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.
Partisan warfare is given as the subject matter, and he was not in the Balkans, he cannot make any statement about it.
THE PRESIDENT: The statement that the Court previously made seems to be again applicable to what you have just stated, that the court cannot and is not disposed to make a preliminary ruling on these matters. I think we could well proceed now to the other matters which concerns the Court and particularly the completion of the cross examination of the defendant List.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q Field Marshal -
A I beg your pardon, Mr. Fenstermacher, may I add something concerning this entry we discussed?
The crossing out shows quite obviously that the entry of the 24th and 25th, Friday and Saturday, was made a week too early. The same entry appears a week later on the same page -- that is, a page further on -but in the same column, on the succeeding Friday and Saturday. The same happened to the entry of the 26th and 27th -- that is Sunday and Monday on the 27th. It says: General of the Air Force Felmy pays a visit, and we have the sand entry a week later on Monday, the 3rd of November.
What happened, apparently, is that for some time I didn't make any entries whatsoever and when I started again I made an error of one week. There is no other explanations that I com see.
Q You mean, you didn't intend this to be 100% accurate in all of its details?
A I don't understand what you mean. What I actually entered was correct, generally speaking, but I couldn't have made a mistake as to date. That is, if I didn't make an entry immediately. What happened is I just got hold of the wrong column.
Furthermore, we have to take into consideration the fact that I was in a military hospital at the time, that I was sick, and it is quite possible that I made a mistake. As I said before, I never intended this diary to be a document.
Q But you did, however, offer it into evidence on your own behalf.
A Well, of course, because the entries as such, the entries which I made, one dates are correct. That can be seen by the correction, that I crossed out the entry on the 24th because it was a wrong one and Kuntze's taking leave and visit was therefore entered on the 31st.
Q I believe on the entry of the 21st of November which has not been translated is a notation that you got a visit from Kuntze on his way back from Crete. Am I correct in that?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q And then early in December you left the hospital for your home in Germany, going by way of Salonika where, according to the entry for the 7th of December, you had a discussion with Foertsch.
A On the 7th of December?
Q Yes, I believe you will have to look to the diary itself for that.
A Yes. Now -- it says: "10:00 a.m. Kuntze Foertsch Serini, 12 o'clock breakfast." That was on the way through in my special train.
Q Did you discuss events taking place within the area of the 12th Army at that time?
A No, we didn't discuss any events. I was just going back. I was going home. Kuntze was appointed my full deputy and I believe that quite briefly he touched upon the general situation but, apart from that, it was a duel personal matter, a kind of courtesy visit by those two gentlemen to take leave from their former commander-inchief.
Q Then there is an entry of the 24th of December 1941 which appears in translation on page 99 to the effect that Olbricht had called, that he knew nothing that something new would be intended for you, and then the words, "Believes that to be very good." What does that refer to?
Does that refer to the fa.ct that you were -
A "Olbricht knows nothing that something new would be intended for me. Believe that to be very good." There are some other trends of thought here which play a certain part. Olbricht was of the opinion that it was desirable that I no longer be assigned to the front. Olbricht, who was a spiritual co-conspirator of the 20th of July plot, was frequently in touch with me. Without my voicing all these things in detail to him, he was of the opinion that under the situation which was prevailing at the time it would be desirable and expedient if I had no further assignment the front.
Q Does this mean that you yourself also preferred to have no further active duty in the German army?
A I have already stated that I made no application, that I didn't press for any assignment and Halder's affidavit said the same thing quite clearly. It says that I stated that I would be very glad if I received no other assignment. That was in 1942.
Q Well, now, do you mean that you preferred to spend the rest of the time at home in Partenkirchen rather than in charge of an army, anywhere?
A Well, in any case the situation then was that the total situation and all the conditions and internal conditions didn't seem to make it very desirable for me to be in active service under Hitler once again.
JUDGE BURKE: I may be in error but my recollection is that he covered this matter quite throughly and completely on your original cross examination.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honor please, I was just laying the foundation for my next question which comes now.
Q Field Marshal, isn't it true that as late as the 3rd of January 1942 you still considered yourself commander in chief of the 12th army?
