Can you give us your comments on the contents of this report?
A. The report describes the first clash between the Reserve Grenadier Regiment 4 which was part of the 187th Division and the Cossacks who were committed for the first time. I should emphasize here that the author of the report, Lt. Colonel Rucksack, was always inclined to exaggerate. What his own troops achieved he would underline and what other troops had done he would not put into the letter. That becomes quite clear from every sentence. I draw attention here to the remark I made in my own handwriting which may be found on page 18 of the German and page 35 of the English text. It is roughly the last third of that page. It says there:
"These general terms are completely without interest to me. I insist that I be given definite particulars, witnesses, etc. and then I can take action."
That is addressed to the 187th Division.
Q. Did the Corps know about these excesses?
A. The Corps only heard about them afterwards.
Q. Did the Corps approve of these excesses?
A. It most certainly did not.
Q. What steps could you take after you received the report?
A. I could initiate exact investigations and insist that I be informed of the result. The Cossack Divisions were shown the reports mentioned before and it was expected that strong measures would be taken. The number of the report at hand, which is on page 35 of the English in the last but one paragraph, is the number 8674, dated 25 October 1943. This latter number may be found again in the compilation of the excesses committed by the Cossacks which is contained in the same document book on page 23 of the German and page 38 of the English. As I was not the judicial authority, the court files were passed on to the Army directly, which was the next judicial authority above the division. I was merely informed of the result.
Q. What did you do after those two reports?
A. In writing, as well as orally, I pointed out to the Divisional Commander that extremely severe action must be taken and legal proceedings be initiated.
Q. Let me hand you now the compilation of the excesses committed by the Cossacks dated 20 November 1943. This is Document NOKW-509, Exhibit 340, in Volume 14, on page 38 of the English and page 23 of the German. Did you sign the document?
A. No.
Q. What sort of document is it really?
A. This document does not show a heading. It is not signed. It is not initialed by me. It has been torn from its context. It is a compilation of the excesses committed by the Cossacks up to a certain day, namely 20 November 1943.
Q. The prosecution made the following comments on this document which may be found in the English record on page 1298 and on page 1308 of the German. This is what the prosecution said:
"What we find in this document concerning these incidents, between the entries 5 and 7, is that no action was taken. Likewise, under entry 9."
Let me show you the photostatic copy of the original document. Are the prosecution right in their assertion?
A. They are not.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
If the Tribunal please, I should be grateful if you would take a look at the original photostatic copy because this document contains indications which are left out from both the German and the English copies, whereas the original photostatic copy shows that the prosecution are wrong in asserting that no investigations were ordered in connection with certain incidents; whereas what General Dehner said was correct, namely that for the incident listed under 5-7 and 9 and other incidents, in all cases investigations were initiated. I should be grateful if the Tribunal would tell me if I may now submit this photostatic document to the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have it in your possession here?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you may submit it. The Tribunal is not in a position to read it.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honors, the actual words are not important. Merely the marks there are important which I shall explain now. The Tribunal will find that under the paragraphs 5 to 7 there are two double lines. These lines mean that the entries were not to be repeated under No. 4. What was meant was that one wanted to save the trouble to repeat these entries under No. 4.
On the next page, the Tribunal will find that there is a bracket around all entries. This very important bracket means that the entries made in this column were reported and that the investigation demanded with regard to the 1st Cossack Division applied to all entries on that page. That is to say, all incidents reported on this page were investigated, but this bracket is not contained on page 1440 of the English document. It should be added now. By leaving out this bracket in the English document book, the impression arises as though investigations were requested for one incident.
THE INTERPRETER: I believe, your Honors, instead of saying "double lines" which I said before, I should have said "ditto marks" in those columns.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you get the comment made by the interpreter, Dr. Gawlik?
DR. GAWLIK: No.
(The interpreter repeated the comment in German.)
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Why is there nothing in the last column, General?
A. On page 23 on top, it becomes clear that the last date for the report was the 20th of November, as since the day when the Corps sent off the letter, where it demands that the 1st Cossack Division make these investigations, and as some days had elapsed since that day, as you can see from column 4 quite easily, no result of the investigation can have become available in a number of cases.
