I shall now come to the last document on behalf of defendant Lanz. It is Document No. 200 on page 5 of Document Book Lanz X. The Tribunal may remember that some days ago when submitting other documents on behalf of Lanz, I also mentioned a proclamation by the French military authorities in Birkenfeld and that I read excerpts from it in order to establish that French occupation authorities also ordered reprisal measures in the ratio of 1 to 10.
At that time the prosecution objected to this document, saying that it had not identified. At that time I was unable to identify the document because the affidavit relevant to that case had already been filed by me but bad not yet been translated and then the Tribunal ruled that the matter was to be deferred until the affidavit had been translated and was available to the Tribunal.
That now is the case. The affidavit serves to identify the proclamation by the French military administration. It is in Document No. 200 which I am now offering to the Tribunal. The contents of the proclamation itself has already been read into the record the last time. It is merely a question of the affidavit new which is attached to the document.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors please, I object to this. Your Honors will recall that at the time Dr. Sauter offered the proclamation itself it was objected to and admitted only provisionally subject to a motion by the prosecution to strike it if the identifications were not completed.
I now move to strike the proclamation. Your Honors see what Dr. Sauter is trying to palm off on us now by way of identification. The first affidavit which he offers states: that "The photocopy attached which an acquaintance of ours had given us." The acquaintance is not named. We don't know where he is, nor the circumstances under which he found the proclamation. The affiant simply says that his acquaintance assured him that it was an exact reproduction of the military document in Landkreis Birkenfeld.
The affiant simply states that his acquaintance assured them that the poster was an exact reproduction of the notice of the French military government in the Landkreis Birkenfeld. That is certainly hearsay of the worst kind and we don't know who the acquaintance is.
The statement of the acquaintance in assuring the affiant that it was an exact reproduction is certainly not made under oath.
Then the affiant talks about a similar notice, and after the middle paragraph they say. "We have seen this poster ourselves." It is certainly not clear which poster they mean, whether they mean the first one or the similar notice.
I submit that in order to have this proclamation properly identified someone has to say where they saw the poster, when they saw it, certify that they saw it publicly posted. I would just like to ask Dr. Sauter if he were Prosecution counsel how he would go about challenging the validity of this poster. There is no conceivable person we can bring here for cross-examination purposes. If we bring the affiants they say they got it from an unknown person. And we don't know who the unknown person is, to ask him how he got it and under what circumstances.
For all it appears here, he may have printed the proclamation himself. So much for the validity of the proclamation from the first affidavit. There is certainly suspicion aroused by the second affidavit which appears to be the second affidavit by relatives of the first affiant. They, too, say that an owner who is unknown assured this affiant that the original had been publicly posted in the Landkreis Birkenfeld, and that in the summer of 1946 he took the original from a public place into his possession. The proclamation itself is dated the 10th of January 1945.
If this proclamation was in fact publicly posted from July 1945 through to the summer of 1946, certainly Dr. Sauter ought to be able to get samebody in this city of Stuttgart of 500,000 people to identify this and say when they saw it and where they saw it and whether or not it was publicly posted at the time they did see it.
I move to strike the proclamation.
DR. SAUTER: If it please the Tribunal, things are not as simple as that for the defense to produce witnesses from Stuttgart. I myself am here in Nurnberg and know nobody in Stuttgart. My client is not granted any leave to go to Stuttgart and to look for witnesses. The matter is like this:
I have not merely submitted a copy of the poster, but also the original which is in the files of the secretary general. You may recall that the last time I had the original here I showd it to the Tribunal and that the two affiants confirmed that this original document which I submitted to the court were received by them. Where else could it come from but from the French Military Government?
The affiants go on to confirm that they themselves saw a document of this kind at the time, that they saw how such notice were publicly displayed. Therefore, in my view there can seriously be no doubt as to the importance and authenticity of this document.
May I point out, if it please the Tribunal, that in the course of this case the prosecution for instance has also submitted posters of German authorities. We have never had a witness who had confirmed and sworn to the authenticity of these posters. We never questioned their authenticity because we take the view that as a fair defense counsel one ought not to contest something which is obviously genuine.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Now, if your Honors please, Dr. Sauter's remarks are not quite pertinent. This is on a corollary issue. Whether or not it is submitted makes no difference to the eventual outcome of the case, in our opinion. Now when he talks about the affiants having seen this poster, I submit that is completely ambiguous. We don't know whether they are talking about the poster which Dr. Sauter now intends to offer, or whether they are talking about this similar poster. If they say they have seen this poster, it is completely ambiguous. We don't know whether they mean the poster that Dr. Sauter is offering into evidence or whether they mean the similar notice which they mention in the second paragraph of the affidavit.
