations between the Wehrmacht and the Greek people in Epirus?
A. Well, there again I can only give you a purely local impression. Before I departed from Joannina I held, I think on the 10th of October a special ceremony during which I handed over our soldiers' cemetery to the City of Joannina. On that occasion I gave a brief address, expressing my gratitude to the town and its authorities. The cemetery was then officially taken over by the Burgermeister. Many of the inhabitants had appeared voluntarily on their own initiative. Present were the Governor, a representative of the bishop who was ill, and the Burgermeister. All three of them gave official addresses to me in the presence of a great many civilians and soldiers. All three of them gave official addresses to me in the presence of a great many civilians and soldiers. All three of them unanimously expressed their gratitude with great emphasis for the support and assistance which I had granted them. The Burgermeister promised me that I would find Joannina always a hospitable place should I return. The representative of the bishop gave me his official blessings in public. So the impression arose that these three gentlemen expressed what was their inner-most convictions. That was quite the general impression. Shortly before I left Joannina all three of them called on me and bade me their official good-byes.
Q. General Lanz, is it correct that on the occasion of your departure from Joannina you ordered your troops and officers not to destroy anything of the food supplies and other properties, but rather leave everything for the civilian population inasmuch as the troops could do without these things? Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is quite right.
Q. General Lanz, did you, at a later time, hear from a reliable source-- I mean after you left Epirus, that the population even regreted that you left Joannina at that time?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honors please, I think Dr. Sauter can ask his questions in such a way that they don't demand a simple "yes" or "no " answer of the witness. They're obviously leading questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Sustained--also hear-say.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. In that connection I shall read a document which I would have preferred the defendant to explain, but which cannot be refused, even without the defendant's explanation. It is an affidavit in a entirely proper form by Dr. Hans Rahm. It is contained in Lanz Document Book V, and it is Document No. 159 on Page 6 of that document book. It is offered as Exhibit No. 129. I regard this as a particularly important affidavit because it comes from an officer who knew the situation as he went over to the Zervas troops when the German troops left Epirus, and he remained for some months in Episur. He is, therefore, in a position to report from his own observations how the population judged General Lanz. The affiant's name is Hans Rahm, who is 32 years of age. At the beginning of his affidavit he confirms that his position was that of a lieutenant and war reporter (Propaganda Company 690) in Joannina, the Headquarters of the XXIInd Mountain Army Command for the period of 13 October 1943 to 13 October 1944. The affiant says the following:
The attitude of General Lanz towards the population was in my view determined by following viewpoints:
1.) War is to be conducted against enemey fighting forces and not against the population.
2.) The population is to be permitted to carry on its daily life and economy undisturbed.
General Lanz always tried for humanitarian reasons to help the population, as far as conditions and the care for his own troops permitted it. As to General Zervas, General Lanz was anxious to avoid hostilities. The Zervas Army was attacked only after it had itself attacked German units withdrawing from Southern Greece over Arta-Jeannina.
Therefore, General Lanz favored the Zervas units in their struggle with the Elas (communist units).
I lived freely in Joannina after the evacuation of the Epirus by German troops from 14 October until 22 December 1944 and experienced the retreat from the Epirus of the Zervas troops pursued by the Elas-forces, who were supported by Albanians and Bulgars. I never heard that General Lanz was attacked by Greeks personally or in their press, or that he should have been accused and made responsible for any incident during the German occupation.
The affiant has sworn to the statement, and it is duly certified.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I move now, somewhat belatedly I admit, that the reading of a letter purportedly to come from a Mr. Bickel in reply to General Lanz, that that part of the reading of his testimony be stricken. It is an unsworn statement, and we have no opportunity to cross-examine the witness. We have no testimony that Mr. Bickel made the handwritting, or that it is, in fact, a letter from Mr. Bickel.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled. It's a little tardily made.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. If the Tribunal please, concerning the treatment accorded to the civilian population and authorities by General Lanz, we have submitted a number of affidavits. They amount to a fair number, but I shall not read the individual documents. They more or less are all of the same tendency. One describes this detail, and the other describes that one, But in this totality they prove that what Witness Lanz has said on the witnessstand has been correct. I shall furnish the relevant exhibit numbers. I would ask the Court to take judicial notice of the, even if I do not read them in detail now. , There is first in Lanz Document Book III an affidavit, No. 100, on Page 69, which will become Exhibit No. 130.
