When the troops of the 173rd Replacement Division had already left Lezimir, it was reported to the division that the police was said to have shot these people. We were horrified by that and sent on the report to the corps, if only for the reason that we did not wish to be suspected of having acted against an explicit order of General DEHNER.
At the time when the execution was said to have taken place, the police was not subordinated to the Wehrmacht. Also, the tactical cooperation which had existed during the combat had been terminated after the occupation of the village.
It was not possible for the division to establish whether the rumor about the shoorings was founded on facts.
Neither has the 173rd Replacement Division or troops subordinated to it burned down the village.
Section 9 refers to the evacuation of concentration camps and labor camps:
Within the area covered by the 173rd Replacement Division no evacuations of civilians were carried out. No concentration camps, labor camps or similar institutions were subordinated to the 173rd Replacement Divisions. Neither did the 173rd Replacement Division ever transport any persons by force to Germany.
The next document I wish to submit is Dehner No. 57, to be Exhibit Dehner No. 51. It is in document book 11 oh pages 145 and 146. It is an affidavit by Dr. Hans Ernst Schilling.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors, for inspection Your Honors will note that it is apparently pre-typed and the affiant himself just filled in the date of his birth and the place of his birth.
THE PRESIDENT: You are making no objections to the document?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. GAWLIK: May I state with regard to this that this affidavit was taken by my assistant in Coburg. I assume that he made a draft in accordance with the specifications of the affiant, where I don't know and that he probably forgot in the course of this dictation to put in the personal data and then of course this had to be done by the affiant in ink afterwards. If importance is attached to this, I can of course eludicate the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no objection.
DR. GAWLIK: As for the affiant, he first makes a statement regarding his personal data, particularly, that he has the knowledge necessary to testify and to state what he does state in the affidavit. The affidavit regards:
From August 1943 to February 1944, I served as a sergeant (Unteroffizier) in the headquarters of the 173 Reserve Division, section Ic (counter intelligence) in Ruma, Yugoslavia. The 173 Infantry Reserve Division was subordinated to the LXIX Reserve Corps. Lt. General (General) Dehner was the commanding general of this corps. As a sergeant in the division, Section Ic, I permanently dealt with questions concerning the combatting of partisans. I was conversant with all orders emanating from higher command authorities (such as AOK), as they had to be further transmitted to our own subordinate units (regiments, battalions, etc.) It was a matter of routine that I also knew all orders concerning this subject which were directly issued be the subordinate units by our division commander.
It was laid down in all orders and directives of this kind that captured partisans were to be treated decently and correctly; particularly it was laid down that they were to be well fed during the first days after their capture. In most cases, the captured partisans were starved, which resulted from the unfavorable conditions in which they were fighting. Personally, I do not know of a single order in which it were laid down that arrested partisans were to be "liquidated by shooting" (in German: "umgelegt") or "hanged". The subordinate unit commanders were strictly forbidden to commit arbitrary actions of this kind. I myself - assisted by our interpreter - talked frequently with captured partisans, and they stated unanimously that they were surprised by the decent treatment received from the Germans.
In the opinion of most soldiers of our division, the arrested partisans were treated too well, as they used combat methods which were very malicious throughout and partly cruel.
In the area of our division and in the period from 15 august 1943 to 30 September 1943, 60 captured partisans were exchanged against 30 Germans soldiers captured by the partisans; this exchange took place on the Southern slope of the Fruska Gora mountains. Upon their return, our comrades reported to the division commander on terrible atrocities which they had to endure from the partisans. The fact that this did not lead to the issue of more severe orders concerning captured partisans was strongly resented throughout the division.
DR. GAWLIK: Another affidavit I wish to submit is Document No. 58 to be Exhibit! Dehner No. 52 in Document Book 11 on page 147.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I would also like to show, Your Honors, this document appears to be written in the hand of the assistant defense counsel for General Dehner and is merely signed by the affiant, however, I again make no objection to the actual document.
DR. GAWLIK: The affidavit was written down as dictated by the affiant.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire, Mr. Fenstermacher, if you ask the Tribunal to take any adverse interpretation to this?
Is there any difference between this and a typewritten one?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I really don't quite know, Your Honor. We have noticed throughout this case that many of these affidavits, at least fifty to my own knowledge, appear either written in the hand of someone other than the affiant or else they are typed. The affiant seems to have merely inserted the place of his birth and the date when he was born. Beyond this we cannot tell just what went on in the preparation of the affidavits. We have asked for one or two of the affiants to be brought here for cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The only inference I can get from your remarks to the Court is to take some adverse inferences from the facts that this has been written in the longhand of an assistant. I see no difference personally - I am not speaking for the other members of the Tribunal between this and a typewritten document.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: We mean to make no adverse implication. Your Honors, except that when we do bring these one or two affiants here for cross examination I should like Your Honors to know that there have been other cases of the same thing, that we are simply bringing two representative cases for cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Until such matters are known to be incorrect - I think the Court can draw its conclusions as to those - but I don't think there should be a blanket indictment placed against these affidavits unless there is a showing to that effect.
You may proceed.
DR. GAWLIK: May I add to this?
THE PRESIDENT: There is no necessity of any further comment.
DR. GAWLIK: I already stated that Document 58 on page 147 is to be Exhibit 52. It is an affidavit by Franz Kaudewitz who stated as follows?
"In 1941 I participated in the campaign against Yugoslavia in the quality of a battalion commander. After the conclusion of these operations, I and my battalion were billeted in Vlasamica, South East of Sarajevol Regimental headquarters was located in Sarajevo and I had to visit headquarters often for conferences. In order to get there, I had to go by automobile, passing high mountain ranges and woods, the distance being about 200 kilometers. During this whole period, no shot was ever fired, so that I could always drive without any escort. At that time, no partisan activities of any kind whatsoever were observed. I was, for this reason, all the more surprised when I returned to Croatia in 1943 and found the conditions then prevailing.
I have presented this document, if it please the Tribunal, as establishing that in 1941, after the capitulation, the Yugoslav Army was completely routed in Yugoslavia and that it is incorrect, as asserted by the prosecution, especially in its legal brief, that the bands somehow carried on the military operations of the Yugoslav armies and also as throwing some light on the effectiveness of the occupation.
This rests my case, if it please the Tribunal.
DR. WEISGERBER (Counsel for defendant Speidel): If it please the Tribunal, during the recess I learned that the notices published in Greek newspapers or notices by German authorities which I would like to file as exhibits are not translated as yet. They are to be finished by tonight so that I would have an opportunity of offering them tomorrow. Except for these documents, I can rest my case, if the Tribunal will permit me to submit these documents at a later stage. There are only five or six short documents. That would facilitate the resting of my case.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honors please, the prosecution would be glad to allow Dr. Weissgerber some of its rebuttal time tomorrow if you would like to put some of these documents in.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the prosecution ready to proceed with its rebuttal testimony at this time.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Not at this time, Your Honor. We will be ready at nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendants Felmy and Speidel will not be required to rest their case at this time, in order that they will be given the opportunity to present documents in question, the proclamation or such evidence as they may see fit to present, tomorrow morning. I sincerely trust that it will be possible to present them at nine-thirty in the morning and I shall make personal inquiry myself to see if they cannot be hastened.
The Tribunal wishes to express its appreciation both to the prosecution and to the defense counsel for their cooperation in bringing this evidence to a close or as near a close as we can at this time and for their cooperation in the presentation of their documents.
The Tribunal will be in recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours 14 January 1948)
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal V in the matter of the United States of America against Wilhelm List, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany on 14 January 1948, 0930, Judge Carter presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal V.
Military Tribunal V is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDING: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain whether or not all defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE MARSHAL: If it pleases your Honor, all defendants are present.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Carter will preside.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honor please, you will recall at the end of the prosecution's case we prepared a list in chronological order of all the documents presented by the prosecution. We prepared a similar list at the end of the prosecution's cross examination. We submit them at this time to be marked as Exhibit 632-A for identification. Also at the end of our direct examination case we prepared composit lists of various documents related to individual defendants. We prepared similar lists with respect to documents introduced at the end of the cross examination which we would like to present at this time. First, documents which pertain against the defendant List. This should he marked as Exhibit 633-A for identification.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I wonder if it wouldn't be better to just drop the "A" and give it a regular number?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: This will be 632 and 633.
The next documents introduced during cross examination against defendant Kuntze, which will be Exhibit 634.
Next, list of documents introduced during cross examination which pertain to the defendant Foertsch becomes Exhibit 635.
Those which pertain to the defendant Geitner become exhibit 636.
MR FENSTERMACHER: Those which pertain to the defendant Rendulic become Exhibit 637.
Those pertaining to the defendant Dehner become Exhibit 638.
Cross examination documents relating to the defendant von Leyser become Exhibit 639.
Cross examination documents incriminating the defendant Lanz become Exhibit 640.
Those relating to the defendant Felmy become Exhibit 641.
Finally, prosecution cross examination document relating to Speidel become Exhibit 642.
MR FENSTERMACHER: We are actually beginning the introduction of our rebuttal documents. The prosecution would like to announce in addition to the four witnesses called yesterday, the witness Ernst Korn will be called.
DR HANS GAWLIK: For the defendant Dehner. If your honor please, I object to the list which has been presented under the name of General Dehner. The first sentence in that list is wrong. It says the following documents of the prosecution have been offered in evidence during cross examination of the defendant Dehner. That is not correct. These documents have not been submitted during the cross examination of the defendant Dehner. Not one document has been submitted during the cross examination of the defendant Dehner. I draw the attention of the court to the list submitted under the name of Foertsch. We have the same three documents presented under the name of Dehner. These three documents were submitted during the cross examination of General Foertsch. I therefore object to the first sentence of the list not conferring to the facts.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I thought I made it clear that this list of documents pertains to documents introduced during entire cross examination of the prosecution. Certain documents pertain to the entire cross examination of the prosecution, certain documents introduced during the cross examination of one defendant are also applicable to other of the defendants. That is true of the defendant Dehner.
JUDGE CARTER: That is not the way the statement says. I suggest the language be amended to read. "During the cross examination the following documents were introduced relating to the defendant Dehner were those mentioned." I believe there should be no objection to the actual numerical introduction of the documents.
DR. GAWLIK: The prosecution should have made it clear these documents also related to Dehner.
PROSECUTION: During the examination of the defendant Dehner Dr. Gawlib covered each one of these subjects. The matter of superior orders and commando orders.
DR. GAWLIK: But not with respect to the fact these documents also related to Dehner.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I think if you recall on these occasions we gave opportunity to each of the defendants'counsel to cross examine. I think it has been the policy that the exhibits offered are also offered on behalf of the defendants. You had full opportunity to examine. That's my understanding.
DR. LATERNSER: If the tribunal please, I would like to make a correction on behalf of all my colleagues regarding these lists pending verification of the facts. Surely if during cross examination of one of the defendants certain documents are submitted, it must be assumed the documents will be submitted to the defendant concerned so that counsel of other defendants did not refer to documents not submitted to their own clients. These will be defense documents which were submitted on the assumption that they were to be submitted only to the defendant on whose behalf they were offered. I should like, therefore, to reserve the right of objecting to the introduction of the List.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I think it agreeable to make a statement after you have had an opportunity to check them. The tribunal will take into consideration the circumstances under which those exhibits were offered.
MR FENSTERMACHER: We now offer in rebuttal NOKW 2475. This is offered as Exhibit 643.
DR. LATERNSER: If the tribunal please, during the rebuttal we are concerned with direct evidence, therefore the documents concerned have to be made available to the defense twenty-four hours ahead of time. This was not the case and I therefore object, quoting the general rules of procedure.
MR FENSTERMACHER: I don't think the twenty-four hour rule applies any more to rebuttal documents, if your honor then to documents submitted on cross examination.
DR LATERNSER: If the tribunal please that is not correct. The rebuttal is direct evidence and is not to be treated in a similar manner as cross examination evidence. Just as the prosecution announced its witnesses twenty-four hours ahead of time it will be in a position to raise objections if necessary. As I am just now being informed, the same procedure was applied in other trials during rebuttal.
MR FENSTERMACHER: I think it somewhat ungracious of Dr. Laternser to make these objections at this time, as we have to sit day after day, just being given the defense documents about two or three minutes prior to their introduction.
DR LATERNSER: If it please the tribunal, if there is to be any talk about the conditions about which we have had to work here, I would like to state these conditions are more favorable to the prosecution than to anybody else. We filed our documents weeks ahead and they have been somewhat delayed due to delay in the translation.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The objection is overruled. The twenty-four hour rule does not apply to rebuttal testimony.
MR FENSTERMACHER: Contrary to practically all the statements of the defense this document is offered to show the German marry itself construed arm bands to satisfy the insignia rules of Article I of the Hague Rules. An order of the OKW dated 6 November 1942, Subject: Distinguishing Marks of Combatants who Wear no Uniform, has a rather wide distribution list and I want to point out further the Wehrmacht Legal Branch also received a copy and also the receipt stamp of Army Group North dated 7 December 1942. The document reads, page 2:
"Those who are called up within the framework of the Wehrmacht for armed participation with the Waffen-SS in combat, who wear no uniforms, are to be made recognizable as combatants by a yellow armband (stamped: "German Wehrmacht") in the sense of the Hague Rules of Land Warfare and are to be provided with a pass to this effect.
The members of the OT, of the RAD, as well as of the Party, its branches and units wear uniforms, have a pass, and therefore are freed from wearing a special armband with the stamp "German Wehrmacht".
The Chief of the OKW (signed) Keitel
MR. FENSTERMACHER: The next document we offer is NOKW 1231, which is offered as Exhibit 644.
JUDGE CARTER: The previous exhibit was 643?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: That is right, Your Honor.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I object to the introduction of this document. The affiant Schmauser is in Nurnberg, or at least he was in Nurnberg at the time when this statement was executed.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor please --.
DR. LATERNSER: I have not quite finished. Just a moment, please. If he was in Nurnberg at that time, or if he still is in Nurnberg, he will have to produced as a witness here. That is the first reason for my objection, and supporting this I would like to say the following. As far as I could glean from this document, because after all we have only just received the document, and did not have it twenty-four hours ahead of time, the affiant makes statements concerning the interpretation of law regulations. That is the work of the Tribunal and not a matter for the affiant. He can not do that. Furthermore, he is not here. For this reason alone this statement should not be admitted. The first reason for my objection is (a) that the witness is or was in Nurnberg; and (b) that the statement, as far as I could glean from it, deals with the interpretation of law and regulations which are not admissible, since they are conclusions of the affiant.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Sauter for the defendants Lanz and Geitner. May it please the Tribunal, this affidavit which is being submitted here, is dated 26 March 1947. It is almost ten months old. I content that concerning these problems, if one is to examine somebody here as an expert, one ought to do it correctly and fairly and not do that during the rebuttal evidence. I am not quite certain, if the Tribunal please, whether it is really the task of the rebuttal evidence to discuss the most difficult questions of international law in a manner which in the final analysis tends only to assist the prosecution in surprising the defendants and defense counsel.
To the best of my information and from my activity of two and a half years in American courts, the rebuttal has as its purpose to check on the credibility of a defendant who has been heard on the stand and testified under oath. No other purpose of the rebuttal has so far been known to me. I notice here that this is a statement given by Dr. Schmauser concerning the very most difficult questions of penal law and of international law. All those are problems and questions which have to be answered first of all by the Tribunal and not by an affiant witness who just happens to be in Nurnberg. We are prepared, to be best of our ability, to give information to the Tribunal for the decision of these difficult questions, but it is quite impossible during the rebuttal to gather such difficult questions out of the blue and decide them in this way. Dr. Laternser did not know just now when he made his statement exactly how long the defendant Schmauser was in Nurnberg, and whether he is still here. About two or three weeks ago I saw Dr. Schmauser down here in the jail and I talked to him with the permission of the prosecution. I would feel inclined to assume that Dr. Schmauser is still here today. If that is the case justice and fairness would demand, in my opinion, that either such a statement be not given any consideration at all, or that the witness be heard here in person. Very formally I might still point out, if the Tribunal please, that this affidavit does in no way comply with what we are so far accustomed to concerning the form of affidavits. I do not like to raise such objections, but I am doing this because the Prosecution has been a little petty in some ways concerning the form of certain matters. All that is being stated here is, "Schmauser, Karl, he states:", and then below in an additional paragraph we have a confirmation by the interrogator Kaufman, which, of course, is not given in the German. All that is said is, as I said just now, that it is supposed to be sworn to, but from actual practice we know that in other cases the American interrogators say in the introduction that the affiant made certain statements, deposes and states under oath.
Now, why didn't it say so in this statement? This statement does not say anything about an oath. It only contains the statement that the statement was sworn to, strangely enough, towards the end of the affidavit in the appendant statement by the interrogator, Fred Kaufman. In my opinion that is not sufficient. I move, therefore, that this communication -- be it an affidavit or an expert opinion or just a statement -- I don't know -- be either not admitted or that Dr. Schmauser be brought here to the stand, and if it is not possible to bring him over here these 100 yards, I would like for this statement not to be admitted.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I just learned that only a week ago the affiant Schmauser was still in Nurnberg. Furthermore, I have just had an opportunity to read through this expert opinion. It is nothing but an opinion given by the affiant, and I point out again that the rebuttal evidence is supposed to be direct evidence and that opinions concerning law questions should not be admitted.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Now, if Your Honor please, it would appear that the defense are really objecting to the fact that the Prosecution is putting in an affidavit rather than calling the witness, which I think in view of the nature of the defense case is somewhat strange, to say the least. My information is that Schmauser is not in Nurnberg at the present time. If the defense can prove that he is here and that he was brought here on behalf of the Prosecution Staff and not as a voluntary witness for the defense, so that the Prosecution ought to have known that he was here, then I suppose they can strike the affidavit and we will have to produce him in person. Secondly, they seem to object on the ground that this affiant is discussing questions of law which are properly for the Tribunal to decide. I submit that is not so. This affiant is discussing the legal interpretation which the legal branch of the German Army placed upon paragraph 47 of the German Military Code.
Each one of these defendants has gone on the witness stand in turn and testified that he did not know that certain of these hostage orders were unlawful. This affiant states in effect that those defendants should have known that those orders were unlawful, and that by virtue of Paragraph 47 they should have disobeyed those orders. This then is a construction of internal German military law and not of international law, properly speaking. Regarding the element of surprise, I submit that we could not have known prior to this time just what the defendants would have said regarding the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the various orders and the applicability of Paragraph 47 thereto. Now with respect to Dr. Sauter's final objection that this form of affidavit with respect to the oath is not in accordance with what he would like, I submit that the certificate of Fred Kaufman, the interrogator, is completely satisfactory. He says that Schmauser was known to him and in his presence signed the foregoing interrogation and swore that the same was true. If Dr. Laternser had read this certificate he would have known that this statement was taken in Garmisch and not in Nurnberg, but in view of the fact that eighty per cent of the defendants' affidavits were themselves taken in Nurnberg, and the witnesses or affiants were not produced on the witness stand at that time, I submit that objection is similarly somewhat inconsistent with the defense's attitude.
JUDGE CARTER: It is the opinion of the Tribunal that all except the last paragraph of the affidavit is a matter of interpretation of a rule; that is the province of the court and not for the testimony of witnesses. The objection will be sustained to all except the last paragraph of the affidavit.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor please, we will withdraw the exhibit in that case and not offer it.
JUDGE CARTER: Very well.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: The next document we offer is NOKW 787, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 644.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, at the moment I couldn't get the German translation. Maybe there is some technical fault.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: This document is offered to show that the partisans did wear insignia and also to show that the interrogations of captured partisans were not kept within the proper bounds.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I would like to ask for the Prosecution to be a little in its presentation so that at least we could throw a brief glance at the document to see whether we have to raise objections or not.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I will be glad to do that. I will wait for your nod, Dr. Laternser.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I object to the introduction of this document also. Evidence of this sort has already been submitted by the Prosecution to a large extent. This, therefore, is cumulative evidence, whereas during rebuttal evidence has to be confined to the rebutting of a new fact produced by the defense. With this document the Prosecution, therefore, does not touch rebuttal subject matter, but only adds to its case in chief. That is not admissible and, therefore, I move the rejection of this document. And, by the way, against whom is this document to be submitted? After all, this trial is waged against individual defendants and not against a collective number of people.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Dr. Laternser's first objection was sustained, Your Honor, then any document which the Prosecution received after its direct case had been rested could not be introduced. Each of the defendants has testified in great detail that the partisans did not wear insignia. I submit we can certainly introduce additional material to rebut that contention. In addition we made no reference whatever in our direct proof to the manner in which interrogation of captured prisoners was carried out.
At the time particular document is dated, 6 July 1943, the defendant Foertsch was Chief of Staff of Army Group E under Colonel General Loehr.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Dr. Rauchenbach for the defendant Foertsch. The document is dated 6 October 1943. The Prosecution has not yet proved that General Foertsch was at that time Chief of Staff for General Loehr. I believe there is some error here.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Did you check the original document, Dr. Rauschenbach? At any rate, if it is later than that, it certainly can be introduced against the defendant Dehner and the defendant Rendulic, and similarly against the defendant Foetsch, who is in October or November was Chief of Staff to Army Group F.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: In the original the document is also dated 6 October. It is only in the English text, which is in the hands of the Tribunal, that it says 6 July. Therefore, the original, has not the same date as the English Document.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I think we are in error, Your Honor, If you would change your document to read 6 October instead of 6 July 1943.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, this again shows that the defendants can have enormous disadvantages through the fact that the Prosecution did not inform us of the documents before hand, as we have to do with every individual document which we submit.
JUDGE CARTER: Just a moment, please. It is quite evident that we are going to have some rule here about who is going to make objections to these exhibits. We can't have eight or ten men running up to the microphone and all of them making an argument. I suggest that if the document applies to some particular defendant that the counsel for that particular defendant make the objection; otherwise, that someone make it for all. That is just necessary from the standpoint or order. However, we will hear what you have to say, Dr. Gawlik.
DR. GAWLIK: The Prosecution has just said that this document is also supporting evidence against General Dehner. The Prosecution has never maintained and has at no time proved that the 369 Croatia Infantry Regiment was at any time subordinate to the 69th Reserve Corps.
This is an assertion which is made to me for the first time, and no evidence to this effect has ever been submitted.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: The document is certainly relevant to the defendant Foertsch, who at this time, 6 October 1943, was Chief of Staff of Army Group F. It is also relevant against the defendant Rendulic, who at this time was Chief of the IInd Panzer Army, to which at this time the 369th Infantry Regiment was subordinate.
JUDGE CARTER: The exhibit will be received for what it is worth. However, I will warn counsel that we are not going to retry the case, and exhibits are merely cumulative of the case on direct are not proper on rebuttal. I merely state that to warn you that we will not receive on rebuttal evidence that should have been introduced in direct.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: This is an order of the 369th Croatian Infantry Division, Division Command Post, 6 October 1943. "Subject: Directives for the Utilization of Bandit-Pursuit Troops.
"The Bandit Pursuit Troops are to be trained in advance in 4-week special training for their missions. The work of the bandit Pursuit unit is made easier, if their presence and their camouflaged activity remains concealed from the enemy for as long as possible. Accordingly preservation of secrecy even before our own troops!
"Uniforming and other equipment:
"Camouflage clothing: partly pieces of uniforms of the German and Croatia Wehrmacht, partly civilian clothes, three-cornered caps and or Litovka with Soviet Stars, Opu bags. The camouflage clothing furnished troops is currently to assimilate the equipment of the brigades operating in the operational area. Cut of the hair, beard, wearing of mustaches must be similar to those of the brigades."
On page 3 of the order, which is signed by Neidholdt, the commanding officer of the division, under Paragraph, under Paragraph 10 there is a notation that a questionnaire for interrogation of prisoners is enclosed.