I myself could certify that I saw the poster after Dr. Sauter shows it to me. We don't know whether these people have said they have seen it after the owner has given it to them or whether they themselves saw it was publicly posted. There is no conceivable way the prosecution can shake the validity of this proclamation if it is allowed into evidence under these circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: The document No. 200, which is Exhibit 188, has as a part of that document the statement: "A similar notice was posted--" Exhibit 188--thank you--states that a similar notice was posted in Stadtbezirk Zuffenhausen during the occupation of Stuttgart by French troops.
The Tribunal is conscious of the fact that the proof is not as positive and as clear as might be desired, but under the general rule and theories which underly these trials, that the rules of evidence shall not be strictly required and adhered to, the Exhibit will be received for such probative value as the Tribunal deems that it merits.
DR. SAUTER: If it please the Tribunal, may I now conclude my presentation of documents in the case of defendant Lanz? I thank the Court for their indulgence.
THE PRESIDENT: By your statement and remarks, I take it, Dr. Sauter, you are now resting your case for the defendant Lanz?
DR. SAUTER: Yes. I thank the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will so show.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, if there is no further business by the defense, I am prepared to cross-examine Fieldmarshal List on the excerpts of his personal diary.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do so at this time.
(Fieldmarshal List took the stand.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q. Fieldmarshal, I should like to return to you your personal diary at this time.
There has been some difficulty in transcribing certain of the. excerpts from your own handwriting, Fieldmarshal, so if I should happen to have a wrong translation of any of them I hope you will feel free to correct me. Will you look at the entries in your diary for the 4th, 9th and 10th of June, 1941? These entries were not translated, if Your Honors please.
A. Do you mean of the 4th, 10th and 9th of June? I am unable to find these entries in my document.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I object to this question. The prosecution is entitled to cross-examine regarding such points as I have included in my document book. These points are subject to cross-examination according to the rules of the Court. It is the same thing as with a witness. A witness knows a great many things and the prosecution is entitled to cross-examine him on those points on that part of his knowledge to which he has already testified, but not the prosecution with the very first question transcends these limitation. They can contest what I have submitted, but they cannot contest what I have not submitted.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honor please, -
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be overruled.
BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q. Will you examine your own entries in your own handwriting, Fieldmarshal, for the 4th, 9th and 10th of June, 1941. They relate, do they not, to certain conferences you had with Guenther Altenburg who was the representative of the Foreign Office in Greece at that time?
A. Just a moment, I wish to read it first before I comment. I wrote it in shorthand and I have to decipher it first. On the 4th and the 9th, what was the other date?
Q. Now on the 4th you talk about having a dispute with Altenburg and I believe you say something to the effect that Altenburg is overstepping his rights. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct. It is about an encroachment of his rights.
Q. Then on the 10th of June, you talk about sending a report to the OKH regarding the competence of Altenburg and you mention executive power. What is all this about--your discussions with Altenburg, and his overstepping his rights?
A. I am unable to say that in detail at this time. This regulation at that time contained a provision that the Plenipotentiary of the Reich had certain rights and those he had obviously overstepped in individual cases. But as to what cases were concerned, I am unable to say now.
Q. You were very jealous of the power which you had been given on the 9th of June, 1941, as Wehrmachtbefehlshaber Southeast, and you wanted to put Altenburg in his place, didn't you?
A. It is a matter of course that everybody tries to safeguard and claim those rights to which he is entitled.
Q. Now then, I believe in the entry of the 13th of June there is some mention of your going to see the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Fieldmarshal von Brauchitsch in Berlin. What did you want to see Brauchitsch about?
A. Just a moment, I haven't found the passage yet.
Q. This entry, if Your Honors please, has been translated in the excerpts offered by Dr. Laternser and is found on page 78 of this document Book No. III.
A. It reads here "Call from Berlin. I have to go to the OKH." That is, I didn't want to go, but I was ordered to go.
Q. Then on the 15th of June, your Ia officer, your Operations Officer Kuebler arrived from Athens. Did he bring you news of what was going on in the area of the 12th Army while you were absent from headquarters?
