"I can recall even now that, for example, partisans stopped a train on the line from Rumanach Sabac, shooting a German officer and enlisted man. No reprisal measures were taken for this attack. Furthermore, in August 1943, the partisans raided an engineer company in the area around Ilok. Of the soldiers whom they captured, many have been killed; in particular did they kill all the wounded, if these were unable to march any more."
Under Figure "V" von Behr states that within the area of the 173rd Reserve Division of which he was the Division Commander the German troops carried out no reprisal measures. I quote:
"As commanding officer of the 173rd Reserve Division I have never given an order to arrest hostages, to kill hostages, or to destroy villages. In the area of the 173rd Reserve Division, during the time I was in command of this division, troops of the 173rd Reserve Division never arrested hostages, killed hostages, or destroyed Croat villages as a reprisal measure for actions in violation of international law. I can no longer recall whether any orders at all, and what kind, before the middle of September 1943, have been received by the division concerning the execution of reprisal measures. I remember, having inspected the document NOKW 597, Exhibit 340, that the 2nd Panzer Army's order dated 15 September 1943 was received by the division. However, no reprisal measures were taken by the division based on this particular order. Pursuant to this order, reprisal measures were left to the Croat Police. As far as I can remember now, the 173rd Division had no units of the secret Field Police and of the Field Gendarmery. There were no urgent cases in the sense of the order of 15 September 1943. In any case, I was of the opinion that the sabotage cases of which I was informed did not necessitate immediate action by excluding the Croat, authorities. The Corps never objected to the fact that the 173rd Reserve Division did not execute any reprisal measures."
Under Figure "VI":
"I have been shown the following letters from the document NOKW 658, Exhibit 375:
1. Daily Report dated 24 September 1943 2. " " " 1 October 1943 3. " " " 4 October 1943 1. " " " 9 October 1943 5. " " " 20 October 1943 6. " " " 3 November 1943 7. " " " 5 November 1943 6. " " " 7 November 1943 9. " " " 12 November 1943 10.
" " " 3 December 1943 "Furthermore, I have been shown from the document NOKW 073, Exhibit.
.. the daily report of the 2nd Armored Army of 8 December 1943, from the document NOKW 075 the copy of the daily report dated 6 November 1943, and the daily report by the inspector of the railroad security dated 11 November 1943.
" I believe it to be absolutely impossible that a reprisal measure mentioned in these reports has been executed by troops of the 173rd Reserve Division. In this connection I must make the following statement: re Section 8, teletype message of 7 November, 1943: I can definitely state that the hanging of 19 Communists, mentioned in the teletype message dated 7 November 1943 under II, was executed by the Croat police and the Security Service. I cannot recollect any of the other incidents mentioned in the documents, I would be able to remember them, however, if I had ordered them, or if they had been executed by the forces under my command.
Under Figure "VII":
"Whenever I received intelligence about a bandit attack, I merely reported this to the Corps. The same applies, when the police informed me that they had executed any kind of reprisal measures. I already incorporated this police report in my daily reports to the Corps. The fact that any incidents were mentioned in the daily reports under "173rd Division", shows merely that they took place in the area of the 173rd Reserve Division. I did not have the supreme command in the area of the 173rd Reserve Division.
The Croat authorities were entrusted with the executive power, and they were supported in their task by the police. The Croat and German police forces were not under the command of the 173rd Reserve Division".
Under Figure "VIII":
"The operation Kammerhofer was an independent operation by the police under the command of the former SS-Gruppenfuehrer Kammerhofer. The 173rd Reserve Division did not order this operation. All the measures taken during this operation were executed by the police, and the 173rd Division had no say in the matter at all."
Under Figure "IX":
"During the time I was in command of the division, there were no hostage camps in the area of the 173rd Division. As far as I can remember, hostage camps had been introduced by the Croat government, who had the sole responsibility for those camps".
Under Figure "X" the affiant talks about how far and to what extent there were Italian troops in the area of the division. I quote:
"Except for a small detachment of 30 men in Vukovar, there were no Italian troops in the area of the 173rd Division. I can definitely state that none of these members of the Italian Army was executed by shooting. Nor were any measures taken against these people which would have been in violation of international law," End of quotation.
Under Figure "XL" there is mention of to what extent the division undertook evacuations and whether labor camps and concentration camps existed in the area of the division, and I quote:
"No evacuation of civilians have taken place in the area of the 173rd Reserve Division; nor was the 173rd Reserve Division in charge of concentration camps, labor camps, or collection camps for partisans.