Q. Does that mean that nothing was done against the Cossack Division?
A. No, it does not. There hadn't been enough time yet to see the result in the case of certain incidents.
Q. What columns are important to clear up the question? What sort of measures were taken against the Cossacks?
A. The column - the fourth and fifth columns are important here.
Q. What measures were actually taken against the Cossack excesses?
A. The document shows that the Corps instituted proceedings by court martial.
Q. In this connection, I beg to draw the Tribunal's attention to Document Book Dehner No. III to a document to be found on page 40, the number of which is Dehner No. 16, offered by me as Exhibit No. 10. Under October 29, 1943, it says on page 40 of that document:
"Corps Headquarters are informed of several, partly serious cases of excesses by the Cossacks of the First Cossack Division, in particular the rape of 120 women in Bosnjaci. In this connection, report is made by the First Cossack Division that excesses are being punished with the harshest measures. (During the period of from 25 to 28 October, 8 Cossacks were shot for outrages.)" Can you tell us about the facts mentioned in the column headed "Facts of the case?"
A. The sources were in some cases entirely unreliable. In many cases, they were simply gossip and exaggerations, sometimes malicious slander. Unfortunately, in some cases, Croat officers behaved somewhat strangely too.
Q. This becomes clear from the further entries in Dehner Document Book No. III on page 40. In Document Dehner No. 16, it speaks of the fact that the Cossack Division did not know anything of the rape of 120 women.
"The Cossack Divisions are of the impression that a large-scale atrocity propaganda is being launched against the Cossack Division both by so-called loyal Croats as well as by the opponents." In this connection, I beg to draw the Court's attention to page 45 of Dehner Document Book No. III which is still part of Document No. 16, Exhibit No. 10. There we find the entry of 1 December 1943 which says:
"Corps Headquarters replies to the report of the 2nd Croatian C Corps Headquarters, dated 27 November 1943, by which eight cases of alleged excesses by Cossacks are submitted. First Cossack Division is ordered to examine scrupulously all submitted complaints, to punish the men found guilty severely and as far a s possible to compensate wronged persons. At the same time, however, Corps Headquarters points to the fact that in many cases the complaints are partly exaggerated and misrepresented as, for instance, in the case of the complaint on the occurrence in the village of Pivos where indeed bandits were concerned by the attacks of the Cossacks."
Did the measures taken against the Cossacks have the desired result?
A. Yes, they did. That you can see from an entry in the War Diary.
Q. What other measures were taken after the excesses committed by the Cossacks?
A. I took all necessary stops in order to achieve that the Cossack Division would be transferred away from Croatia. If I remember rightly, this application made by the Corps was subscribed to by the Army and the Army Group, but unfortunately nothing was changed before I left Croatia.
Q. Only a few final questions now. General, when did you become a prisoner of war?
A. On 3 May 1943 I became a prisoner of war of the Americans.
Q. In what camps were you and how were you treated in those camps?
A. First I was sent to the generals camp in Augsburg. On the day after our arrival, we had to hand over all our decorations. One or two days later, my watch was taken away from me by an American soldier. In both cases, we protested but without avail. I must say that in Augsburg our accommodation was all right.
A few weeks later, we were sent to the officers' camp in Ulm. There we were about 150 to 200 generals. We were accommodated in a dilapidated horse stable very close together. In that stable, we were pushed in, I may say. Each one of us was given one stand where the horses used to be. That is to say, each stand was meant for three generals. The floor was of stone. At the beginning we had no straw. Later, a little straw and later on more straw. We had no blankets. It was very drafty and chilly, and many people fell ill. I myself contracted rheumatism of the joints from which I am still suffering. We had no cutlery. We had to fetch an empty can from the refuse dump in order to have anything for our meals at all. We had to carry our own food in a large pail over a certain distance.
There, soon afterwards, we were ordered to remove all insignia of rank and position. We had to tear off the rod stripes on our trousers, all insignia from our caps, etc. In the winter, we were accommodated in an empty barracks which had been empty for a long time. There on some occasions, we had to work which was highly undignified. We had to sweep our rooms. We had to clean the floors. We had to clean the toilets. From time to time, there were raids on our rooms and this or that disappeared from private belongings. All this was reported.
General Reinhardt who is here in prison was our leader and he can give more information about this. After that, we were sent to Allendorf.
We were sent there on trucks and we were to write the history of the war for the American Army, i.e. we were to write down our experiences. We were not asked whether we wanted to do that voluntarily. Last year, on 28 December I was brought here all of a sudden. I wanted to take my luggage along but I was told to leave it behind because, after all, I would return in a few days' time.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me, we will take our morning recess at this time.
( A recess was taken.)
(Following recess.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, General Dehner.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q.- Please continue General Dehner.
A.- When I was supposed to come here I was ill. At that time I reported for medical treatment in Allendorf and I asked the commandant to delay my trip for a few days, but I was not granted this request for the reason that in a few days I would be back where I came from.