A. I can no longer say today what Kuebler told me at that time. The main place in this conversation was taken by the consultation in Berlin.
Q. Well, I will come to that in -
A. Kuebler arrived in the afternoon by plane from Berlin. He arrived from Athens. He was called for by order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and on the same night we flew together to Berlin and we probably mainly talked about what Brauchitsch really wanted from us.
Q. Now let's come to that conference that you had with Brauchitsch, and then another conference with Hitler, and then I believe a third conference with Keitel and Jodl. What was talked about in those conferences?
A. The only topic was the new task which I was assigned subsequently, that was the institution of the Armed Forces Commander Southeast. Hitler did not talk at all about it. He merely wanted me to report in general on the Balkan campaign for his own information.
Q. Now in your affidavit which appears on page 77 of this Document Book III, you mentioned periods during which you were absent from headquarters, and you mention that you were absent from the morning of the 13th of June, 1941, until the afternoon of 23 June 1941, Vienna, Berlin. That was an official business trip, was it not, Fieldmarshal?
A. A semi-official trip, partly it was a recuperation after my illness.
Q. Nowon the 20th of June, there is an entry which has not been translated which I think mentions that you talked to Foertsch on the telephone. Did he call you from Athens at your home in Vienna or GarmischPartenkirchen?
A. I really don't know today what happened on the 20th June, whether I instigated the telephone conversation or whether he was responsible for it.
Q. You probably talked about what was happening in the area under your command, didn't you?
A. Probably we talked then about the fact that I had become Armed Forces Commander Southeast. Probably--it is merely a conjecture on my part. I can no longer say what I said in a telephone conversation seven years ago.
Q. Well, you were Armed Forces Commander Southeast from the 9th of June and you didn't leave Athens until the 13th of June, and here you are talking on the 20th June about the same subject. You would have covered that before you had even left Athens, wouldn't you?
A. The order was not available at the time I left Athens. The order was issued by me after my return. That is also contained in this diary, I dare say. The basic order is dated by Hitler, but my order I only received my commission when I came to Berlin and that is quite evident from the entry on the 13th of June on page 78 "Call from Berlin. I have to go to the OKH." It was a complete surprise to me that I had to go to Berlin.
Q. Now, Fieldmarshal, the Hitler order appointing you Wehrmachtbefehlshaber Southeast and giving you full executive power in the Southeast area was issued on the 9th of June, 1941, was it not?
A. It is dated the 9th of June.
Q. Now do you mean it took more than four days before that 9th of June order got to you in Athens? After all, you didn't leave Athens until the 13th.
A. As far as I recall, this order was only discussed in all its effects in our conference on the 13th of June in Berlin.
Q. Now why did you talk to Foertsch? Wasn't Felmy in full charge of the 12th Army while you were away during that period? Couldn't Foertsch have cleared everything through Felmy?
A. I don't know whether Felmy was ordered in this case to take charge on my behalf or as my deputy, but it as a matter of course that the Supreme Commander has to talk with his chief when he is absent for some time, and particularly in cases where such a fundamental change in the whole position to place.
Q. Now let's turn to the entries during the month of July. First of all, you mention in your affidavit that you were absent from the 20th of July 1941, absence because of leave and duty. Now on your way from Greece to your home in Germany, you stopped off in Serbia, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And I believe on the 21st of July you had a conference with Gener Bader and General Stahl in Serbia--this is on page 85 of the English, if you Honors please. Have you found the entry an your book?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. You remember that the attack upon General Lonschak occurred on the 18th of July, 1941, and that in reprisal for that attack, 52 communists and Jews were shot on the 20th of July. That is to say, the day before you arrived in Serbia. Do you recall now whether you discussed that attack with General Bader and General Stahl in your conference on the day following -that is on the 21st of July?
DR. LATERNSER: I object to this question because this point has already been a topic of cross-examination by the prosecution.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Not in this context, if your Honors please. He mentions here a conference with Bader and Stahl and that is the first knowledge I have of any such conference taking place on the day after -
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be overruled.
BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q. Do you remember the question, Fieldmarshal?
A. I have previously answered the very same question which is now be put to me in my direct examination by Mr. Denny and I refer to what is set down in the record.
Q. I asked you a very single question, Fieldmarshal, whether you discussed this matter in your conference with Bader and Stahl in Serbia on the 21st of July, 1941. If you don't remember, you can say so.