During the time I commanded the division, the troops of the 173rd Division never compelled any persons to go to Germany. The division had no power to order such measures.
The next document I would like to present is contained in Document Book Dehner No. VII. It is Document Dehner No. 39. This becomes Exhibit No. Dehner No. 35. This is an affidavit by Dr. Karl August Schlegel, dated the 5th of January, 1948. It is Dehner Document Book No.VII, page 107 to page 111. Personal details about Dr. Schlegel are contained in the first paragraph and I quote:
I have know General Dehner since 1943; at that time the LXIXth Reserve Corps was activated in Vienna. I was the Corps physician with the staff. In this capacity I had good connections with all the officers of the staff. Thus, I have good information about what happened with the Corps and am in a position to make statements about the attitude of the individual members of the staff.
Under figure I there are fist of all statements about whether Croatia was an sovereign state, and I quote:
Croatia was an independent State in alliance with Germany. The sovereign rights of that state were strictly respected by the German Wehrmacht. Thus, the German Forces in Croatia were not able to claim any billets of their own accord, but rather received the allocations from the Croatian authorities. Neither were the German forces entitled to requisition food in the country. The soldier's pay was issued, it is true, in Croatian currency, but the rate of exchange was very unfavorable for the soldiers, so that with 10 days pay very few things could be bought. This was done in order not to harm the economy of the country.
Under figure two, the attitude of the corps Staff and especially General Dehner's attitude towards the population of Croatia is described. I quote:
General Dehner's attitude to the population of Croatia was a thoroughly friendly one. He considered their interests, whenever that was feasible. Thus, I know that in many cases in which military reasons had required the destruction of Croatian villages, he failed to do so out of consideration for the population of Croatia.
The relationship between the population of Croatia and the German forces, in particular the Corps Staff, was a very good one. I also know that General Dehner never regarded the Croatian population as an inferior race and was never influenced in his behavior towards the population by racial prejudices, as used to be a characteristic of National Socialism.
Then the next paragraph states, I quote:
Likewise, I know from my own observation that medical and dental care of the Croatian civilian population was in many places endangered by the lack of indigenous doctors.
This lack was made good by the employment of German physicians and dentists.
Under figure III, the treatment of captured partisans, especially wounded and sick partisans, is described, and I quote:
Wounded or sick partisans who were in German field hospitals were treated the same way as German wounded or sick soldiers. I myself rather often visited hospitals and was satisfied that no distinction was made in the treatment of the German soldiers and of the partisans. All medical skill was used on behalf of the partisans just as was done for the German soldiers.
From figure IV, it can be seen that General Dehner always made objections to excess committed by the Cossaks as far as he could as Commanding General. I quote from Figure IV:
From conversations I had with General Dehner and some members of his staff I know that there were rather strong tensions between General Dehner and the commander of the Cossack Division, Brigadier General von Pannwitz.
These tensions were caused by the fact that the Cossacks always passively resisted the orders of the Corps. Excesses committed by the Cossacks were, as soon as they become known at the Corps, most strongly disapproved by General Dehner.
From figure 5, one can see that the German police units in Croatia and the units of the Croatian army did not belong to the German Wehrmacht, especially the Headquarters of the LXIXth Corps. I quote:
The German police units in Croatia and the units of the Croatian army did not belong to the corps. They were independent formations, which were not under the command of the Corps. This I am able to assert for the reason that otherwise I should have had the medical supervision of these units. To what extent these units were occasionally placed under the command of the corps for individual operations, is not known to me. Medical care of the German police units and of the units of the Croatian army was exclusively in the hands of doctors of those units.
Under figure VI, the affiant comments on the execution of hostages by shooting and about his knowledge of labor camps:
It has never come to my knowledge that the execution of hostages by shooting was ordered or carried out by the LXIXth Res. Corps. Neither had it ever come to my knowledge that the Corps maintained labour camps or hostages camps. This would certainly have come to my knowledge in my capacity as Corps physician.
Under figure VII, Dr. Schlegel gives statements about General Dehner's personality, especially about his religious attitude, and I quote:
In conclusion I should like to mention that General Dehner made great efforts to arrange for the spiritual care of the Wehrmacht. He saw to it that on church holidays the soldiers were given the opportunity to attend the religious services.
The next document I would like to submit is contained in Document Book VIII. It is Document Dehner No. 40, and this becomes Exhibit No. 36.