In an open jeep I had to go to Frankfurt and it was very cold in those days. I was with another General and two escorts were with us. When we came to the outskirts of Frankfurt we had to get out of the jeep and we were asked to enter a bus. In this bus there were high American officers with their ladies. We were shackled in this bus with hand shackles. We protested against this immediately and said "We are German officers, we are Generals, we are not aware of having committed any offense. We have never given you the slightest cause for you expecting us to escape." They did not pay any attention and only said, "We are also officers." We were shackled just the same and in this state we had to leave the autobus and we had to walk through the rather crowded railroad station carrying our luggage with our hands, although our hands were tied. Then we were brought into a train compartment and crowds looked into the windows of the train curiously. Those who desired got brom our escorts our personal papers, which we carried and they were handed out openly by our escorts. Then we were brought to the prison here, I waited every day to be interrogated, I stayed here over New Years Eve and New Years Day and it lasted until the 7th of January that my first interrogation took place, I did not feel well at all, I was rather sick as a matter of fact and my comrade, who was also there, objected against the treatment meted out to us and objected, but this was of no available.
After the first interrogation it took some time until we were interrogated for the second time, I believe it was in March, although I don't know the exact date. In the meantime my father died and another relative. I asked urgently to be allowed to go and attend the funeral. I was at that time under no indictment. I was not told I was to be a witness either, however, my request was refused.
In January, all of a sudden, we were called to the office, the generals present were : General Rendulic, General Foertsch, General Leyser and General Warlimont. We were told to sign a document which contained a decree that we were released. An American Captain handed us this document. Although we were not allowed to talk with each other, we immediately unanimously protested against sighing this document and we refused to do that. We were told then we would not get any money, any release money. What that means to a General who has no more belongings, whose every belonging has been confiscated and whose relatives are starving, anyone can imagine. In spite of the importance of this fact, we refused and we were sent back to our cells. The next day we were called again and we were told we had to sign and the following had already signed: General Blaskowitz and General Sporrle. Once more we refused, thereupon the American Captain telephoned the commandant and the commandant appeared on the scene. He did not introduce himself and told us if we did not sign there was an order from higher agencies that he would have to take measures against us.
THE PRESIDENT: What was this commandant's name?
THE WITNESS: To the best of my recollection, Major Teich, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know to what military unit he belonged?
THE WITNESS: I am afraid I cannot say that, your Honor, I don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know how to spell his name?
THE WITNESS: T-e-i-c-h, Teich.
THE PRESIDENT: And that was here in Nurnberg?
THE WITNESS: Yes, in the office here in Nurnberg, that was in January to the best of my recollection. I can look up the date exactly, I made a note of it.
THE PRESIDENT: He was the commanding officer of what unit?
THE WITNESS: The American commandant, you mean? I don't know, I don't know to which unit he belonged. I never learned that, I never heard about that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE WITNESS: I would like to add in this connection, because I don't want to burden the Tribunal with details, but I would like to add that then as now I consider myself a prisoner of war who is under the protection of the Geneva convention.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q.- I summarize the whole of this examination and I will show you the indictment, General. You are being charged on count 1 of the indictment that you have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. What can you answer generally to this accusation?
A.- I have never committed a murder, I never mal-treatment of anybody, as I am being charged with having done. I never did suffer it that such actions were committed by men under my command, nor did I at any time give an order to kidnap or deport prisoners of war for forced labor, prisoners of war or other members of forces who found themselves in a state of war with Germany or members of the civilian population. This does not apply to me at all inasmuch as Croatia, as a friendly and sovereign state, was not at war with us. I neither ordered, nor did I suffer that private or public property was looted or plundered. Where excesses occurred, they were followed up with very severe measures. I neither ordered nor did I allow my subordinates to, as the prosecution charges, have larger or smaller villages destroyed arbitrarily. If a locality was destroyed at any time, which were very few indeed, then such an action took place during combat for urgent military necessity after conscientious examination and in close cooperation and on the decision of Croatian authorities and the Croatian government.
Such actions might have been carried out, but this government would not have any houses destroyed for purely economical measures, unless it was urgently necessary in the interests of safety, law and order.
I do not know of a single cruelty or crime against the civilian population, however, I do know for certain and I can prove this through witnesses that while I was in Croatia, I had at heart the interests and prosperity of the population and sponsored these interests with all means at my disposal and supported them whenever I could. This, as a matter of fact, was a matter of principle to me since we found ourselves in the territory of a state friendly to us and a state which was sovereign. We willingly took into account the umpleasantness and the expediency sometimes connected with such actions. As I have described earlier, I could call many witnesses, members of the Croatian population to bear me out in this fact. Unfortunately, the political situation of the country is such that this is not possible.