It has been given by the Administrative Officer of the XXIInd Mountain Corps, an officer who served from September, 1943 until the end of the war under General Lanz.
The next document is contained in the same document book, Lanz Document Book III. This is Document No. 101, and it will become Exhibit No, 131, on Page 72.
THE PRESIDENT: What pages numbers are you giving, the English pages numbers?
DR. SAUTER: They are the English and the German, Your Honor. They are identical.
This was Document No. 101, and it becomes Exhibit No. 131. The affiant in this case is called Doeppenschmitt, who has furnished other affidavits as well.
Then, we have Document No. 102, the following one, on Page 76, which will become Exhibit No. 132. It is given by affiant Max Prollius, who was the adjutant of the Corps and the personnel officer with the staff of General Lanz.
Then, we come to Document No. 105, on Page 86, which will become Exhibit No. 133. The affiant is Dr. Schleinzer, who, from the summer of 1943 until the end of the war, served in Joannina and Croatia as a surgeon of the reserve in a field hospitals He describes his experiences in that area.
The next document, which is contained in the same document book, is Document No. 106, on Page 89, which will become Exhibit No. 134. The affiant is Dr. Grassmann, also a doctor in that area. He was serving in a number of hospitals between June, 1943 and April. 1945. He spent those two years in Joannina.
The next document is Document No. 107, on Page 91, which will become Exhibit No. 135. The affiant is again a medical officer, Dr. Eugen Lichti. He was serving in Joannina in 1944 as an Oberstarzt (Colonel of the Medical Corps).
The next but one document in this volume is Document No. 108, on Page 96, which will become Exhibit No. 137. It, again, was given by a doctor, Dr. Sigmund Beck, who was a chief medical officer and surgeon in in Field Hospital 54.
The next document is Document No. 110, in the same volume, on Page 99, which will become Exhibit No. 138. The affiant in this case is Karl Wilhelm Thilo, again a medical man who was down there in the autumn of 1943.
The next document will be Document No. 108, in the same document book, on Page 93, and this is offered as Exhibit No. 136. The affiant here is called Theodor Spanke.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, please--some of us seem to have given the wrong exhibit number to certain of your exhibits. Your last exhibit that you referred to was given as Exhibit No. 136. Is that correct? Is that they way you wish to state it?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, No. 136.
THE PRESIDENT: Had you previously omitted giving No. 136?
DR. SAUTER: No, Your Honor. Should I start once again, lest there be a mistake, with Document No. 107, on Page 91?
THE PRESIDENT: Start with No. 135, and then we'll see where we are.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, certainly.
Exhibit No. 135 is Document No. 107 in Volume III, on Page 91. This is Exhibit No. 135. That brings us to Exhibit 136, which was given to Document No. 108, in Volume III, on Page 93. Exhibit 137 was given to Document No. 108, in Volume III, on Page 96. Exhibit No. 138 will become Document No. 110, on Page 99 of Volume III. That is Exhibit 138.
THE PRESIDENT: That checks out all right now.
DR. SAUTER: And that brings us to Document No. 111, on Page 100 of Volume III, which will become Exhibit No. 139. Then there's one more document in Lanz Document Book IV, which is Document No. 143 and No. 144, on Pages 70 to 73, which will become Exhibit No. 140.
I believe that brings the exhibit numbers into their proper order now.
If the Tribunal please, this brings me to the end of my directexamination of Defendant Lanz. At this time I have no further questions to put to him.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you complete your examination, Dr. Sauter, may I make the inquiry as to whether or not you have any affidavit from the Red Cross representative Bickel? Do you have an affidavit from him?
DR. SAUTER: No, all we have is the latter addressed to General Lanz personally. I could also produce letters written to General Lanz' wife where he confirms that her husband, of course, cannot be regarded as a war criminal.
THE PRESIDENT: That answers the question then.
DR. SAUTER: It was my intention, Your Honor, to go to Zuerich myself to obtain an affidavit from him, but we Germans--I had to find out unfortunately--find it so terribly difficult under present-day circumstances to go to Switzerland, that I dropped that plan.