MR. FULKERSON: I would like to object to the introduction of this document. The Court will notice that it was executed last Thursday on January 8, when the defense knew perfectly well that there was a great danger of their running out of testimony before the end of the week. Yet, instead of having this witness here where we could cross-examine him, his affidavit was taken and it is now sought to be introduced. The affidavit, if the Court will notice, was executed here in Nurnberg.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: What is your answer to that, Dr. Gawlik?
DR. GAWLIK: The statements made by this affiant are not so important. They are only of supplementary importance, and I did not think that they were important enough to bring the witness here into the witness stand and therefore to take up the time of the Tribunal. The affiant talks about the independence of Croatia, about the question of whether the bandits were to be regarded as belligerents.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I think it has been the policy of the Tribunal in the past, Doctor, that if a witness is personally available, he should be presented for cross-examination and unless there is some better reason indicated, I think it will be the feeling of the Tribunal that the objection be sustained. The objection will be sustained.
DR. GAWLIK: Then for the moment this brings me to the end of my presentation of documents. I still have one document book, three document books to present but I would like to state that these just consist of individual affidavits which have not yet been translated. I will submit these documents as soon as the Tribunal is in possession of the translation.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: But before the close of the session tomorrow afternoon?
DR. GAWLIK: Well, your Honor, it doesn't depend on me. I can present them at any time. I haven't any influence on the translating department.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I am informed by the presiding judge that they will be out and ready for presentation before the close of the session tomorrow afternoon.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I regret very much that I have to inform the Tribunal for the second time that the defense has no further evidence because the rest of the documents are still either with the translating or the mimeographing department, but I would like to inform the Tribunal that this afternoon at one-thirty I have two witnesses to examine. The first one is the witness Josef Kaiser and the second is Sergej Hirschmann. In a letter dated the tenth of January, I have already informed the prosecution about this. I will be ready at half-past one this afternoon to examine these two witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, the Tribunal has before it Document Book No. VI for Felmy and Document Book VII for von Geitner.
Is defense counsel in position to present them at this time?
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, my two colleagues certainly didn't count on these two books being ready so early. I will inform them at once so that they can present them. Perhaps it would be a good idea if the Tribunal took the recess now and I will look for my two colleagues at once.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will take its morning recess at this time and will reconvene at 11:05.
(A recess was taken.)
JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed, Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: If it please the Tribunal, regarding the defendant von Geitner I have some more documents to be submitted to you. They are contained in Document Book Geitner, Volume 7, Document Book 7. First, there is an affidavit by a United States citizen, Fritz -- abbreviated Fred - Obermayer. This affidavit is signed by Obermayer. It has been certified and authenticated -- duly authenticated in the United States of America, and has been sworn to by the affiant.
MR. FULKERSON: I object to this document, Your Honor please. It is another one of these character affidavits. Part of it has to do with events that occurred during the first World War, the rest of it has to do with events that are not clearly defined as to the exact time, but it simply says "well in to the Hitler years." At any event, it is completely outside the period covered by the indictment.
JUDGE BURKE: What exhibit number did you give it, Dr. Sauter?
DR. SAUTER: It is to be Exhibit 173. May I add it is our view that in appraising the character of a defendant his qualities and his behavior in former times also ought to be referred to?
JUDGE BURKE: It will be accepted, Dr. Sauter, for whatever probative value it may have.
DR. SAUTER: The first part of this affidavit of the American citizen, Fritz Obermayer, describes the attitude of the defendant, Ritter von Geitner, in the period of the first world war towards his Jewish fellow soldiers. Will you please take judicial notice of the statement and note that already at that time the defendant Geitner distinguished himself for tolerance and generosity? In the second part the affiant describes a meeting -- an unexpected social meeting with defendant von Geitner during the second World War. These statements can only be understood properly if one realizes that at the time there were posters displayed on coffee houses to the effect that Jews were not to enter these restaurants. The witness, Obermayer, however, did enter such a restaurant.
He happened to meet defendant von Geitner and the statements of the affiant show how decent and tolerant Geitner had been at that time. I attach importance to this affidavit, if the Tribunal please, because it is an affidavit voluntarily executed by the affiant upon his own wish and because he sent it from the United States. He had apparently read in American newspapers that defendant Kurt von Geitner was in court--.
MR. FULKERSON: I would ask that Dr. Sauter reserve his comments and remarks and testimony about this document for his final argument.