Q.- Under Count I of the Indictment you are charged with having aided and abetted crimes which have resulted in the murder of hundreds of thousands of the population in Greece of Jugoslavia and Albania by the troops of the German armed forces under your command and jurisdiction. What can you tell us, generally in answer to this count?
A.- I have never been in either Greece or Albania, I was merely in a part of the former state, Jugoslavia. There I neither ordered nor abetted or took a consenting part in, nor was I connected with plans and enterprises involving the murder of hundreds of people, nor was I a member of an organization or group which was connected with the murder of thousands of persons from the civilian population of Jugoslavia.
I do not know that persons were summarily executed without investigation or trial in my area while I stayed there and, to the best of my recollection, at no time were the ratios reached which have been mentioned in this trial repeatedly.
I do not know that non-combatants were arbitrarily designated as bandits and were without an investigation or a trial, terrorized or tortures or/and murdered. Of a common plan to terrorize or intimidate,I heard here for the first time. It is completely out of the question that at any time the intention existed to designate the indigenous population. It was our zealous effort to achieve the very opposite. One does not want to weaken an allied power. As much as possible, one wants to sponsor and strengthen an ally with all means at one's disposal.
I never issued a hostage order which contained the ratios contained in this indictment. To the best of my knowledge. I did not issue a hostage order at any time.
Q.- General, what is your answer to Count II of the indictment quite generally?
A.- I have neither ordered nor passed on an order to the effect, nor have I committed my subordinates, to plunder or loot public or private property.
I did not allow the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages and the murder connected with such acts of the inhabitants of such villages nor did I commit the other acts of devastation not necessitated by military necessity. I have for the first time heard here of a so-called plan under the slogan, "rule through terror", a plan which had the aim of decimating for years the economic and material potentialities of such countries and to delay their rebuilding for years. That is contradictory to every sense and reason alone because we were in an allied state, Croatia, the economic and industrial potentialities of which we were interested in strengthening, sponsoring, and supporting.
All reprisal measures had been ordered and carried out as a rule by Croatian authorities. The German troops have merely been informed of such measures and passed them on to their superior agencies.
Q.- General, what can you tell us in conclusion as your answer to Count III of the indictment?
A.- I am not aware of the fact of having issued or passed on orders contradictory to law or having carried out such orders contradictory to law or having carried out such orders.
The methods of the Jugoslavian army of those days had capitulated in April 1941. I did not know another Jugoslavian army nor did my superiors. Therefore, that charge does not apply at all; namely, the charge that we had assassinated them as insurgents, Communist bands, rebels. The captured bandits were always treated as prisoners of war.
Q.- And what can you answer in conclusion to Count IV of the indictment?
A.- I had never anything to do with organizations or associations which were connected with murder, torture and systematic terrorizing, imprisonment in concentration camps, arbitrary forced labor for fortifications or entrenchments or deportations to slave labor of civilian po
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honors, that brings me to the end of my direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any defense counsel who wish to question his defendant?
DR. FRITSCH (Counsel for defendant Rendulic): If it please the Tribunal, I have only one question to put in the interests of General Rendulic.
BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q.- General, you have mentioned reprisal ratios. In this connection I would like to remind you of the army order of 15 September which is only a compilation of former orders. You have stated on direction examination that you have used very low ratios.
A.- May I say something?
Q.- I want to put my question new, General. Did the Army which received all daily reports of your Corps at any time object to those low ratios which you reported, General? Would you just answer this with "yes" or "No" if you can?
A.- First of all, I have to tell you that if you say that I mentioned ratios, I did not mean ratios which were applied in my area because I did not apply any such ratios in my area?
Q.- That is correct and I didn't say that.
A.- Your question was -
Q.- My question was whether the Army has ever objected to your reports concerning the low reprisal quotas which you applied?
A.- I cannot remember that the Army did.
DR. FRITSCH: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there other counsel who wish to question this defendant? Apparently not. You may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. FULKERSON:
Q. You heard General von Leyser testify, of course.
A. Yes, I was here when he testified.
Q. And since both you and he were in Croatia at the same time I assume that you were interested in what he had to say and that you listened rather carefully to his testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. You remember his statements about the position which the various indigenous units occupied toward the German troops?
A. What do you mean by "indigenous units?"
Q. The Domobrans, the Ustascha, and so forth.
A. The Domobrans and Ustascha? You mean the Croatia Militia?
Q. Yes.
A. The Croatian Armed Forces?
Q. Yes. Do you think that the explanation which General von Leyser gave of that relationship was accurate and correct as far as you know?