A On the 30th of January 1943? You mean the 30th of January 1942.
Q I said as late as the 3rd of January 1942 you considered yourself still in command of the 12th army.
A What date applies I don't quite know. I suppose you are hinting at my farewell order of the day. I don't know what you are aiming at with this question. As Commander in Chief of the 12th Army I was still reported in the official lists. Kuntze wasn't appointed Commander in Chief of the 12th army. He was merely my deputy. In actual fact he looked after matters. I did not feel myself to be the active Commander in Chief by any means. I had no influence. I was out of touch with everything. I had no telephone communication with Salonika.
Q Now, would you look at the entry for the 3rd of January 1942? It has not been translated. You will have to refer to the diary yourself; and would you read what you have written on that date?
A The 12th of January 1942 is the date you are referring to?
Q No, the 3rd of January 1942.
A I see -- the 3rd of January. Well?
Q Would you read it please?
A Just a moment. I will have to read through it myself. I took it down in shorthand. I will have to decipher it. The part that is pertinent here I believe is: "Visit by Machold; telephone call Handloser concerning my health. Seems to leave open a conclusion to my further intended appointment. Everything else is less pleasant. It is difficult for me to break away from my supreme command post. Internal and external insurrection."
Q Isn't that an indication on your part that on that date you considered yourself still Commander in Chief of the 12th Army and fully intended to return to your post in that capacity?
A Well, that is only a natural conclusion, that when I was completely well and in good health again I would have to return to my post if there was no instruction to the contrary. That is what happens everywhere in military life.
Q Now, just one or two more questions, Field Marshal. Before we look at the particular entries, would you confirm my recollection that either you or several of your affiants have stated that you forbade any of the soldiers under your command in Greece to make purchases in the Greek stores because of the inflationary situation that was apparent in Greece at that time?
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honors, I object to the question. I object to this question. It seems to have no connection with the subject matter of cross examination.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Dr. Laternser had listened carefully, I think he would have been aware that I was laying a foundation to begin asking Field Marshal List regarding certain entries in the diary.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's refer to the diary which is the matter of cross examination.
Q Field Marshal, would you look at the entry for the 26th of August 1941. There is a reference there that you talked to Uch about purchases. Then would you turn to the entry for the 25th of September 1941? I believe there is a reference there that you visited a civilian factory and that you bought something and "decent shoes for 'R', with the aid of an interpreter."
A Well?
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honors, I object to this question; it has nothing at all to do with the subject of this trial.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: It relates to material which the defense -
THE PRESIDENT: Overruled. Proceed.
Q Now, would you look at the entry for the 13th of October, Field Marshal? I believe there is a reference there that you made some very good buys, "wonderful woolen blankets, one for 60."---
A Yes, two blankets.
Q "one for 60 instead of 120 as charged before; now they are 170." And, finally, would you look at the entry for the 15th of October? I believe there is an entry there that you bought shoes with Uch in civilian clothes.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me. To what are you directing this examination? For what purpose?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honor please, at least two or three affiants -- I can give you the references - mention that, because of the inflationary conditions in Greece, they were prohibited by Field Marshal List from making purchases from the Greeks.
THE PRESIDENT: Does that have anything to do with the indictment?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Well, if your Honors please, I believe I objected to the affidavits on the ground that they were irrelevant and immaterial at that time and was overruled. This seems to go to the validity, at least to the credibility, of the affiants who made these statements.
A In this connection, I would like to state that these entries are recorded in my diary. What the affiants said is quite correct. In some affidavits it is stated that the people received some amounts of currency to be able to make purchases; yet another affiant states that certain commodities such as blankets, et cetera, were rationed and that they were allowed to buy them under certain circumstances; and I myself availed myself of that opportunity to a very limited degree.
Q Don't you remember the affidavit of Hans Georg Faulmueller in your Document Book II on page 19 in which he states that no German soldier could shop freely in Athens, that under an order of the 12th Army Headquarters he had to have a permit in each individual case from the garrison command which issued a restricted number of vouchers, that Greek business people were forbidden to sell goods to German buyers without vouchers, and thus the scarcity of the consumers needs by the civilian population was prevented?
