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?
A The reprisal order dated the 4th of October, is, as far as I remember, not directed to the Armed Forces Southeast Commander. As far as I recall the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we not getting into some matters which were the subject of examination on direct and which concerns the documents which do not pertain to the diary itself here?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I do not intend to go into this matter any further, Your Honor, simply to ask the question whether it is a reference to a report and whether the Field Marshall can remember the substance of the report. I do not wish to go into it in any further detail.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it should be limited because we can not go into these details indefinitely.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: We finish very shortly.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. LATERNSER: If it please the Tribunal, I should like to ask that if an order for instance of the 4th of October is mentioned, then the witness should be given the document so that on the basis of the document he can make his answers.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the suggestion made is a proper one, in order that the witness may know what you are referring to, but I again wish to caution Prosecution that we should not go into these matters which were gone into on direct examination, or should have been gone into.
Q Field Marshal, the entries in your diary show that you left for Crete on the 8th of October, and you didn't arrive back in Athens until around noon the 11th of October, 1941, and the entry for the 11th, which has been translated on page 95, indicates that Foertsch was at the airport. Then further on in the entry for that same day, 11th October, which has been translated on page 96, you mention, "Better news from Serbia". You recall, I believe, that the reprisal execution of 2300 persons in the fight in retaliation for the attack upon the 521st Signal Regiment occured on the 9th and again on the 11th of October, 1941.
Is it a report of that incident that you have in mind when you write here, "Better news from Serbia"?
A I believe, Mr. Fenstermacher, that that is a insinuation which is unintelligible to me. You have already asked me, when representing this document, whether my diary contained daily records of hostage shootings. I at that time refuted that suggestion. Personally, that would never have occured to me. If it states here "Better news from Serbia", then this refers to an improvement in the general situation and it is merely the overall situation that was reported to me, at the time.
Q Now, would you turn to the entry for the 24th of October, 1941. I don't believe this has been translated. You will have to refer to the diary itself. There is a notation there that some person and Foertsch "leave for Saloniki". What was the name of that person? If you can make out your own handwriting.
A It says here "My Deputy taking leave, General Kunz going with Foertsch to Saloniki".
Q That is on the 21st of October, is it?
A Yes, that is how it is recorded.
Q Now, look at the entry for the 26th of October, Isn't there a notation there about Kuntze arriving? Which is correct? Had Kuntze arrived on the 26th, or had he already been there on the 24th?
A No. I beg your pardon. The 24th and 25th are crossed out in my notebook. They have been deleted.
Q Were they deleted by you?
AAnd on the left hand margin there is a notation, because the entry was probably wrong, merely "Sismanoklion" to cover those two days. That is there is not entry for these two days - the 24th and 25th, but merely the name of the hospital, Sismanoklion. The entry has been deleted in both cases because it was wrong.
Q When you mention "deletion" you mean that a line was drawn through the lines of your own handwriting which were entered under date of the 24th of October, do you not?
There is a stroke through the lines.
A Yes, this entry was obviously an error on my part, and realizing it, of course, I deleted the entry. The entry is invalid. There is no entry for the 24th and 25th. I had no reason to make entries in this diary according to legal principles. At that time I did not expect proceedings against me as a war criminal in Nuernberg. On the 26th and 27th there are also deletions of entries.
Q When did you make those deletions as you call them, Field Marshall?
A When? Well, I can't say any more, probably on the 25th, 26th, or 27th of October.
Q You can't tell from your diary when Kuntze arrived in Athens to take over as your deputy, can you?
AAccording to the entry of the 26th, "General of Engineers Kuntze, my deputy arrives, on the 26th of October, but whether he arrived at Athens or whether he was in Sismanoklion is not quite clear. We have to read on -- perhaps he called on me on the 26th or he was in Athens on the 26th. On the 31st of October it reads: "General Kuntze with Foertsch takes leave and proceeds to Saloniki." That, of course is clear that he called, on me in the hospital.
Q Isn't there a stroke through the entry for the 26th of October?
A One entry on the 26th of October was deleted, it had read: "Especially good day". That refers to me, but that was obviously a wrong entry or a wrong date.
Q Then the entry for the 27th of October mentions that Felmy visited you in the hospital; did he visit you because -
A This entry is also deleted.
Q You mean general Felmy did not visit you on that date?
A I presume that he did not. I don't know how this came about, I don't know how these deletions came about, I cannot say at this time. I must emphasize that this notebook is not a diary in the sense of my having kept an official diary. It is merely a notebook for personal jottings now and again so at a later time I couls see where I had been on certain dates, but it was not to be used as a valid document.