JUDGE BURKE: I think that would probably be the appropriate way to handle it, Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: It is strange that the prosecution always claims the right to tell us where they obtained their evidence, and exercising considerable latitude in introducing its own. This is my Document 201, and if now for the first time I began by stating how the document reached me -- then the prosecution protests. I assume that the court is interested in knowing, how Herr von Geitner who has been interned for 2½ years, is getting an affidavit from an American citizen, and I thought the court might like to know how this came about.
JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Sauter, you will almost be telling us pretty soon.
DR. SAUTER: Pardon?
JUDGE BURKE: You will almost be telling us how the affidavit came, pretty soon. We will pass on to the next item.
DR. SAUTER: May I request the Tribunal however that I may correct an error which I made with the exhibit number? I stated that the document was to be Exhibit 173, but it is actually to be 174. Would you kindly correct that?
JUDGE BURKE: Very well, Doctor. The correction is made.
DR. SAUTER: The next document, is Geitner No. 202, Document Book VII, on page 5, an affidavit by Walter Paul Foerster. I shall not read this affidavit. It deals with the political attitude of the defendant Curt von Geitner. It is to be Exhibit 175.
The next document which I offer the Tribunal is a staff order. I should like to add with regard to this document to make it clear why this staff order was included in the document book. This staff order is in itself not relevant to the case of Geitner, but I have submitted it to the court so that the Tribunal may see how such an order is phrased and signed by the chief of staff, if it really is an order issued by the chief of staff himself. In this order which happens to be -- to originate from the XXII Mountain Corps Headquarters, it is stated -- if the Chief of Staff issued an order in his capacity as chief of staff, then the heading of the document, on page 7, reads as you can see from the introduction, "Corps Headquarters XXII(Mountain) Corps, the Chief of the General Staff". And the signature merely shows the name of the chief of staff. If you compare these two types of orders.
MR. FULKERSON: I would like to renew my protest against this exegesis at this time.
JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed.
DR. SAUTER: When interrogated, personally, General von Geitner stated among other things, if he merely transmitted an order issued by the commanding general, he did that in a specific way in order to make it clear so that the troops could see that it was an order issued by the commanding officer, merely forwarded and transmitted by the chief of staff. That has a certain importance in the case of Geitner, as in the case of all of the defendants who are indicted in their individual capacity as chief of staff, and I request the tribunal to compare other documents with this document submitted by me; other documents in which defendant von Geitner transmitted an order issued by the commanding officer, in his capacity as chief of staff, as, for instance, in Document 973, Exhibit 246, in Book 10, where Your Honor will see this kind of document.
The next document is an affidavit by Hans Zoeberlein, on page 9 of Document Book 7, to be Exhibit 177. An affidavit by Hans Zoeberlein, who at the time was -- encircled in Belgrade in October, 1944, and who describes in a very graphic way his experiences at that time.
The next document will be found on page 14 of Document Book 7. It is document 205. It is an affidavit by DR. Wolfgang Thomich, duly certified and signed by him, and sworn to. This document 205 will become Exhibit 178.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me, Dr. Sauter. I checked my own record, and the Deputy Secretary General has checked with their office, and prior to commencing with this document book your last exhibit was 172. In order that there will not be a break in the record, may I suggest that you number this one 173, inasmuch as you have previously stated that your first exhibit was 174.
DR. SAUTER: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: This exhibit then, Document No. 205, Doc. Book VII will become Exhibit No. 173.
DR. SAUTER: Certainly. This document is an affidavit. Attached to it is a photograph. The affidavit reads: "I, the undersigned, Attorney at Law, Dr. Wolfgang Thomich, Graz, Austrian citizen, hereby declare the following in lieu of an oath, having been warned that I render myself liable to punishment if I give a false affidavit, to be submitted to the American Military Tribunal No. V in Nuernberg:
"The film of the above photograph was captured during an operation, which the units of the 718th Infantry Division executed in 1942 and 1943 against Marshall Tito's partisan forces in Croatia. It is possible that it was found in a captured staff headquarters building. Several prints have been made from this film.
The above picture has been developed from the captured film. I know this because I was a member of the 718th Infantry Division Staff at that time, and had the copies made according to orders received."
The signature of the witness is certified and authenticated by the appropriate Austrian authority. The photograph shows that the troops of the Serbian partisans did not wear a uniform and that women were also with the troops.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
DR. SAUTER: The last document to be found in Geitner Document Book VII, it is on page 15 of Document Book VII, and it is Document 206 to be Exhibit 178.