A. I have already replied to this. I have given this answer in dir examination and that ought to be in one record.
Q. Can't you give me a yes or no answer to it again?
THE PRESIDENT: General List, if you will kindly give attention to the question and answer it, if you care to answer it; otherwise the Court will take such consideration of your attitude and answer as it deems advisable.
A. I said at the time that this affair was not discussed as far as I can remember.
Q. General Stahl was the Commander of the 714th Division, as you point out here in this entry. You will recall from the documents that on the 20th of July, the 714th Division reported that it had killed two communists and shot 16 prisoners.
That reference is in Document Book I at page 97. You talked with Stahl the next day. Do you remember whether you discussed that particular point?
A. No, I cannot recall that. May I also point out in connection with this topic that I believe I already testified in direct examination that it is perfectly impossible for me to recall such details, that I only had to gleam them from the document books, and may I add that it is a conception of the prosecution that the whole activity of a Supreme Commander merely concerned reprisal measures? Generally, I discussed with these people the commitment and the condition of their troops and heard their worries, and details were probably not discussed at all. If they were, I really cannot recall much as I try, on what kind of details we did discuss at the time.
Q. Fieldmarshal, this rebellion in Serbia had not yet begun here in the middle of July, 1941, nor had there been an attack upon a General up until tins time, had there?
DR. LATERNSER: Will you please state the German pagination in Document Book I, because I am unable to follow the proceedings.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I will be glad to do so, Dr. Laternser. The reference is in Document Book I at page 97 of the English, page 75 of the German.
BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q. Isn't it likely, Fieldmarshal, that when an attack upon a General in the German Army had taken place a day previous to your arrival in Serbia, that matter would have been discussed by you in your conference with General Bader and General Stahl?
A. I can only say that I really cannot recall this matter. As far as I recall, it was not discussed.
Q. You mention in you entry of the 21st of July that you were billeted in the castle of Prince Regent Paul. That is the white Castle in Belgrade, isn't it? I have only been in Belgrade once for a very short time but as I remember, in order to get to the castle, you have to go entirely down the main street of Belgrade, do you not?
DR. LATERNSER: I object to this whole method of question, as it is based on facts which are not consistent with our documents.
The prosecution now confronts Fieldmarshal List with an event which is on page 75 of the Germ and page 97 of the English text; it is an event which, if read properly, was reported on the 31st of July, 1941, and he is now told that this report dated the 31st of July was discussed with General Bader on one 21st of July, although the event was reported to him on the 31st of July.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honors please, I think I can explain this The entry in the Document Book mentions that the Wehrmacht Liaison office reported on the 31st of July, 1941, tint on the 20th of July, 1941, during operations carried out by the 714th Infantry Division, two communists were killed and 16 taken prisoners and later likewise shot, my only question was to ask Fieldmarshal List whether on the 21st of July, 1941, in his conference with General Stahl, the Commander of the 714th Division, whether this event was mentioned, the event having taken place just the previous day.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed briefly along this line.
BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q. In your conference with General Bader and General Stahl, did they mention anything to you about the treatment being given the Jews in Belgrade?
A. Certainly not.
THE PRESIDENT: Are those matters covered in the diary?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: The dairy mentions a conference, if your Honors please, and it is the first occasion we have had to ask what was discussed at the conference.
THE PRESIDENT: We cannot go into all the problems of these various matters, conference for conference.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Very well, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Restrict it to the diary.
BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q. Fieldmarshal, on the 22nd of July, 1941, you mentioned a report by Consul General Neuhausen and Ambassador Benzler. Neuhausen was Goering's representative as plenipotentiary of the Four-Year Plan, wasn't he? He wasn't subordinate to you?
A. No, he was not.
Q. If he wasn't subordinate to you, why was he reporting to you?
A. It was a matter of routine that a Supreme Commander of such an area was informed as a matter of courtesy and that he was briefly informed on the activities in the area.
Q. Now, will you turn to the entries in your diary during the month of August 1941? I believe it appears from the entries that on the 24th, 25th, 26th and 27th you spent a good deal of time with Foertsch going over reports. I don't suppose you recall now the various matters which were dealt with during those conferences?
A. Certainly not, as far as details are concerned. Certainly not.
Q. It is probably true, though, isn't it, that Foertsch kept you up-to-date on what had happened in all the areas under the command of the Twelfth Army while you were absent from headquarters?