Thank you very much, Your Honors.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any of the defense counsel who wish to examine the defendant at this time?
DR. LATERNSER: May it please the Court, I have a few questions which I would like to ask General Lanz on behalf of Field Marshal von Weichs.
DIRECT-EXAMINATION BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q General, as you have testified, you received an order near Voronesh, on the basis of a certain situation. What did the order demand of you?
A The order demanded, as I have testified before, that I should lead an attack against the flank of an advancing Russian unit.
Q When you finally received that order had the situation changed on the side of the enemy?
A May I say here that I was given that order in the Fuehrer's headquarters and that until I carried it out about three days elapsed. In that period the situation had indeed changed considerably against all foresight.
Q Was that change, witness, important for the fact that you did not carry out the order which was given you in the Fuehrer's headquarters?
A Not only was the change in the situation important, it was the reason why--I mean why I did not carry out the attack. The situation had changed so considerably that the original basic conditions were no longer applicable. For that reason I had to act on my own conscience.
Q General, I don't know whether this has been discussed yet, but are there any provisions in regulations that in the event of a fundamental change in a given situation a man may be relieved from carrying out an order he has received?
A You are quite right. There is an official regulation. I cannot tell you, at the moment, which one it is, but it roughly says that the subordinate officer acts on his own responsibility if he believes that, by a new set of circumstances, the order which he had received is no longer feasible.
I did indeed act on my own responsibility.
Q Or another way of putting it is this: The order need not be carried out if and when, because of the change in the situation, the man who has received the order must assume that if the situation had been known the order would not have been issued?
A Yes, this is a perfectly possible interpretation.
Q General, another case--the disarming of the Italians in Athens and the case of General Vecchiavelli: What was the order you received at that time from Army Group E?
A The order was, if I remember rightly, that I should disarm the XIth Italian Army and cause their surrender, provided, of course, that the Army Group would consent.
Q General, and why did you attempt to deviate from the order?
A I had two motives: One reason was, as I have repeatedly stated, that I wanted to avoid conflict and, particularly, a fight with the Italians at any price. And, secondly, that General Vecchiavelli made a proposition to me which seemed to me to represent a particularly favorable way out of the difficulty. That is why I agreed with the reservation, of course, that the Army Group would give consent.
Q What you wanted to do, General, was to achieve the same purpose which the order aimed at in a different way?
A Yes.
Q A few questions about the incidents on Kephalonia and Korfu. What opinion was held about General Gandin before the capitulation?
A Well, as far as I know, he was regarded as a particularly proGerman Italian general. That is what I found in documents.
Q Was it perhaps that fact which caused, among other things, that on the highest level, so much indignation raged against General Gandin?
A Well, of course, I can express only an assumption.
Q Or if you have heard something about it perhaps?
A I can well imagine that this was so. This would be psychologically quite plausible but any official evidence to this effect I have never received.
Q General, you were given the order after the capitulation to shoot all prisoners connected with this affair. Who was it you saw about your intention of not carrying out the order?
A Well, of course my superior agency which was Army Group E. There was nobody else I could contact about a problem like that.
Q And whom did you talk to on that occasion?
A I am unable to tell you with absolute certainty. It was either Chief of Staff or it was General Loehr but I am not quite sure any more.
Q What attitude was taken by Army Group E towards your objections to the order?
A If I remember rightly, it was my impression that Army Group E was in agreement with my views.
Q The proposition you made, namely to rescind or at least moderate the order, passed on to higher quarters?
A I am bound to assume that because, after all, the reply which came was already more moderate.
Q General, the documents which you have submitted I assume are known to you. I have reference now to Document No. 134 contained in Document Book IV for General Lanz on page 52a.
This is an affidavit given by General von Butler and on page 52a he says that he can still remember that from the Commander-in-Chief Southeast, at least on one occasion, but perhaps more often applications were made to rescind the order concerning the treatment of captured Italians in Kephalonia or at least modify it.
General, the facts contained in the documents submitted by you-were they know to you at the time in question?
AAs far as I know, yes. I had the feeling that the army group and the army group above it held a similar opinion to mine.
Q You mean army groups E and F?
A Yes, I do.
Q Who was the Commander-in Chief of Army Group F at that time?
A I believe it was Fieldmarshal von Weichs.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, would you kindly give us the document, the book and the paging to which you have just made reference?
DE. LATERNSER: Certainly, your Honor. It is contained in Document Book IV for General Lanz. The Document number is 134; it is on page 52a of the German document book and I assume according to what Dr. Sauter said just now that it is the same pagination in the English document book.
JUDGE CARTER: There is no 52A in the English.
DR. LATERNSER: I am just informed it is on page 52.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q General, two cases are mentioned in your record where in the case of the disarming of the Italians you did not act according to orders in those two cases. I now have reference to Document Book 19 on page 6 of the German. I am extremely sorry to say, your Honor, that at this time I am not able to give you the English cage number. It is Document NOKW-1780, on page 9 of the English Document Book.
This record sheet of yours, of 10 July 1943, two cases are mentioned where when the Italian army was being disarmed, and in the fighting connected therewith, you are alleged not to have complied with orders. General, what were those two cases?
A I believe I have stated before this was without a doubt in the first case my negotiations with Vecchiarelli, and in the second case my conduct or the measures I took towards Gandin.
Q Now let us look on those two cases with this in mind. In the case of General Vecchiarelli, the event took place in Athens, didn't it?
A Yes.
Q How many Italians were at that time stationed in the Athens area?
A I could not give you the figure.
Q As compared to German troops perhaps?
A Considerably more.
Q Can you give us an approximate indication how many more there were?
A I could not commit myself to a figure but to give you an estimate, the proportion might have been one to five.
Q In other words, the situation was highly critical?
A Without any doubt. This is how I described it.
Q And something had to be done in order to eliminate the danger?
A Correct.
Q General, is it possible in a case like this for the superior who issues the order to insist on a precise carrying out of the order?
A Of course he can. It's his good right.
Q Because the order was not against international law, was it?
A Not in my opinion.
Q General, from the point of view of the superior, would it not have been the most ideal solution to attempt and achieve the aim, namely to take all arms away from the Italians?
A It is quite possible that my superior thought so, I thought differently.
Q Was it not the intention of Army Group E to avoid violence and fighting between Italian and German troops?
A I assume so.
Q Let us assume, General, although it did not happen, your attempt to eliminate all this through negotiations had failed and the Italians, after having kept their small arms, would have started something? Would the situation not have been extremely dangerous even then?
A That would have been my sole guilt and responsibility and I would have had to face the music afterwards.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I submit that Dr. Laternser has been going around. It has been very clearly submitted in great detail before.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is conscious of that fact and has been giving consideration to it for several minutes. We do not wish to limit you, Dr. Laternser, but I think we must avoid going over matters which have been previously presented. The present objection will be sustained.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. General, about Kephalonia and Korfu, I would like to ask you a few questions. That situation again was particularly dangerous for the German units, wasn't it?
A. Certainly.
Q. And was it not essential to act swiftly in this case?
A. Yes.
Q. When you received the order to take measures against Gandin, had you reached decisions of your own to fight Gandin and to eliminate the dangerous situation?
A. I am not quite clear what time you are talking about, what period of time you mean, which is so important here.
Q. General, when was the situation really dangerous.
A. The dangerous situation arose when Gandin began to resist.
Q. When you heard of Gandin's resistance, what did you cause to be done?
A. I attempted first to eliminate resistance by negotiating with him.
Q. Very well. For how long did these negotiations go on?
A. Several days. It lasted, as I remember it, until about the 15th of September.
Q. Who reached the decision to attack Gandin with arms? Was it your decision or were you ordered to do so?
A. It was a basic order. Only the period of time was left to me.
Q. You had not reached that decision yourself?
A. I wanted to settle everything peacefully which I have explained.
Q. Well, let us leave this point now, and I would like to ask you one final question about your record sheet. General, your defense counsel said yesterday that you had been judged to be too unstable a character because in the course of the Kephalonia and Korfu incidents you had not shot all officers. General, did you make a statement at any time about that?