MR. FULKERSON: I would like to object to the introduction of this photograph from a periodical on the same grounds that we have advanced for the exclusion of newspaper clippings.
DR. SAUTER: This is the only document -
JUDGE BURKE: The objection will be sustained.
DR. SAUTER: This is the only document which I have submitted which is a newspaper cutting -- a magazine cutting. My reason for submitting it is that the photograph itself bears the original imprint, that is, the caption shows without any doubt what the photo is supposed to depict, to wit, "British soldiers at the burning down of a village", the name is also stated, it is the village of Bekasi in Japan, "as a reprisal measure". According to my statement, this photo, which is taken from an American magazine, is a considerable contribution to the question of the International admissibility of reprisal measures, and the conception which prevails with regard to that topic.
JUDGE BURKE: The mind of the Tribunal has not been changed and the objection will be sustained.
DR. SAUTER: In this case, of course, I shall have to withdraw Exhibit Number 178 from this document. If it please the Tribunal, I shall now finish submission of documents in the case of the defendant, Geitner.
JUDGE BURKE: Very well, Just a minute, Dr. Sauter, the presiding judge wishes to ask you some questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Deputy Secretary General called my attention Friday to some question as to the numbering of your documents concerning Lanz. Did you check any further on that, Secretary?
SECRETARY GENERAL: Yes, Sir, they had been introduced on this subject first -
THE PRESIDENT: And should they be numbered as of 178 or--
SECRETARY GENERAL: This is correct. It started that day those documents were submitted-
DR. SAUTER: If it please the Tribunal, I think this question has previously been discussed with the Secretary General, and we have agreed as to the method how the documents, Lanz, are to be paginated. I don't think there is any error now....
SECRETARY GENERAL: There is on these two.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a duplication of the exhibit numbers 179 and 180. I am informed that on December the 5th Document Number 155 was offered as Exhibit 179 and Document 158 was offered on December 1 as Exhibit 179 and Document 158 was offered on Decemb10.160.0.12910.10.160.0.129r 1 as Exhibit 180. Then on Thursday, I believe, January the 8th, you commenced again with the number Exhibit 179 and continued with the next Exhibit 180. Consequently, there are two exhibit numbers 179 and 180.
DR. SAUTER: That is correct. That has already been discussed with the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDENT: Purely for the record, however, Dr. Sauter, some statement should be made in the record correcting the numbering, and I do not know as to what arrangement you may have made with the Deputy Secretary General for the numbering, but such arrangements and such plan as you have now comtemplated should be stated in the record.
JUDGE BURKE: You may make a statement in the opening of the afternoon session on whatever you may agree on it.
THE PRESIDENT; You work that out with the Secretary General, and make the statement for the record at 1:30.
DR. SAUTER: Certainly, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Mueller-Torgow?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: If it please the Tribunal, I have two more documents to submit, which are in the supplement to Document Book VI of Felmy. The first document Number 178 is to be Exhibit 133. This document concerns the official responsibility on certain topics. It is a statement in answer to questions directed by Major Schaefer towards the then Greek Prime Minister, Sofoulis. The affiant describes in this statements-
MR. FULKERSON: In the first place, we don't have the questions, so it is rather difficult to tell what these statements are responsive to. In the second place, this is not sworn to. In the third place, so far as I can tell, it is completely irrelevant because it concerns only the SS and the SD, so I, therefore, object to its introduction.
JUDGE BURKE: I don't find the document to which you are making reference, Dr. Mueller-Torgow.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: It is contained in the supplement to Document Book 6, on page 1. It is Document Number 178.
JUDGE BURKE: Thank you very much.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: If it please the Tribunal, may I state in reply to the prosecution, in answering the questions directed by Major Schaefer to Mr. Sofoulis in the proper manner, it is not an affidavit. This kind of statement, there is a different procedure for such statements compared with affidavits. The answers are not sworn to according to the regulations. It is a simple, ordinary statement, and this document, therefore, complies with the requirements. As to its contents, General Felmy, even if he is not named, he is referred to in the last paragraph. The affiant describes his arrest in May 1944 by the German Security Service SD, and his experiences in the Chaidari jail. In the letter by Major Schaefer, an inquiry had been made, among other things, whether General Felmy had been instrumental in securing the release of Sofoulis on the 8th of November 1944.