A. He did report to me orally on what had happened in general.
Q. Now, will you look at the entry on the 29th of August 1941? This entry has not been translated. Would you read what you have written there?
A. "In the morning reports. Afternoon - bathing in the Gulf of Marathon; sandy beach and strong seas. Beautiful. Evening: hard and tiring. In Serbia things are still in ferment. We shall have to adopt different methods. We must adopt different methods."
Q. Now, you will recall that a few days later, on the 5th of September, you issued an order regarding the methods to be used in pacifying Serbia? When you mention in this entry the need to use different methods, were you then thinking about the methods which were later put down in your order of 5 September?
A. I thought definitely of methods of warfare, of fighting, and of different assignments and commitments of the troops, and that is clearly and unequivocally evident from the order of the 5th of September. In Serbia in these conferences which I had on my way through, we talked about the committment of light infantry units, and on the basis of happenings and the aggravation of the position, I had the impression and gained the conviction that these light infantry units were no longer adequate and that was the principal reason for the issuance of the order of the 5th of September, which substantially is a purely tactical order and which was to effect a change in the committment of troops.
Q. Do you recall now when you first began drafting the order which was later issued on the 5th of September? Was it about this time?
A. I can't recall that, but it certainly was not about that time, but later.
Q. Would you look at the entry for the 5th of September. Field Marshall? You say there that "in Serbia more disorder by insurgents", but you don't mention having issued an order on that day. Didn't you consider that order important enough to note down in your diary?
A. Entries for this diary were not governed by any plan which I had previously made. It isn't a daily diary, and certainly not an official diary. Merely jottings -- I mainly recorded personal -purely personal things.
Q. You mentioned, Field Marshall, in the entry of the 3rd of September, the situation in Serbia was unsatisfactory; on the 4th of September there are reports, apparently from the Chief -- and I take it by that you mean Foertsch -- about Serbia. On the 5th of September you talk about more disorder by insurgents in Serbia. Again on the 6th of September you talk about Serbia continuing to smoulder, and also on the 7th you talked to Kuebler about Serbia; and finally on the 8th of September you get some more reports and you discuss waiting for Turner. It is quite clear, isn't it .....
A. That is not contained in this diary.
Q. When I refer to an entry, Field Marshall, which is not translated, would you please refer to your own handwritten entries in the diary itself?
A. What day are you referring to, please?
Q. Well, look at the entry for the 3rd of September, where you say the situation in Serbia was unsatisfactory.
A. I think it is recorded here.
Q. I don't believe the 3rd is recorded. I believe the translated excerpts begin with the 4th of September.
A. The conclusion reads: "Position in Serbia unsatisfactory. Failure on the part of some companies".
Q. What I am getting at, Field Marshall, is, you were quite well informed with what was going on in Serbia during this entire period, were you not?
A. I knew in general what was happening, and it is evident from the diary that there was an incessant increase of the insurgent movement in Serbia. That is apparent from all of these entries.
Q. Now would you look in the entry for the 9th of September, 1941? Where you discuss your conference with Turner. You mention that Turner pretends to be very militaristic.
A. Just a moment, if you please. 9th of September?
Q. Yes.
A. That has not been translated.
Q. Yes, I believe it has been translated on page 90 of the document book.
A. That is the 16th of September. The 15th and the l6th.
Q. Well, perhaps my date is wrong, but I am talking particularly of the conference you had with Turner. What did you mean when you said that "he pretends to be very militaristic and confidential"?
A. "Militarisch". I said "Military" and not militaristic.
Q. What do you mean by the word "confidential"?
A. That is hard to say after seven years, what one thought at that time. I probably meant to convey that he behaved in a way different from what he really was.
Q. Now, you mention there that Turner's "views do not always apply". Did you mean by that that his views were different from your views, as expressed in your order of 5 September?
A. I certainly did not discuss the order of the 5th of September with the Chief of Military Administration. Such matters I did not discuss with Turner. But in this case it was mainly a question of my wanting to become quite clear as to what position Turner allocated to himself, and I really wanted to put him in his place regarding his exceeding his authority, competencies, and right. The government was being formed at the time without reports being made to me. Nothing of the pre-negotiations was reported to me. Further, the Serbian police were armed without my being informed. These facts I first gathered from the newspapers, and that was the reason why I had to discuss things once and for all with Turner; but orders and other such matters were certainly not discussed with him.
Q. Now, would you look at the entry for the 13th of September? I don't believe that has been translated. You will have to refer to the diary itself. I believe you mention there a "decisive proposal OKW regarding Serbia". Was that a proposal which OKW made or which you made to OKW?
A. No, it is a proposal which I addressed to the OKW regarding the institution of the Plenipotentiary General in Serbia; about the appointment of Boehme, as is clearly proved by the documents.
Q. Look at the entry of the 18th of September which has been translated on page 92. You say there you worked out arrangements with Kuebler regarding Turner's assignment to Serbia. You mean by that that you told Kuebler exactly how to conduct himself and what methods to use in pacifying Serbia?
A. I have already testified on this. The decisive directives regarding the Boehme assignment is contained in the documents. I am unable to say which, but if I recall correctly is is Document 50 or Exhibit 50, and this directive refers exclusively to Boehme's appointment in order to direct military operations in Serbia. This directive is the only one to which my entry of the 18th can possibly refer.
"Military operations" is expressly underlined in this order to Boehme, and that is the thing dismissed; and General Boehme, when taking leave of me, only got a very general order on these lines from me. I have also testified on this and it has been admitted to the record.
Q. Now, some of these entries mention various conferences which you had with Boehme prior to his being assigned to Serbia. Do you recall now whether you discussed your order of the 5th of September and the Keitel order of the 16th of September in those conferences?
A. I certainly do remember, and I have also testified to this in the preliminary interrogation -- that when General Boehme took leave, I gave him a purely tactical order, and I have just repeated that. As for the OKW order of the 16th of September, I can not possibly have discussed it with Boehme because at that time this order was not available to me. Certainly not in my hands.
Q. Boehme did not go to Serbia until the 19th, I believe. Isn't that true or was it the 18th when he left?
A. At any rate he took his leave from me on the 18th, in the morning. It states here: "In the morning General of Infantry Boehme takes his leave"; that is on the 18th of September.
Q. You say that prior to the 18th you had not received the Keitel directive of the 16th of September 1941?
A. As far as I remember, certainly not.
Q. Now, would you look at the entry for the 28th of September 1941. I don't believe this has been translated. You will have to refer to the diary itself. You mention there, do you not, a discussion with Foertsch and a telephone conversation with Boehme? Were you able to telephone from Athens to Belgrade and talk to Boehme whenever you wanted to?
A. Of course, communications were available. These communications, as I have previously stressed, were frequently disrupted. The communications to Belgrade -- the telephone communications were very poor, and for this reason I only rarely talked to Boehme, which is also proved by the fact that it is even recorded in this note book.
Q Now let's look at the entries for the month of October, 1941. On the first of October which has bot been translated, I think you mentioned waiting for reports from Serbia. Is that right?
A Just a moment, I will have to decipher it first. The first of October, you say?
Q Yes.
A Yes, it reads "the evenings are very monotonous, waiting for reports from Serbia." That was every evening, because a number of entries say, for instance on the 29th August, "Ferment in Serbia - on 3rd September position in Serbia unpleasant"; on 5th September, "Further insurrections" on the 6th September", suppose continues on 7th September. "Report by Kuebler, on Serbia 8th September "Report from Serbia still unpleasant". And here is one entry which I unburdened my anguished heart and gave to my feelings about conditions, because every evening one was waiting waiting for what distressing Job's message was to be expected from Serbia. That is merely a confirmation and an expression of the fact that in Serbia the insurrectionary movement was constantly on the increase.
Q You waited for these reports from Serbia every evening?
A Every evening there were reports from Serbia. That is, they did not arrive in the evening, but in the course of the day, and in the evening they were orally reported. That is what Foertsch repeatedly testified, that in the course of the day we received reports and that in the evening we were given a summarization of the incoming reports.
Q On the 6th of October, 1941, the entry has been translated on page 93, you mention a report by Foertsch. I assume you mean Foertsch when you mention "Chief" throughout the diary. Now, you recall Field Marshall, that on the 4th of October, 1941, General Boehme issued an order to take reprisal measures for the attack on the 2nd of October upon the 521st Signal Regiment - Signal Battalion. In that attack, you recall, 21 German soldiers were killed. Now is it likely that in this report of Foertsch on the 6th of October you were informed both of the attack on the 2nd of October, as well as Boehme's reprisal order issued on the 4th of October?