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
A. That is what I testified, that we had to have vouchers but perhaps I might be able to make out a voucher for myself or my Chief-of-Staff might be able to make one out, or the Commandant of Athens. Whatever the individual soldier is allowed to purchase on a voucher the Commander-inChief might also do.
Q. Did you avail yourself of that privilege on several occasions?
A. To the best of my recollections, and as this diary shows, I bought two blankets, a pair of shoes and a tie.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: No further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, may I suggest that you limit your re-direct to these matters solely which have been presented in connection with cross-examination relative to the diary, so that the matter may be somewhat limited.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, certainly, your Honor. I am very willing to do that. I believe that at all times of the trial I have been very much briefer than the Prosecution in the examination of my witnesses.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. Fieldmarshal, I would like to clarify what happened at the beginning of your position as Armed Forces Commander Southeast. You were questioned about your trip to Berlin. When did the instructions for execution of the installation of the agency of the Armed Forces Commander Southeast arrive?
A. I am afraid I can't quite recollect that by heart. To the best of my recollection, they are dated the 15th of July. I beg your pardon, the 15th of June.
JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Laternser, I may be in error but it seems to me from my recollection of it that this matter was most thoroughly covered upon the original direct examination.
I may be in error but it is my recollection of it.
DR. LATERNSER: I believe your Honor is right. There is only one question I would like to put in this connection.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
A. I would like to explain this circumstance here. I believe I am correct in recalling that these instructions for execution are dated 15 June and, according to my diary here, the conference in Berlin to which I was called, - I didn't go on my own account, - took place on the 15th of June. That was the conference held with Fieldmarshal Brauchitsch where he informed me that I was to become Armed Forces Commander Southeast and subsequent to that I was told the same thing by Keitel and Jodi, and on that very dame day apparently this instruction for execution was signed.
Q. Now, my last question. When did you actually start your activities as Armed Forces Commander Southeast?
A. After my return from this trip.
Q. When did you return?
A. If I am correct in recalling this by heart, it was on 23rd June. That was the day when I issued this order in Athens. 23rd June -- no, I beg your pardon, it was 24th June. It says here "Order for new organization".
DR. LATERNSER: I thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any question by any of the associate defense counsel? Any questions by members of the Tribunal? You may be excused, sir.
Are there other document books that are ready for presentation at this time?
DR. BEIER: Dr. Beier on behalf of General Kuntze. With the permission of the Tribunal, I would like to offer the last exhibit for General Kuntze. This will be an affidavit which is Kuntze Document 80 and as such is contained in Kuntze Document Book V on page 1 of that document book.
I assume that the English translation of this document book is now in the hands of the Tribunal. The document concerned is an affidavit dated 5th January, 1948, given by Dr. Alfred Gruen, who from the beginning of the war was a member of the staff of the Armed Forces Commander Southeast, as a military judge. His affidavit is being submitted to show General Kuntze's attitude towards the population of the Southeast; the exhibit number to be given to this document will be 68. The affidavit reads as follows:
"The Deputy Armed Forces Commander Southeast has repeatedly promulgated amnesties during the time I was a member of his staff. I still remember amnesties which especially concerned illicit possession of weapons and military equipment. In the decrees in question all persons handing in within the time limits stated in the decrees weapons and other military equipment held by them illegally, were promised a complete pardon. Pending proceedings were quashed.
"I am of the opinion that General Kuntze has deliberately done everything in order to give the part of the population which was willing now to obey the orders of the occupation power, the possibility to avoid any harmful results. The text of the amnesties has been published not only in the cities, but also in all communities."
This, if the Tribunal please, concludes the evidence to be given on behalf of General Kuntze. The defense rests this case. I thank the Tribunal.
DR. WEISGERBER: Dr. Weisgerber on behalf of General Speidel. If the Tribunal please, I would like briefly to make a correction of an exhibit number. Yesterday I offered Spedel Document No. 83 which is the affidavit executed by President Sandstroem, as Speidel Exhibit No. 62. I made an error here.