A. I don't think you have put it in quite a correct manner.
The record sheet refers quite clearly to two incidents which I have talked about here and which in my opinion are quite definite and clear cut cases. They do not refer to one specific matter.
A. Although your defense counsel did so, you do not explain this by the fact that you did not shoot all Italian officers?
DR. SAUTER: Just a moment, General, please. May it please the Court, I object strongly to this questioning. What General Lanz has told me as his defense counsel is none of the business of the counsel of another defendant. They have no right to control and check up on me and ask my client what he told me. That is my basic attitude and I strongly object to this questioning by Dr. Laternser.
DR. LATERNSER: May it please the Tribunal, may I say something about this point? Defense counsel, having stated following up an answer given by General Lanz, that in his opinion the judgment given in the record sheet by my client was given in that form because in defense counsel's opinion General Lanz had not all Italian officers shot. If he makes a remark of that sort, it must be left to me to clear up that remark by putting questions to the defendant. It is not only my right; it is even my duty. That the situation arose at all is not my fault but that of General Lanz's defense counsel. That is what I wish to say about that and I would therefore be grateful if the Tribunal would allow me to pursue this questioning.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. General, you know Fieldmarshal von Weichs, don't you?
A. I believe I know him a little, yes.
Q. General, you are as objective towards him as you are towards General Zervas, I trust.
A. At least as objective.
Q. Do you think, General, that Fieldmarshal von Weichs included this passage that in two cases you had not complied with orders for the reason that you had not shot all Italian officers in the case of Kephalonia and Korfu?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I don't believe the witness is competent to answer what was going through Fieldmarshal von Weichs' mind at the time he gave General Lanz a recommendation.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained.
DR. LATERNSER: In that case I have no further questions.
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q. Dr. Weisgerber for General Speidel. May it please the Tribunal, I would like to put a few brief questions to the witness. General, when you were with your Corps in the Greek area, did you have official contact of a personal nature, or in writing letters to or having telephone. calls, with General Speidel, the then Military Commander of Greece?
A. When I was staying in Athens before my service in Epirus, I and General Speidel had frequent points of contact because the establishment of my Corps staff was connected with his own staff. When I went to Epirus, as I remember it, I once called on General Speidel when I chanced to be in Athens, which happened infrequently, but we did not discuss anything particularly important. I knew General Speidel from the old days. We are fellow country men and so I called on him. As far as I know, General Speidel also called on me once in Joannina but I think at that moment I was on leave. In any case, I did not see him in Joannina. That much to the question of a personal exchange of opinions. As for ringing him up, I don't think I ever rang him up at all. At least, I cannot remember a case. Correspondence with Speidel himself I do not recall. If all of this would have occurred through the channels of the sub-area headquarters in Joannina.
Q. General, did you contact General Speidel at any time concerning the carrying out of reprisal measures?
A. I cannot recall an incident of that sort at all.
Q. You mentioned just not the sub-area headquarters in Joannina, General, which was subordinate to the Military Commander Greece. Do you, from the period of time of your service in Epirus, recall a case where the sub-area headquarters in Joannina suggested or ordered or carried out a reprisal measure?
The sub-area headquarters was of course in the garrison of your headquarters.
A. Yes, I am aware of that. I am just thinking about it. At the moment, I cannot recall a case.
Q. Thank you very much. No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there other counsel for the defense who wish to question the defendant now on the stand? Apparently not. You may crossexamine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q. General Lanz, you were Chief of Staff of a Corps before you became Commanding General of the 1st Mountain Division. Was the transition from a Chief of Staff to that of a commanding general a difficult one for you to make?
A. Excuse me, I think there is a small mistake here. I was not promoted commanding general from being chief of staff. In the meantime, for about two years I commanded a division.
Q. Was the transition from chief of staff to that of the commanding general of a division a difficult transition for you to make?
A. In peacetime, I had commanded a regiment in that division. I was familiar with the conditions of that unit from peacetime conditions. I found the transition not particularly difficult.
You participated in the campaign against Greece, I believe, as Commander of the First Mountain Division?
A. No, that is incorrect. In the Greek campaign I did not participate at all. I only participated in the campaign against Jugoslavia.
Q. Were you subordinate to Field Marshal von Weichs in the Jugoslavia campaign?
A. No, I was subordinate to another army, end I must say disgracefully enough, I do not know which one it was. It was that Army which was in charge of the elements on the Northern Front. Field Marshal Von Weichs commanded these elements, who advanced on Zagreb from the East. At least that is the way I remember it at this moment.
Q. After the Jugoslav campaign you went to Russia as Commander of the 1st Mountain Division; do you recall whether you were on leave at all during the months of July and August of 1941?
A. In July and August I was not on leave. In July and August I and my unit were fighting at the front.
Q. You said you had some misgivings when you received the Commissar Order; when General Reinhardt, who was your Corps Commander passed on to you the contents of the Commissar Order; did you consider that order to be in violation of the Geneva Convention respecting treatment to be given captured prisoners?
A. You must forgive me if I clear up a small mistake there. Mr. Fenstermacher, you are mixed up with another man who spoke about Reinhardt. My commanding general was General Kuebler. As for the Commissar Order I said at the time that I had my misgivings about the order and that therefore I wanted to modify it, and add that Commissars may be shot only in combat, that is how I attempted to modify it. What I said was that thereby I wanted to bring the order into a more correct form.
Q. Before you made the modification did you consider the order in violation of the Geneva Convention?
A. Whether I held that opinion at that time I cannot say for certain today. I certainly had my misgivings about the order from a general attitude, I would like to call it.
Q. Were you concerned with the legality of the order when you talk about misgivings?
A. At that time, I don't think I had misgivings about the legality. I emphasize at that time, in 1941, I merely felt that this Order was not in accordance with those soldierly concepts which we had observed up to that time, that is the way I would like to put it.
Q. General Lanz, you had gone to the War Academy and received instructions in the Rules of Land Warfare and also instructions on the Geneva Convention for the Treatment of Prisoners; didn't you think about these two, the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention at the time you received this order?
A. It is possible, I do not want to deny that, but it is so difficult for me today to say on the spur of the moment what I was thinking about six years ago.
Q. Why didn't you refuse to pass the order on entirely?
A. I believe I have given you my reasons for that. Perhaps I may repeat what I said. I said at that time I regarded it as my unquestionable duty to pass on an order which came from the highest quarters.
Q. Even though that order was in violation of the Hague and Geneva conventions?
A. That is why I wanted to modify the order. I attempted to find a middle way.
Q. Now, General, in the course of the Russian campaign did you receive any other orders or proclamations or communications from your superior officer regarding the treatment of Commisars; I mean in addition to the basic Commissar Order?
A. May I ask you once again, what did you -- do you mean concerning the Commissar Order, or in another respect?
Q. No, I mean concerning the treatment to be given Commissars when they were captured.
A. (no response)
Q. Perhaps I can help you a little bit, General Lanz; did you receive a communication that talked about treating Commissars differently from other members of the Russian Army? You were never asked to circulate any proclamations amongst your troops to that effect?
A. I cannot recall anything of that sort at the moment, but that does not mean that it might have happened.
Q. To what corps was the 1st Mountain Division subordinate early in the Russian campaign?
A. I was subordinate to the 49th Mountain Corps.
Q. Do you recall who the Chief of Staff of that Corps was?
A. Certainly, at first it was Col. Jodl, Jodl the younger, whom we have seen here, and later on when I served in the Caucausus, in 1943 it was Col Joseph Kuebler.
Q. Will you look at this document, General Lanz, and see if your memory can be refreshed a bit about the proclamation I have in mind. This is NOKW 2105, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 617. This is a communication from the 49th Mountain Corps dated 29 July, 1941. The subject is "Proclamation to the Ukrainian Population and Farmers east of the Zbruez."
"On the 28th of this month the Division and Corps troops received a printed Proclamation in German and Ukrainian to the Ukrainian population east of the Zbruez. Further copies of this Proclamation as well as a printed summons to the Ukrainian farmers will follow today. The context of the Proclamation as well as the printed summons are enclosed in the supplement."
I think we need not read the rest, but you will note the final paragraph states:
"The loudspeaker trucks allocated to the Divisions in as far as they are not employed for enemy propaganda are to be employed for making the proclamation known to the Ukrainian population and the summons to the Ukrainian farmers."