The correct exhibit number should be Speidel Exhibit No. 68. I would be obliged if this error be corrected Speidel Exhibit Number should read 68.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I should like to announce, as I did several days ago, that this afternoon at one-thirty I shall examine the witness Hassold concerning a subject matter which I have likewise announced previously, -- reprisal measures carried out by Allied troops.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honors please, I would like a little clarification of Dr. Laternser's last statement in order to determine whether or not this testimony would be relevant. As I understand the ruling of the Tribunal, documents concerning proclamations issued by the Allies concerning the taking of hostages, or testimony relating to executions of hostages by the Allies was allowed into evidence on the theory that the question of hostages, the law of hostages was somewhat unclear and in order to prove that there was no settled practice among the armies of the world in that respect; but so far as I can determine, there is no dispute between the prosecution and the defense regarding the law of reprisals. When those reprisals relate entirely to the burning of homes or the burning of villages. I believe both the prosecution and the defense agree on the criteria to be used. Now if this witness is going to testify to the burning of a village or any reprisal action other than the taking or execution of hostages by the Allies, I submit it would take us very far afield and would not come under the theory under which the hostage material was admitted into evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, the Tribunal is not disposed to pass on these matters and to make preliminary rulings, so we will cross that bridge when we get to it.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Now just a moment please. Have you completed your case for the defendant List, or are you in a position to rest or is this witness a matter that you are presenting for and on his behalf?
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, after examination of this witness, I shall rest the case for Fieldmarshal List.
THE PRESIDENT: My record then shows that there are only two other defendants who have not rested, they being the defendant Felmy and the defendant Speidel. Am I correct in that?
DR. WEISGERBER: That is correct in the case of Speidel, your Honor; I am still waiting for the translation of the proclamations in the Greek newspapers. The Tribunal will recall that last Friday morning it was a ruling of the Tribunal that these proclamations would be translated. I immediately gave these five or six proclamations to the translation division but up to this point I have not yet been notified that the translation has been completed.
THE PRESIDENT: My statement was that there are only two defendants who have not rested, three including List.
DR. LATERNSER: Also, if your Honor please, General Dehner's case has not been rested. I don't believe that case has been concluded yet.
THE PRESIDENT: I believe you are correct as to that too. Very well.
We will adjourn at this time until one-thirty this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
AFTERNOON SESSION The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Laternser.
DR. LATERNSER: I shall now call Paul Hassold as witness.
PAUL HASSOLD, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. The witness will raise his right hand and be sworn. I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. Would you please state your full name?
A. Paul Hassold.
Q. Would you always make a brief pause before answering my question?
A. Yes, certainly.
Q. Will you please spell your surname?
A. H-a-s-s-o-l-d.
Q. Where were you born and when were you born?
A. On the 21st of August, 1917.
Q. And where?
A. Here in Nurnberg.
Q. What is your religion?
A. Roman Catholic.
Q. And what is your profession?
A. Commercial employee.
Q. And where are you employed?
A. In Passau.
Q. What is the work you are employed with?
A. It is a newspaper publishing plant.
Q. What were you at the end of the war?
A. A non-commissioned officer in the German air-force.
Q. Where were you in the time between 18 and 28 of April, 1945?
A. Between Ingolstadt and Eichstaett.
Q. Were you alone?
A. There were three of us.
Q. And what did you want to do in this district?
A. We had flown back to Ingolstadt from the Russian front and wanted to go to Nurnberg from there.
Q. Why did you not go to Nurnberg?
A. Behind Ingolstadt, we learned that Nurnberg was already occupied.
Q. What did you do then?
A. We went away from the main road to Eckweil and wanted to make our way as civilians through the American lines.
Q. What did you observe in the district around Eckweil and what did you see?
A. We hid ourselves around Eckweil in the woods because our travel orders were not properly authenticated. I knew the local district and was asked by my comrades to see how far the front line had already advanced. Meanwhile, we already noticed artillery shooting.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I went from Eckweil to Nassenfeldt and towards the woods to the West of Nassenfeldt and went along the fringes of the wood, past Zell, till I saw American armored cars.
Q. Was there any fighting there?
A. No shot was fired. I can only remember that a marauding unit, that an air fight was taking place.
Q. Was there any fighting on the ground?
A. No, it was all quiet.
Q. What else did you see on this occasion?
A. I returned, wanting to join my companions at Eckweil. Meanwhile, the wood fringes near Nassenfeldt were occupied by infantry units.
Q. That was German infantry units?
A. Yes, and I was unable to return immediately. I have already mentioned that we could not afford to be seen by German troops because our travel orders were not in order. I then saw that American troops were advancing into the village -- that was Zell -- it is only a few houses. The locality only consists of a few houses. No shot was fired on this occasion. After approximately ten minutes, I saw several members of the air force. They were probably anti-aircraft units, because there was an anti-aircraft, a German antiaircraft battern located near Zell and near Nassenfeldt there was a heavy anti-aircraft battery.
Q. What did you see?
A. The German soldiers also had three SS men with them as far as I could see.
Q. How many soldiers were there altogether?
A. I didn't count them but there may have been between 20 and 30.
Q. What happened?
A. The soldiers had surrendered and were standing there, hands up, at the Southern fringes of the village. The muzzles of the armored cars as well as the rifles were pointed towards the soldiers. I withdrew even further and suddenly saw shots being fired and the soldiers collapsing.
Q. How was it -
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I submit that this testimony is completely irrelevant and immaterial for this reason. I don't believe there is any dispute between the defense regarding the rules of war so far as the execution of captured prisoners of war are concerned. If I am correct that the theory upon which defense documents and defense testimony regarding the taking and execution of hostages was admitted, that material was admitted because it was felt that there may not be a settled practice in the armies of the world regarding the treatment of hostages. That is not true. I don't believe the defense will contest this, that there is not a settled practice regarding the treatment of prisoners of war. We cannot try all the violations which I would be prepared to admit for the sake of argument that occurred on all sides during this war; but that is a completely corollary issue. It cannot be gone into here. I know of no occasion on which a murderer tries to defend himself on the ground that other murderers have committed murder with impunity. If what the witness is trying to say is that American troops executed captured German soldiers, than I submit it is no defense for what these defendants have done.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution ought to finish listening to our examination. I contend and I shall prove that in this case it was a reprisal measure which the American troops executed. Whether it was legal or not is not at issue now. I shall prove by this examination that it was a reprisal measure, which will be quite clear from the examination. I wish first to clarify the events and then I shall prove on what grounds the shootings were based.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I press my objection. We are not here to try all the reprisal actions which were committed by the Armies of the World during the last war. This is completely irrelevant and immaterial, and has nothing to do with the charges brought forth in this indictment. It is not advanced, as I understand Dr. Laternser's statement, to show that there is not a civil law regarding the taking of reprisal measures, which is the theory under which the material relating to hostages was admitted.
DR. LATERNSER: I wish to prove that in the view of the American troops it was possible, by way of reprisals, to claim the lives of human beings. That is all I wish to prove by this examination, as laid down by Article 58-d, and I also wish to prove that this was carried out.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors please, the laws of war are so clear both in the Geneva Convention, The Hague Rules, and the practice of the armies of the World, that you can not execute reprisal measures against captured soldiers. If any army in the world did this, it was unlawful. I submit again we are not here to try the reprisal measures carried out by other armies.
DR. LATERNSER: I shall not reply to this because I have already told the Court what I wish to establish. I merely wished to establish that reprisals ordered by American troops claimed the lives of human beings.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
DR. LATERNSER: In that case I regret that I have called the witness, whom I considered the most essential defense witness, and that I can no longer proceed with his examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
DR. LATERNSER: If it please the Tribunal, I must reserve, and I should like to reserve, the right to submit the statements by the French Military Commanders which are not yet available. If I may submit them at a later stage, at later proceedings. It is not my fault that they have not yet arrived. Just before the beginning of the session, I called upon the French delegation where I has not given any information. The statements will arrive at a later stage, and if they do, I should like to be allowed to submit them.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor please, I noticed in the public press -- I believe it was during the month of November - perhaps members of the Tribunal noticed it, and perhaps Dr. Laternser did, too -- that General LeClerc, to whom the interrogatory was submitted, was killed in an airplane crash in North Africa. That may be the reason why Dr. Laternser has to date received no reply to his interrogation.
DR. LATERNSER: The Prosecution is overlooking the fact that according to the Tribunals ruling, not only General LeClerc was to be examined, but also his Chief of Staff, and every Commander who was involved in this affair. I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that in this interrogatory I put the question whether the order issued by General LeClerc reflected the attitude of the French Army regarding the question of hostages. Assuming that this order did, in fact, reflect the attitude of the French Army then I have established that, according to French laws of war, hostages could be killed by way of reprisal.
It would be a most significant part of my evidence for this case, because that is the question at issue.
THE PRESIDENT: As I understand it, Dr. Laternser, the deposition is not here. We do not know whether it will ever be received. We trust that it will be. Under the circumstances, it is the thought of the Tribunal that if you have completed your case with that exception, you should rest your case at this time, and if the depositions or affidavits should arrive, then by motion, if you so desired, you could ask to have your case reopened for the purpose of the Tribunal then considering whether the affidavit should be received at that time. If we were to leave the matter open at this time, it would go on indefinitely. It would be a little more regular to follow the procedure which I have just suggested.
DR. LATERNSER: Very well, Your Honor. Before resting my case, I should like to submit two motions to the Tribunal. The first one I have put in writing. I should like to read it into the record. It is not a long document.
"Motion for Nullification of Documents introduced by the Prosecution". "I. I herewith request that the documents specified below which are being introduced by the Prosecution will be cancelled:" And now the numbers following which I wish to be included in the record:
(Following list of exhibits copied from document, though not read, pursuant to request of counsel:)
Exh. No. 28 NOKW 1128 German pg 72 English pg 92 " " 30 NOKW 1114 " " 77 " " 99 " " 36 NOKW 1209 " " 99 " " 124 " " 39 NOKW 551 " " 1 " " 1 " " 44 NOKW 1214 " " 27 " " 31 " " 45 NOKW 1049 " " 30 " " 34 " " 58 NOKW 1222 " " 61 " " 77 Exh.
No. 59 NOKW 1057 German pg 63 English pg 79 " " 60 NOKW 1215 " " 81 " " 101 " " 67 NOKW 1043 " " 96 " " 124 " " 72 NOKW 3138 " " 112 " " 146 " " 73 NOKW 1388 " " 115 " " 149 " " 77 NOKW 1386 " " 122 " " 158 " " 87 NOKW 904 " " 25 " " 31 " " 111 NOKW 1073 " " 96 " " 140 " " 120 NOKW 882 " " 40 " " 53 " " 121 NOKW 724 " " 44 " " 58 " " 122 NOKW 1022 " " 45 " " 60 " " 126 NOKW 1053 " " 21 " " 18 " " 127 NOKW 123 " " 34 " " 24 " " 129 NOKW 1380 " " 92 " " 143 " " 130 NOKW 1056 " " 98a " " 150a " " 131 NOKW 1033 " " 99 " " 151 " " 138 NOKW 1385 " " 15 " " 20 " " 139 NOKW 1152 " " 16 " " 21 " " 144 NOKW 1358 " " 28 " " 38 " " 145 NOKW 726 " " 29 " " 39 " " 149 NOKW 1384 " " 45 " " 57 " " 153 NOKW 883 " " 55 " " 70 " " 165 NOKW 1067 " " 8 " " 9 "All these documents have been entered in excerpts only into the Document Books offered by the Prosecution.
Since the complete text of the said documents is merely available through the Exhibit files in the German language, the Tribunal does not have the opportunity to get knowledge of these documents to their fullest extent. Those parts, however, which are not contained in these Document Books are of vital importance for the evaluation of the documents in total, since the latter contain most important evidence for the defense.
"II. I further request the nullification of the following documents which the Yugoslavian Delegation put at the Prosecution's disposal:" The numbers are to be admitted in the record. (Following list of exhibits copied from document and made a part of the record, though not read, pursuant to request of counsel:)
"Exhibit 100a Exhibit 100b 1-24 Exhibit 100b 25 Exhibit 100b 26 Exhibit 551a 1-7 Exhibit 552a 1-8 Exhibit 100b 27" "The nullification of these documents has been motioned, since the Yugoslavian Delegation submitted to the Tribunal incriminating evidence only.
They stubbornly refuse to comply with the application of the defense to submit favorable evidence likewise. All witnesses the defense applied for and who are detained by the Yugoslavian Government have been approved by the Court. The Yugoslavian Government, however, refuses to release them. That is contradictory to the very nature of a fair trial, if a source can only be utilized for evidence of the Prosecution and not likewise for the defense.
"The attitude of the Yugoslavian Government has created such a situation, that the Tribunal is placed in a position to decide merely on the basis of the part of the evidence which is of Yugoslavian origin. Such a condition could result in a decision unfavorable to the defendant.
"The Prosecution did not prove the connection and the relation between the individual defendants and the entire Yugoslavian evidence for the Prosecution, including the pictures submitted.
"III. I furthermore request nullification of the evidence for the Prosecution submitted by the Greek Delegation, that is to say:" The numbers are specified. (Following list of exhibits copied from document and made a part of the record, though not read, pursuant to request of counsel:)
"Exhibit 499 Exhibit 499/1 Exhibit 499/2 Exhibit 499/3 Exhibit 499/4 Exhibit 499/5 Exhibit 499/6 Exhibit 509."
"As a reason for this motion of nullification I point out that the Prosecution has not proved any connection whatever between the facts as shown by those documents and the defendants, particularly my clients Fieldmarshall List". The words "and von Weichs" to be deleted.
"IV. I finally request the nullification of the document:
"Exhibit No. 25 c 52 Volume I German Page 62, English page 86.
"With reference to this document the Prosecution has neither proved that this order was being distributed within the area of the theatre southeast. The same applies to this document as specified already under I, since only short excerpts from this Document Book are available in the English version."
I have one more motion I should like to put.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I would like to make a very brief reply to this first motion, Your Honor. As to the first objection, that the material in evidence has not been entirely translated, certainly the defense has had every opportunity and has availed themselves in large measure of the opportunity to translate all excerpts from these documents that they wished, at great cost of time and expense. Whole war diaries of the various units which these defendants have commanded were translated in their entirety solely to show tactical material which the Prosecution never once disputed. The second objection made to the Yugoslavian documents has, I think, already been answered when the documents themselves were received into evidence over Dr. Laternser's objection, but to make an attack upon a sovereign government and the way it conducts its affairs is, I think, entirely improper. Whether the Yugoslavian Government has cooperated or not in the matter of securing witnesses is only something which only the Defense Information Center could answer, for they are, after all, the authority which is entrusted with the task of securing evidence on behalf of the defense. The objection regarding the Greek documents has also, I think, been answered when, over objection, they were received.
I submit they are entirely relevant and certainly to object at this point on Dr. Laternser's part is entirely a matter of argument.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire, Mr. Fenstermacher, concerning this Number II? As far as the record is concerned, and as far as the Tribunal has any personal knowledge, there is nothing to indicate a failure of cooperation on the part of the Yugoslavian Government towards the defense. Will the Prosecution admit that there has been a failure of cooperation on behalf of the Yugoslavian Government toward the bringing of witnesses for the defense?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: We certainly will not admit that, Your Honor. As far as the record shows, there has been no failure of cooperation and if there were, only the Defense Information Center, who does the negotiating in that respect, could answer this question, certainly, not Dr. Laternser. Now, regarding the fourth objection, I believe the evidence clearly shows that whether this order itself went down to the Southeast, certainly - judging by the results - a similar order certainly must have been circulated in the area of the defendant's command. I think it ought to be borne in mind throughout that the Prosecution has presented this case entirely from captured documents and there certainly has been no assurance that we have captured all the documents which were valid in the area under the defendant's command.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I would like to answer this very briefly. Point I. Of course, the defense did have an opportunity of making use of the war diaries, and as far as the defense thought it was useful to do so these war diaries have been used, as far as they were available. The documents specified under section 1 are documents which the defense did not need for their defense. They were, therefore, merely Prosecution Exhibits translated fully; that is the burden of the Prosecution, but if prosecution documents are available only in partial translation then they can not be used because, as far as I am informed about American rules of evidence, the entire documents have to be submitted. For those reasons the documents specified under section 1 ought to be stricken. I shall now deal with Points 2 and 3. As far as the cooperation of the Yugoslavian and Greek delegation is concerned, I can only state, basing my statements on what I heard from my colleagues, that there was no cooperation. As for the last point, Part IV, it was the burden of the Prosecution to establish that this order had some kind of connection with the Southeastern theater of war, and the Prosecution did not even attempt to establish that. So much for this motion.
In conclusion I should like to put a motion that the court, on the basis of provisions under Article 63 of the Geneva Convention and of Article 8 in Appendix 1 of The Hague Rules for Land Warfare may declare itself as not competent. That is all I have to say, and with that I close the case on behalf of Field Marshall List.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal --.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: (Interrupting:) Excuse me, Your Honor. It is a little difficult for the Prosecution to know What reasons or what grounds are now being advanced by the defense to combat the competence and jurisdiction of the Tribunal. I would suggest that Dr. Laternser put this motion in writing, and if he has any argument that he put that in writing also, otherwise the Prosecution is completely at sea as to what arguments to meet. In our earlier brief on this point, we attempted to interpret exactly what was in the defendants' minds, but I am not sure we have done a very thorough job on it.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I will be happy to put this motion in writing and file it in the course of tomorrow morning. I referred to these provisions on which this motion is based, that is, Article 63 of the Geneva Convention, and this, in my view, has been overlooked so far, that is Article 8 in Appendix 1 to The Hague Rules for Land Warfare, which in my view has been overlooked in the decision in the case of General Yamashita, because these provisions were not cited. Of course, I can only judge this on the basis of an excerpt which was available to me, dealing with this particular decision. I am prepared to put this motion in writing and file this motion tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: As to the motion in four parts which has just been presented to the court in typed form, the Tribunal wishes to state to the final closing of the evidence. As to the motion to which you have just referred, I take it that you will present that in writing and submit it to the Tribunal tomorrow.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I then understand that you are resting your case for the defendant List?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Your Honor. If the Tribunal please, there are two more cases to be rested, namely: the case of defendant Dehner and the case of defendant General Speidel. The Greek documents in the case of Speidel have not yet been translated. I assume that the documents on behalf of General Dehner are already available in translation. I regret that my colleague, learned counsel Dr. Gawlik, is not present. He is busy with another case just now and probably erred in estimating his time. I shall ask immediately that Dr. Gawlik be called, if the Court would be kind enough to take a short recess. Dr. Gawlik will then be able to rest his case. I ask the indulgence of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that the defendant Dehner should not be required to rest his case without the presence of his counsel and the opportunity to present this last document. That being true, the Tribunal will be in recess until such time as Dr. Gawlik can be present here in the court room, which I trust will be within a short time.
There will be a short recess. (Here followed a short recess.)
(Following recess.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for General Dehner.) I beg the indulgence of the Tribunal. I learned about one thirty o'clock that the document book 11 was not available to the Tribunal in English. It was then a question of finding out where the translation was and meanwhile I learned the translation was made available to the Tribunal. Correction, it is document book 11. Dehner document 56 to be exhibit Dehner No. 50. It is in document book 11 on page 141 to 144. It is an affidavit by Franz Kaudewitz, dated 10 January 1948. Kaudewitz states as to his personal data:
"From July 1943 to February 1944, I held the position...."
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me, sir, the Tribunal did not get the exhibit number if you did give it, if you did not give it, will you kindly so now?
DR. GAWLIK: Exhibit 50, exhibit No, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
DR. GAWLIK: "From July 1943 to February 1944 I held the position of the 1st General Staff Officer (Ia) with the 173rd Replacement Division in Croatia."
His statements refer therefore to the command of the 173rd Replacement Division. Under Section 1, Kaudewitz makes statements regarding the independence of Croatia, particularly that the Commander of the 173rd Replacement Division, that is that the Wehrmacht did not exercise the highest authority in Croatia. I shall quote:
The Commander of the 173rd Replacement Division did not constitute the highest authority within the area covered by his division. As a result of the fact that Croatia was an independent State allied with Germany, the entire sovereign power - legislature, administration, justice - was in the hands of the authorities of that state and was wielded by them. The German Command Offices could not interfere when they exercised these their rights. Also in other respects the German troops were considerably restricted in their freedom of movement by the sovereignty of the State of Croatia.
Thus, for instance, the German troops were not entitled to make requisitions or to occupy billets on their own initiative.
The Croatian State had his own armed forces. The Croatian troop units stationed in the area covered by the 173rd Replacement Division were not subordinated to that division.
Neither were the police units stationed in their area subordinated to the 173rd Replacement Division. On the contrary, these always used to stress their independence.
Section 2 of the affidavit is to establish that the bands operating in Croatia were not considered to be belligerents within the meaning of International law:
The bands which operated in Croatia did not wear any insignia which were recognizable from a distance. They wore civilian clothes, partly also German uniforms. The majority of the bands did their work as farmers or craftsmen during the day-time; when darkness fell they fetched their arms from their hiding places and carried out assaults, blastings and other sabotage acts.
When carrying out their operations, the bands did not observe the rules and customs of warfare in any way. They did not treat German soldiers who had fallen into their hands as prisoners-of-war. Above all, they killed wounded soldiers who had still been able to put on their own bandages by bashing in their skulls or shooting them through the neck. (example: assaults in the 3rd Company of Engineer Battalion 46 near Ilok.)
Page 142, Section 3. This section refers to the arrest of hostages and other measures against hostages, as well as the destruction of villages. I quote:
I know that the Commander of the 173rd Replacement Division never issued an order for the arrest of hostages, the killing of hostages or for the destruction of villages. I know this, because in my capacity Ia I had to countersign all orders before they were submitted to the Divisional Commander.
During the time that I was a member of the 173rd Replacement Division it never, as far as I can remember, arrested any hostages, killed any hostages, or took such reprisal measures as the destruction of Croatian villages.
Section 4 refers to the order of the 15th September, 1943:
I remember that the order issued by 2nd Panzer Army on 15 September 1943 was forwarded to the Division. However, the order was later amended (either by means of a supplementary order or orally during a conference at Army Headquarters at which the Ia's of the corps and divisions were present), with the result that the reprisal quota was considerably decreased.
No reprisal measures, however, in particular no executions of hostages, were carried out by the division on the basis of this order. Only the Croatian police carried out reprisal measures in the area covered by the 173rd Replacement Division. These reprisal measures were reported by the division to the corps, because everything that happened within the area covered by the division had to be reported. The division, however, took no part in the reprisal measures and had no influence on the ordering and carrying-out of such measures. The Corps Headquarters of the LXIX Replacement Corps never objected to the 173rd Replacement Division not carrying-out any reprisal measures.
Section 5 refers to operation Kammerhofer:
"The operation Kammerhofer was an independent operation of the police. SS-Gruppenfuehrer Kammerhofer, who was in charge of this operation, was neither subordinated to the 173rd Replacement Division nor to the LXIX Replacement Corps."
Section 6:
"The 173rd Replacement Division did not maintain any hostage camps."
Section 7 refers to the assault on Grgurevci In connection with the assault on Grgurevci I can make the following statement:
The locality of Grgurevci was mainly inhabited by ethnic Germans, as well as by some Croats.
A police unit of about 200 men was stationed in the locality.
This police unit was assaulted by partisans in cooperation with those inhabitants who were not ethnic Germans, and it was surrounded in its local billets.
Following a request of the police, units of the 173rd Replacement Division were sent out as relief troops. A fight for the place followed, in the course of which the artillery shot into the village and set fire to several farms. Before the units of the 173rd Replacement Division undertook their final attack, the partisans evacuated the village. Thus the police unit was again liberated. As far as I know, the units of the 173rd Replacement Division did not enter the village at all. In any case they did not carry out any reprisal measures. If such measures did indeed take place, they could have only been carried out by the police. However, I consider it unlikely that any reprisal measures were carried out at all, as the majority of the village inhabitants consisted of ethnic Germans.
In the course of the fight for that village the partisans shot up a German motor ambulance. Further I heard that the partisans while occupying the village had nailed ethnic Germans to barn doors and mutilated them, and had quartered a German girl.
Section 8 refers to the incidents near Lezimir:
In connection with the incidents near Lezimir I can make the following statement:
The locality of Lezimir was a strong point of the bands and was fortified by dug-outs and trenches.
When the German troops approached, the partisans fled. Only a few old men, women and children remained in the village. After the occupation of Lezimir General DEHNER issued repeatedly, and in my presence, the order that these should only be interrogated and then released, but that no hard should be done to them under any circumstances.