It should also be evaluated in this way. It is also possible that for two, three or four days I did not make any entries, then I made the entries afterwards to cover the dates and then found that these entries weren't correct. That is quite possible.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: In order to comply with the 24 hour ruling, I announce now that during the course of our rebuttal we will be calling the following persons among others as witnesses: Wilhelm Keiper, Otto Gullmann, Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski and Willy Finger. We may have occasion to call additional witnesses. If we do, we will of course give at least 24 hours notice to the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire as to the time that the witnesses who are called for cross-examination, that is the affiants to which reference was made in our proceedings yesterday, when they will be called?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Whenever the prosecution is advised that they are here and available for cross-examination, Your Honor, we will be ready to begin cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: I think there should be some time limit as to when they can be called.
We cannot adjourn from time to time awaiting their arrival.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I am perfectly willing to have the defense limited by way of time when they must get the affiants here. It is after all a matter for the defense rather than the prosecution to bring these people here.
THE PRESIDENT: These requests were only made yesterday and the defense center cannot do the impossible. Some of these are affiants' affidavits made and filed several months ago and it seems to me the Defense Center should not be required to do the impossible. If they can, that is all right, but there should be some time limit when the witnesses should be required to be here.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honor please, I believe some of these witnesses are voluntary witnesses, which the defense found out about. I don't know if it is the responsibility of the Defense Information Center to send out notices or sub-poenas for those men to be brought here, but I believe the defense counsel or the defendants know at least where some of them live....
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will take such action in connection with this matter as it deems advisable. May I ask that defense counsel be here at the conclusion of our morning recess. At that time the Tribunal will make an announcement in connection with the matter of closing arguments.
The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Military Tribunal No. V is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: In connection with the matter of the closing arguments, the Tribunal desires to announce, for the purpose of the record, that the closing arguments will commence Monday, February tho 2nd, 1948, at 9:30 a.m. and will be concluded that week.
Heretofore on December the 15th, 1947, the Tribunal made an announcement as to the limitation and order of presentation and for the purposes of the record at this time and as a notice to all parties concerned, this statement is repeated.
A. One day will be allowed to the prosecution for the presentation of its closing arguments.
B. One day will be allowed to Dr. Laternser representing the defendant List and for all defendants generally.
C. Commencing with Wednesday the 4th, and sooner if possible, counsel for each of the defendants, will be allowed a period of time, not to exceed two hours for each defendant represented. This time allowance is a maximum allowance and is not to be exceeded.
D. The defense counsel will then be allowed not to exceed two hours, either individually or collectively, to reply to matters raised by the prosecution argument and not covered by the original arguments submitted by defense counsel.
E. The prosecution will then be allowed not to exceed one and a half hours to reply to matters presented in the arguments submitted by the respective defense counsel.
F. Following the completion of all arguments, any of the defendants who cares to avail himself of the opportunity, will be given a maximum time of ten minutes in which to address the court concerning his defense.
This schedule will necessitate a close adherence to the time allowance and will require that there be three defense arguments for the days of Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. If any defense counsel docs not use the maximum time herein provided, one of the defense counsel will be expected to follow immediately.
It will also necessitate the holding of sessions of court to a later hour then the regular time for adjournment on February 4th, 5th and 6th. It will also necessitate the holding of sessions of court on Saturday, February the 7th, both morning and afternoon and for such length of time as to dispose of all pending matters.
The Tribunal has received information from the language division that it now has an excessive amount of work. Both prosecution and defense counsel should take notice of the fact that it will be necessary to have their final arguments ready for presentation to the translation department at an early date. The Tribunal will check as to when both the prosecution and defense counsel present their documents to the translation division. Although the arguments should be given to the language division as early as possible, the time for presentation should be at least three days prior to the scheduled time for presentation to this Tribunal, Saturday and Sunday not included.
And it should be added that heretofore it has been the request of the Language division that these final arguments should be presented at least two weeks prior to the time and if they can be presented at an earlier time than it is here suggested, it should be done.
That concludes the comments the Tribunal desires to make in connection with the closing arguments.
In connection with the matter of the production of the defense affiants, who will be called for cross-examination, I think it should be kept in mind that these are defendant witnesses and it is incumbent upon them, - on the defendants, through their counsel to see that these witnesses are presented to the Tribunal, and it will be expected of defense counsel that they will cooperate with the necessary authorities, if there is necessity for cooperation, to see that these witnesses are presented by the defense counsel. The bringing of these witnesses should not be at a date later than next Monday morning.
DR. LATERNSER: May it please the Tribunal with reference to this cross examination witnesses, Captain Pace has worked on this problem since yesterday, - after we were given the names of these witnesses, yesterday afternoon.
With reference to the rebuttal witnesses of the prosecution, the prosecution only gave the surnames of those witnesses, and the defense would be obliged for additional comments as to the subject matter on which these witnesses are to be examined and where they are at the moment. Those are the same preconditions under which we had up until now to announce our own witnesses; that is, the prosecition would still have to give the subject matter for the rebuttal witnesses and the locality in which these witnesses can be found.
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, in reference to Dr. Laternser's first statement, I would like to offer the Tribunal a suggestion for what it is worth, if anything. We have received almost 1500 affidavits from defense counsel. A very rough estimate indicates that 80% of the affiants or in excess of 1,000 individuals are at liberty, That is to say, they are not under confinement by any U.S. or Allied authorities. A number of those affiants that we have asked for cross examination -- I do not recall the exact numner -- are not under confinement. They are free citizens just like the defense counsel/
I do not see any reason why Captain Pace of the Defense Information Center should be bothered in getting them here. They can be gotten here by defense counsel getting in touch with them as they have done heretofore, because a great number of those have been in Nuernberg at their own free will to give these affidavits; so I would suggest that Captain Pace be given only the names of those affiants to get here who are at the present time under confinement.
The others, I don't see why he has to bother with them and I am sure he is busy with a lot of other stuff.
THE PRESIDENT: It is also true Mr. Rapp, that defense counsel are required to be here in court. The facilities of the entire prosecution staff and all the means that they have should be used even though it may not be required of the Defense Center from an official standpoint to aid the defense counsel.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I was merely suggesting it, and I did not know that the defense counsel have to go personally out there to fetch these people. I thought dropping them a letter or phoning them would suffice. However, I merely passed it on for what it is worth and if defense counsel feels it can be done more expeditiously through Captain Pace, very well? I suggest we have it that way.
DR. PAUSCHENBACH: (Counsel for defendant Foertsch): That is the very reason, if your Honors please, for which I had a discussion yesterday with Captain Pace. Of course witnesses who are at liberty and who contacted us heretofore, we are able to get here. However time is pressing at this moment because the applications were made rather late. Therefore, it will be better to have the situation surveyed by an official office -that is, the Defense Information Center -- so that then the person who is called here will not have any difficulties concerning railway tickets, et cetera. He will be allowed to ride Military coaches, and that is the main reason we are handling it through the Defense Information Center.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to proceed the further cross examination?
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, the dfense is still waiting for the subject matter of the rebuttal witnesses in the same way as the defense had to handle this matter heretofore.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I can supply that, if you your Honors please. The rebuttal witness, Wilhelm Keiper, is at present, I believe, in the Prisoner of War enclosure in Dachau. He will testify to the relationship between administrative sub-area headquaters and divisional troops operating in the area of the administrative sub-area headquaters, regarding the responsibility fur the taking of reprisal measures.
The rebuttal witness, Otto Gullmann, who will testify regarding the military necessity for the execution of hostages and the burning of villages in reprisal.
He is at present I believe, living in Hannover in the British Zone.
The rebuttal witness, Erich von den Bach-Zelewski, is at present in the Nuernberg prison. He will testify to the entire SS Army complex and also regarding partisans warfare.
The rebuttal witness, Willie Finher, is at present living, I believe in Hannover in the British Zone and he will testify regarding orders issued by the defendant Felmy for the taking of reprisal measures.
DR. LATERNSER: May it please the tribunal, first of all I would like the examination of the witnesses Gullmann and Bach-Zelewski to be rejected. Gullmann is supposed to be examined as to whether a measure for instance such as the burning down of a village, complied with military necessities. That is by no means a theorical question, it is a question concerning facts. The witness, therefore, should know events leading to the burning down of the village. That, obviously, is not the case. Therefore, the witness can't do that, and, therefore, he should not be admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems, Dr. Laternser, that it will be necessary for the court to rule upon these questions when and as the witnesses are presented, and as the questions are asked, and as the evidence is deduced. It would hardly be advisable to make a preliminary ruling at this time relative to both sides.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, but if it becomes apparent from the announcement of the subject by the prosecution -- and I assured the most important parts of the testimony will be announced with the names of the witness -- if this alone shows that the witness, as Gullmann here, for instance, is to make certain judgment, we can see from the very start that he wouldn't have any essential testimony. The same applies to the third witness, Bach-Zelewski, announced by the prosecution. He was never in a official position in the Balkans -- never at any time. He was a witness who has appeared in many trials. Since he was never at any time in the Balkans, I contend that he will not be able to say anything essential concerning this trial.