A. What relationship do you mean -- the relation between the Domobrans and Ustascha? Is that what you mean?
Q. No, the relationship between the Ustascha and the Domobrans on the one hand and the German Wehrmacht on the other.
A. Yes, it was an Allied Armed Force, the Armed Farces of the sovereign state Coratia.
Q. And you believe that his explanation of the tactical subordination, I believe he put it, of the various units of the Croatian Armed Forces to the German Wehrmacht was a correct explanation of the situation in Croatia at that time.
A. Well, in that ease you have to give me the exact wording how Leyser stated it at the time. After all every single word is important.
Q. Well, I am just trying to save time by not going over the same ground with you that I have already gone over with General von Leyser. Have you any exception to take to any of the statements that he made about this relationship?
A. I don't have the exact statements of General von Leyser in front of me now which I would have to have if I am supposed to state my own attitude. If I just do it according to memory, every word can be different and can mean something else. I can't do it according to memory. You would have to get the record of what he said and then you would have to ask me, "Do you agree or don't you?"
Q. That is just what I am trying to avoid. Off hand, you don't remember any statement of General von Leyser's which was so glaringly inaccurate that you would like to take exception to it so far as this relationship existed.
THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you get the record and ask him about these matters? Why should you question him about some generalities.
MR. FULDERSON: Very well, Your Honor.
Q. General, I will ask you a specific question which I did ask General von Leyser: Can you point to a document in here in any of these books which shows that this happened, that the German Wehrmacht made a decision to execute hostages, that the Croatian Government or any of the Croatian authorities protested against the decision and that as a result of the protest the Wehrmacht reversed its decision? Do you know of any such document?
A. I can't recall it.
Q. You were in Croatia from August 1943, I believe, until the 18th of March 1944 and -
A. I beg your pardon if I may correct myself -- until the 15th of March, as I have learned just now from the War Diary.
On the 15th of March we handed over everything within the Corps area to the 1st Cossack Division. This division remained in Croatia while we marched into Hungary.
Q. And then during this period you said that you were on leave twice. I think the first one was the period from the 28th of August until about the 26th of September and then again on about 20th of December you left and were gone until the 6th of January.
A. When you count the second leave you have to add two days for travelling before and on the way back, two days for traveling.
Q. And in addition you said that you spent about half of the time that you were actually in Croatia away from the Corps headquarters visiting your troops and inspecting the division and so forth.
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. And, in addition, I believe you said that he made a summary of the daily reports that had come in while you were gone, a written summary, and you read that.
A. No, I didn't say that. I didn't say that. That is something entirely new.
Q. Well, then he made only an oral summary. Is that correct? Is that what you are now saying?
A. He made an oral report. Wherever possible I looked at the documents. But as I was usually pressed for time and he just gave me an oral report which summarized everything.
Q. Of course, the object of this was to keep you from having to read through this mass of accumulated reports.
A. It is practically impossible to really look at everything and look through everything.
Q. Well, do you feel that you were kept well informed of what was happening in your Corps area by following this procedure?
A. It wasn't possible to do it in any other way. I am under the impression that I learned of everything that was possible for me to hear of. I did the best in my power.
Q. So it is fair to assume that there are many of these daily reports whose contents were known to you even though you didn't read them?
A. That is possible.
Q. Well, in fact, wasn't it the very purpose of this oral summary that the Chief of Staff gave you?
A. It might have easily happened that at one time the Chief of Staff did not deem something or other important enough to tell me about it and that, on the other hand, he reported about something that does not seem important here but was important at the time,--let's say, for instance, a tactical matter.
Q. But it is still fair to assume that there are many of these daily reports which, although you didn't actually read yourself, you were told about and knew about the contents.
A. As a general rule and in large outlines, yes, and where they were important to me.
Q. From what you say, you couldn't have read more than half of the daily reports if you weren't there over half of the time.
A. I didn't understand that. -- When I had time I read the reports. Of course, if I didn't have the time, then the Chief of Stuff orally reported to me the events, i.e. in a summarized form, that would be up to the estimation and judgment of the Chief of Staff what he reported to me. If he did not consider some report important enough he might not have reported it to me, but though I couldn't read every individual document I still learned from the chief of staff what happened along large lines.
Q. What would you judge was the proportion between the reports which you actually read yourself on the one hand and those whose contents were simply summarized and passed on to you orally by the Chief of Staff?
A. The proportion between the reports of which I learned from the Chief of Staff and those which I read personally, is that what you