This question has been answered in the last paragraph which reads, -- it is paragraph 6, -- "What I know is the fact that the Greek Minister President at the time--"
JUDGE BURKE: An objection has been made to the introduction of the exhibit. Wait just a minute, please. Why was the affidavit not sworn to?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: If it please the Tribunal, I have already stated that there is no provision for the fact that the questions to these answers had to be sworn to.
JUDGE BURKE: Mr. Fulkerson.
MR. FULKERSON: I can see no reason why the oath should be dispensed with merely because it is in question and answer form. It hasn't been dispensed with in other cases here by so-called affidavits which are really in the form of dispositions, interrogations, and submitted by other defense counsel. I actually know that there is a Major Schaefer in the Defense Information Center, and I assume that this is the same man whose name appears on this document, out even so, you don't know what questions he asked from this document. And, furthermore, as I say, the whole contents of it are utterly irrelevant.
JUDGE BURKE: The objection will be sustained.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: The next document, which will also be the last, is Document 179, to be Exhibit 133. It is an affidavit by Dr. Hans Werner Giesecke. In this statement he comments on the so-called operation Distomon. I should like to read this affidavit:
From about 6 January 1944 until the retreat from Greece I was a member of the Staff of the LXVIII Army Corps as a military judge. Regarding the counts against General of the Air Force Felmy I can only make statements in as far as the mentioned events happened during the period of my service with the LXVIII Army Corps.
I still remember exactly the event of Distomon. The unit leader of the Police Regiment had made an entirely false report. From a report by the Secret Field Police which had been presented to the Corps, it became clear that it was not a combat measure, as the unit leader described it, as far as I remember, but an unprovoked massacre. The Commanding General was furiously indignant about the event and ordered me, as his legal adviser, to clarify the affair. The investigation I made by interrogating the Secret Field Police clerk and possibly other members of the Army unmistakably revealed that the report by the police regiment had been incorrect. It appeared that there was no question of a military operation in Distomon; it had not even been ascertained that the village inhabitants were partisans or connected with such. The protest of the Secret Field Police clerk to the unit leader had been utterly in vain. As the Corps had no jurisdiction over the Police Regiment, proceedings against the perpetrators could not be initiated. For this reason the event, with a comment, was submitted to Army Group E. I do not know what steps were taken by the latter.
The action of the Police Regiment was not covered by any order of the Corps. It rather was a matter of non-compliance with basic orders on the sparing of harmless civilians, that is to say, of measures contrary to international law. Therefore, in my opinion, the Corps could not be held responsible for them. By the report which the latter submitted to the Army Group, according to my recollection, it clearly dissociated itself from the action.
It is not correct that by contentint himself with settling the matter of the false report by disciplinary action, General Felmy agreed to judge the entire case in the same light. My statements regarding the happening would on their own completely exclude this. I do not recall any more today why the false report should have been punished by disciplinary action. But I can only imagine that the lack of jurisdiction by the Corps over the unit leader would have excluded further measures at any rate and that General Felmy in his always gentlemanly attitude towards his subordinates did not judge his own deception so seriously in comparison with the reported event itself. For a complete understanding I furthermore have to point out the following: A declaration of agreement with disciplinary action had a different significance for a member of the Wehrmacht under the jurisdiction of the SS than for a member of the troops which were subordinate to the Corps in a military sense. For the latter, this would have meant the waiving, by the judicial authority, of any legal punishment, which was not and could not be the case for the former. Also for this reason the fact that General Felmy consented to a merely disciplinary dealing with the false report, does not allow of any conclusions detrimental to him.
Besides, General Felmy as a superior and judicial authority always thought and acted justly and ever had a warm and sympathetic heart for all his subordinates. In his measures as a judicial overlord, he was rather too indulgent than too hard. All of us who made his acquaintance always respected and highly esteemed him as a superior and as a man. In his quality as judicial authority he had no dealings with the Greek civilian population. But from my conversations with him I know that he understood the predicaments of the Greek people and that in many cases he personally did not approve of measures taken by other authorities, because they were too hard.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: If it please the Tribunal, I have now finished with my presentation of documents. At the moment none of my colleagues is present who would have any more documents to submit. Dr. Laternser has asked me to state that in the afternoon session, that is, at 1:30, he would be in a position to call two witnesses, if it please the Tribunal.
JUDGE BURKE: Is there no further matter to be presented to the Tribunal at this time?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: Not for the moment, Your Honor.
JUDGE BURKE: The Tribunal will stand adjourned until half past 1 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours).