I call your Honor's attention to certain of the questions on this questionnaire.
"1.) Brigade, Battalion, Company?
"2.) What is the name of the Company, Battalion, and Brigade, and Brigade Commander, Commissar, and their deputies? (Last name, first name, residence, personal description.)
"3.) Strength and armament of the Brigade, or Battalion, and Company?"
Question 9: "Do they march in Company, Battalion, or Brigade formation?
"In the case of a)? In the case of b)?"
Question 17: "Where does the Company, Battalion, Brigade Commander march?"
Question 20: "Do the Companies or Battalions spend the night together or are they divided up into the individual houses?
Question 21) Where do the Company, Battalion, and Brigade Commanders sleep? Are they specially guarded?
22.) What is the strength of Battalion and Brigade Headquarters, how many messengers do they have?"
Question 28: "What parts of uniforms are worn and with what insignia?
29.) What insignias of rank and other insignias of the German, Croatian, and Italian Army removed and which are worn?
30.) What percentage wears civilians trousers or jackets.
31.) What percentage wears three-pointed caps, Litovka caps, Likaner caps, civilian caps or other headgear? Shape and cut?
32.) What percentage wears shoes, Opanken shoes, boots, mountaineer shoes, or goes bare-fooded?
33.) What insignia does the ordinary bandit wear, which are worn by his superiors?"
Question 37: "Does every bandit know the name of his Company, Battalion, and Brigade Commander?
38.) Does everyone know to what Brigade, Battalion, Division he belongs?"
The next document is NOKW 1734, which is offered as Exhibit 645.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution should in each instance announce whom the document is submitted. During this first submission of documents we can't possibly ascertain that nor can we know the intentions of the Prosecution. Furthermore, most of defense counsel - it takes some time to distribute the document, and I would like to ask the Prosecution to take this fact into consideration.
Jan.14,48.M-GJ-5-1-Meehan-(Schaeffer)
DR. SAUTER: Perhaps the prosecution would enlighten us where the affiant resides. The affiant states: "I, Theodor Fischer, born 19 December 1888 in Stuhm, West Prussia, etc." We therefore know that he was born in Stuhm, but it does now show in the affidavit whether he lives there. In June of 1937 the affiant was in Nuernberg, therefore, I would like to have a statement from the prosecution as to whether the affiant is in Nuernberg still or possibly when he was dismissed from Nuernberg if so.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: At the time this affiant gave this affidavit, he was in the custody of the United States Government as a Prisoner of War, he had not yet been discharged. Since that time I believe he has been discharged, although I am not certain. I do not know at the present time where he is, but I believe I can ascertain that fact sometime during the day.
DR. SAUTER: In view of that fact, if your Honors please, I move that this affidavit be not accepted for the moment, but instead that one should wait until Mr. Fenstermacher can give us an explanation as to where the affiant is now and when he was discharged. For the following reason I attach some importance to this last point because in several previous cases we have had the experience that affiants, who for some time have been in Nuernberg, disappear from here a few days before the date when they might possibly have to be examined here or rather before their affidavit is submitted here. I contend that if a witness has been in Nuernberg for a considerable period of time, and if his affidavit is read, let us say today, it would not be fair and just that such an affiant should leave from Nuernberg about a week prior to this day in order that he should not be cross-examined here. For that reason, I would like the prosecution to clarify when the affiant left Nuernberg and where he went from here.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: It may be possible that Dr. Sauter's observation is possibly correct to some extent. I remember myself last week in the case of Dr. Gawlik, he had a witness here who could have testified in person, but after he introduced the affidavit of the affiant disappeared from Nuernberg.
However, in the case of this affidavit from Fischer, I can ascertain the exact time when he left Nuernberg. I know myself it was sometime during the month of June, a few days after he gave the affidavit.
JUDGE CARTER: I think it is necessary that some showing be made, in view of the fact that it is not in the affidavit itself. In view of that fact the affidavit is not received.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Could we not offer it subject to the motion to strike, Your Honor?
JUDGE CARTER: I think it would be better to just hold it until we ascertain the facts.
DR. GAWLIK: Concerning the statement of the prosecution, I would like to say that the affiant did not disappear. The prosecution could have been able to know from the affidavit where the affiant was at the moment. The affiant came here and it was for me to say whether I wanted an affidavit from the witness or whether I wanted to put him on the witness stand. The affiant was not to testify to anything in particular of importance, therefore, I myself, after appraising the witness, decided not to put him on the witness stand but to have him submit an affidavit, I am at all times prepared to produce a witness here for cross-examination.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I might reserve Exhibit 644 for that last document Your Honor, I beg your pardon, Exhibit 645.
We offer next NOKW 25049. Withdrawn.
We offer NOKW 1431 as Exhibit 646. This is offered to rebut the contention at the time reprisal measures were taken it was felt that reprisal measures at the time reprisal measures would work from a military standpoint. This document indicates an opposite theory. This document is dated 4 October 1943, and is offered against all of the defendants except the defendants List and Kuntze.
I can anticipate, Dr. Tipp, I made one error. It is not offered against the defendant Leyser, who was not in the southeast at that time.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH (For the defendant Foertsch.): If the Tribunal please, this document which deals with the Evacuation Measures is quite certainly cumulative evidence. At the moment I cannot gather from it to what extent it is a specific point of the prosecution against the defendant Foertsch or against anything he said on the witness stand or on testimony given on behalf of him. It is quite a general decree against the Evacuation Measures. This is a subject matter which has been discussed by the prosecution at great length.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Practically all of the defendants testified that evacuations were a military necessity. This document will show that in the case of Evacuations it was felt at this time by Army Group F that evacuations would do more harm than good.
DR. SAUTER (For the defendant Geitner). If the Tribunal please, this order contained in Document NOKW 1431 is signed by Winter. If I am not mistaken the prosecution intends to produce this man, General Winter, as a witness here. If General Winter is produced as a witness here, I would think that it is correct that the submission of this document be with-held until this witness Winter has been heard. Furthermore, I would like to have an explanation as the extent to which Brigadier General von Geitner is to be incriminated by this document. This is a document issued by Army Group E, which was sent to Army Group F. General von Geitner was neither under Army Groups E or F. Furthermore, I would like to ask for an explanation as to whether the prosecutions intends to assert concerning such measures, that the Chief of the General Staff of the Corps Headquaters or the Commanding staff led by him was competent for them.
As defense counsel for the defendant Lanz, I should be interested to hear what extent this order by Army Group E should incriminate the defendant Lanz.
I would be grateful if the prosecution would make a statement to this effect.
JUDGE CARTER: The objection will be over-ruled.
DR. GAWLIK: If the Tribunal please, I object to the introduction of this document against General Dehner. At least, the prosecution would have to prove that General Dehner received the document or in some other way gained knowledge of the document. This is a communication from Army Group E to Army Group F. The prosecution has not submitted any further evidence, therefore I move that this document not be admitted as evidence against General Dehner.
JUDGE CARTER: The objection is over-ruled. The Tribunal will evaluate the value of these documents against each of these defendants.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: This is a report from High Command Army Group E, dated the 4th of October 1943 to the Commander in Chief Southeast, High Command, Army Group F, Subject: Evacuation Measures.
After thorough investigation of the execution of evacuation measures, the following comment was made concerning the teletype above:
1.) Partial evacuations
a) In the event of the hostiles actions against the occupation troops, male population from 16 to 60 years of age will be concentrated in work camps and as far as they are capable of work deported to the Reich as a reprisal measure.
b) Additional penal measures against members of the population showing a hostile attitude will be decided and carried out separately in each case.
2.) Total Evacuations.
Under present circumstances the total evacuation of entire areas as a Command measure for the security of Coastal Sectors as well as of areas along railroad tracks and supply roads is impracticable. Such a large scale resettlement can be successful only if efficient forces are available to occupy the evacuated territory in order to prevent a return of especially suspicious elements into the evacuated areas.
The present strength situation in the large area and the intended grouping of the available forces does not guarantee the occupation of completely evacuated areas, which is absolutely necessary and thus cannot be carried out. In addition a measure has the inherent danger that the present mood of the population which is against the German Occupation Troops will be aggravated. This could only be considered if the evacuation carried with it factual tactical advantages.
In all probability, the start of a total evacuation would do more harm than good.
Consequently, the High Command of Army Group E believes that only the reprisal and penal measures stated in paragraph 1 can be applied and that considering the present situation, the evacuation of the total area should not take place. Report will be made concerning paragraph 1 in each individual case." (Signed) For High Command Army Group E, Chief of General Staff Winter.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: We offer next KNOW 1905 as Exhibit 647. This offered against the defendants Kuntze, Rendulic and Lanz to reject the contention that there was a military necessity to shoot commissars and that orders were very widely known and distributed and further to reject the contention that partisans were shot in combat, rather than after combat, also to show that partisans were regular members of the Russian Army and not partisans.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, the document cannot be submitted in these proceedings. The Second Army from which this document originated was in the east in September of 1941 as the document itself shows and it is to Army Group Center 1-E. The prosecution would first have to prove that at that time the Second Army was in the Balkans but it was not there, as in July 1941 it went to the East.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Dr. Laternser is laboring under a misapprehension against the full Prosecution's case against commissars. He seems to believe that evidence concerning the activities of commissars is only relative as far as the Balkans is concerned and he has introduced much evidence to show the commissar order was not applicable in the southeast. If he will read Charge 3 of the indictment he will see that the application of the commissar order is not limited either in time or in space and that commissars were executed in Russia by units under the command of these defendants. We submit that is relevant under Count 3 of our indictment and the commissar allegations are not limited to the Balkans.
DR. FRITSCH: If the Tribunal please, Mr. Fenstermacher has stated among other things that this document is submitted against defendant General Rendulic I may point out that the prosecution in that case would have to produce proof for the fact that the defendant General Rendulic for the period covered here, namely in September 1941, was subordinated to the headquarters of the 2nd Army. The defendant General Rendulic at that time was a divisional commander and not, which might be misunderstood, commander in chief of the Second Army.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: The period under which we offer this document has nothing to do with who commanded the Second Army at this time. This document is offered to show and to refute the statement of defendant Rendulic that commissars were shot in the course of combat and that commissars were partisans. This document makes it clear that at this time and by this unit there was a general theory expressed that commissars were not partisans but were rather regular members of the Russian army. That is true and the defense seems to forget that our case is built upon captured documents. We did not capture all of them and it may be that the weight to be given this document is a little less because it is a document referring to a unit, not commanded by the defendants and that depends upon the weight that the Tribunal will evaluate.
DR. FRITSCH: If the Tribunal please, I did not understand all the statements made by Mr. Fenstermacher because the interpreter could not keep up all the time. However, I have just ascertained that the prosecution so far has not produced any proof to the effect that the defendant General Rendulic was actually during the period covered here subordinate to the Second Army. Only if that had been the case could this document be connected with him in any way.
DR. SAUTER: (Counsel for the defendant Lanz); Mr. Fenstermacher was kind enough when introducing the document to state expressly that it was also submitted against General Lanz. I would now like to ask the prosecution to give an explanation as to what this document is to have to do with General Lanz. The document is dated September, 1941 and at that time Lanz was stationed in the East at the Russian front, but at no time was he a member or subordinate to the Second Army as he and his division were part of the 17th Amy, therefore, we cannot comprehend how this document is to be used as incriminating General Lanz, who has been especially mentioned by the prosecution as being incriminated by the document.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: This document refers to the weight which should be given to the testimony of the defendant Lanz when he discussed commissars, the distribution of the commissar order, the degree of its execution and the military necessity of it, whether commissars were partisans and whether they were shot in combat.
DR. BEIER: (Counsel for the defendant Kuntze.) If your Honors please, I object to the introduction of this document to the extent to which it is submitted against the defendant Kuntze. General Kuntze had nothing to do whatsoever with the 2nd Army, which is mentioned in the document. He was in the East at that time, but he was at no time subordinate to the 2nd Army, now has the prosecution been able to produce any evidence at any time that General Kuntze had anything to do with the 2nd Army. Therefore, such a document cannot be submitted now against General Kuntze.
JUDGE CARTER: The document will be received for what it is worth. We want it understood, however, that the commissar order, as any other charge, has to be connected up with the defendants and of course if they are not, it will have no application.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: This is a report from Army Croup 2 dated 9 September 1941 to Army Group Center.
"For the period 25 August to 7 September 1941 two cases are reported with respect to the reference (Preceded by telephone)." For the Army Command, the Chief of the General Staff.
Then on page 2 of the document, dated the same date, the same reference from Army. Command two to Army Group Center:
"According to numerous investigations the tenacious opposition of the Soviet troops is to be attributed in great measure to the acute terror of the political Commissars and politruks. According to what has been ascertained, they defend themselves for the most part to the end, frequently even kill themselves in order not to fall into captivity and endeavor with all means to induce the officers and soldiers also to a similar behavior. According to the investigations made this attitude of the Commissars is to be traced back above all to the fact that they are convinced, that as prisoners they will be shot. Thus one Politruk, who was seized in civilian dress, has stated:
"According to my opinion political leaders, Commissars and officers of the Red Army would not offer such resistance, if they had the assurance, that they would not be shot in case of capture or desertion." This consequence of the severe orders concerning the treatment of Commissars and Politruks as a contributory cause of the tenacious enemy opposition is therefore not to be misjudged.
As yet has not been definitely established, that there are official soviet orders concerning reprisal measures (for example: the shooting of German officers taken as prisoners of war or members of the NSDAP.) Nevertheless one must count on the possibility of the practical execution of such counter-measures.
Furthermore political commissars in accordance with a Stalin order of 1 August 1941 are wearing officers' uniform without special insignia. Therefore one must count on the fact, that the troop unit will no longer search especially for commissars among the prisoners, in the event that the latter (i.e. the commissars) cannot immediately be separated on the basis of information received. As a result political commissars are now being deported more frequently to Prisoner of War camps.
For the Army Command.
Chief of the General Staff Signed v. Witzleben."
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I would like to read the first part of the document into the record, it says on page 1 of the document:
"Army Command 2, ic/A.O. No. 1928/41 secret. Reference Army Group Center ic/A.O. Nr. 132/41 Secret of 19 August 1941. Subject: Political Commissars."
And now comes the important part:
"To Army Group Center."
JUDGE CARTER: We will take our morning recess at this time.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honors, I have some requests to make. The first is that the assistants of the defense counsel might be allowed into the courtroom. They were not able to get any tickets and, therefore, could not remain in the courtroom. I would ask, please, that the Tribunal give permission for them to receive tickets and for them to come into the courtroom.
MR. RAPP: May I make a statement? I see right now one of the assistant counsel to Dr. Rauschenbach, sitting in the balcony. I don't see why the other ones can't be sitting there either. I don't see what Dr. Laternser is driving at.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I think assistant counsel are entitled to come into the main courtroom if we have room and certainly they have a right to sit in the back and if it requires anything further on the part of the Tribunal we will get it, but I think they should be permitted to come in.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes; then I will tell them that they can come in; and I have one further request, that when the prosecution submit a new document they would only start reading when all the defense counsel have been able to look at the document. It takes a little time for the document to be passed along and the prosecution should always state against whom the document is charged before the document is read so that the defense counsel know.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: We will allow for a reasonable time for the examination of documents before they are read.
Might I also say at this time that the interpreters have been having a little trouble keeping up with some of the proceedings this morning and I would like to ask you all to bear in mind that they have a problem so take some of these debates we have had. A little more slowly, if you will please.
I wish also that defense counsel would arrange so we wouldn't have so many making objections to the same document. If you could arrange that, the Tribunal will appreciate it.
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, may I inquire for only one further explanation from the Tribunal regarding the ruling of assistant defense counsel? Is that to take precedent over all visitors or only in case there is sufficient room in the gallery. I would like to have that question raised.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Well, I doubt if we will have any problem in that respect but I think assistant counsel are entitled to be in the courtroom and if there isn't room in here that they should be given room out there. If the problem of space becomes acute, we will have to take that up later.
MR. RAPP: Very well, your Honors.
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for defendant Dehner): Your Honors, the prosecution have announced a witness Korn but did not state the subject of the examination and against whom he is to be examined.
JUDGE BURKE: What is the name?
DR. GAWLIK: Korn, korn.
JUDGE BURKE: From Dorn?
DR. GAWLIK: No.
JUDGE BURKE: Fine.
DR. GAWLIK: Witness Korn, your Honors, will be heard primarily against the defendant Dehner. He will testify to the relationship between the police -- that is, the German police -- and the Croatian police and units of the German army under the command of the defendant Dehner in Croatia.
MR. RAPP: If your Honors please, at this time we would like to temporarily interrupt our presentation of documents and would like to have the marshal instructed to summon the witness, Erich von dem BachZelewski.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The marshal will call the witness.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, might I ask the prosecution to state against whom the witness is to be examined?
DR. RAPP: Dr. Laternser asked the same question yesterday afternoon and I have already given him at that time the answer. I will now give it again. The witness Bach-Zelewski is to be heard primarily against all defendants. He is to testify as to partisan warfare, and the subordination of SS units to army units; he is to testify to the reprisal measures and to the entire scope of the case; and he is generally to be heard against all witnesses, all defendants.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The witness will stand 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).
You may be seated.
MR. RAPP: With your Honors' permission, I propose to examine the witness in the German language.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Very well.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, please speak slowly and please make a pause between the question and your answer.
Please state your full name and please spell it.
A My name is Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski. That is five words. I will spell them: E r i c h v o n d e m B a c h - Z e l e w s k i.
Q Where were you born?
A I was born on the 1st of March 1899 in Lauenburg in Pomerania.
Q Were you ever a member of the Party?
A Yes, I was a member of the N.S.D.A.P. since 1930.
Q Are you in possession of the Golden Party Badge?
A Yes, I received the Golden Party Badge in 1937.
Q Were you a member of the German Reichstag?
A Yes, I was a member of the German Reichstag since 6th Election Period in 1932.
Q What is your profession?
A My profession was professional officer and a trained agriculturist.
Q Please state quite briefly your military and your political career with dates and promotions until your capture.
A In 1914 at the outbreak of war I joined the Army as a volunteer. I was fifteen years old. During the first World War I was on the Eastern and on the Western front and at the end of the First World War I was Lieutenant and Company Commander with the Infantry.
At the end of the First World War I took part as an active officer in the frontier fighting in the East against the Poles. Following this I was taken over into the 100,000-men army and in Pomerania with Infantry IV I served until my voluntary release at the end of 1924. I was an active officer in this assignment.
When I left, first of all I started to learn agriculture and in an honorary capacity I was in the Frontier Guard in the East. With the establishment of the general conscription I took part in all the prescribed exercises with the Army so that, as far as military work was concerned, at the outbreak of the Second World War I was Captain with Infantry Regiment No. VII in Schoeinitz.
In 1930 I joined the Party and at the same time on the same date I joined the General SS. The SS in my neighborhood had only just then been set up. I received the task to build up the SS in the district of Frankfort on the Oder and Schneidemuehl. At that time I was SS Sector Leader.
After the seizure of power, from 1934, I became Chief Sector Leader for East Prussia and in 1936 Chief Sector Leader for Silesia.
My first assignment in the Second World War was in 1941 at the beginning of the Russian campaign. There I was Higher SS and Police Leader for Central Russia and was under the command of the Rear Army Area Central Russia of General von Schenkendorf which was mainly assigned for the combatting of partisans.
After various front assignments, at the turn of the year 19241943 -- that is, at the beginning of January 1943 -- I became Chief of the Band Combatting Units.
That was a central office with the Reichfuehrer SS for the combatting of bands. At the end of the war, in 1944, I was only in action at the front, last of all as Commanding General of some corps.
Q. Witness, what decorations and orders did you receive during the First and Second World Wars?
A. In the First World War, I received the Iron Cross, Second and First Class, and for being wounded twice the Wounded Decoration, and various other small orders. In the Second World War, I received the Clasps to the Iron Crosses, the German Cross in Gold, and the Knights Cross of the Iron Cross.
MR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, the witness, in reply to a question by the Prosecution, has described his career. From this it can be seen that in an official capacity he was never in the Balkans. Therefore his testimony is of no importance for this trial and therefore I request that the further examination of the witness cease. In an official capacity the witness was never in the Balkans.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The objection will be overruled. Any questions of competency will be taken up as questions are asked.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q. In which internment camps were you since your capture?
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Just a moment, please.
Q. Which internment camps have you been in since your capture?
A. First of all, in 1945 I was in Internment Camp Moosburg; then I was in Freising; and then in October 1945 I came to Nurnberg.
Q. Were you a prisoner of the Americans?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you under a charge at the moment?
A. No.
Q. Were you, according to the International Military Tribunal, a member of a criminal organization?
A. Yes, as an SS Obergruppenfuehrer.
Q. Witness, it is now necessary for you to tell us in detail those units which you commanded during your front assignments.
A. In the winter battle, 1941, before Moscow, I was in charge of a rather loose unit of nine police battalions and this took part during the Moscow crisis, and was successfully employed. In winter 1942, I was Commander of the First SS Infantry Brigade Mot reinforced by the Voluntary Corps Denmark on the front near Veliky Luky. In winter 1943, I was in charge in the area of Seybusch for some months of a corps group. Following this, from January until April 1944, I was combat commandant of the position Kowel, under General Haus, of the Army Group Mannsteim. August and September 1944, I was Commanding General of the Corps von dem Bach, under the Ninth Army, in the area of Warsaw, which crushed the insurrection. From October 1944 onwards, I was, until January 1945, Commanding General of the Fourteenth SS Corps on the Upper Rhine Front. From January until about March 1945, I was Commanding General of the Tenth SS Corps in Pomerania and March - April 1945 I was Commanding General of the Wehrmacht Corps which was called the Oder Corps, in the area of Schwetz on the Oder, with Mannteufel's Army.
Q. Witness, you have told us that in approximately January 1943 you became chief of the antipartisan warfare units.
A. Yes.
Q. How long did you hold this position?
A. Formally this position was never rescinded. My staff therefore carried out this activity until the end. I myself was, since January 1944 because of my front assignments, of course no longer personally active.
Q. In which areas were you, as chief of the antipartisan warfare units, active?
A. The position of chief of the antipartisan units was a central office. Primarily it was a central report office which worked in close cooperation with the OKW and the OKH. As a central report officer I was responsible for all partisan reports from the whole of Europe, which arrived at this office, and I had to work on the great, large, band-position maps which I myself had to draw up and which during the daily situation discussions with the Fuehrer had to be presented to him by Himmler.
As the fighting itself went I was in charge of operations only in the east, but since I was responsible for the drawing up of a new band fighting regulation of course I found out on the spot in the southeast about the band fighting and I myself took part actively with the Wehrmacht in a partisan operation in Croatia.
Q. Witness, you told us previously that your last rank was Obergruppenfuehrer, is that correct?
A. Yes, my last rank was Obergruppenfuehrer. On the 9th of November 1941, I was promoted to this rank.
Q. Were there other ranks in connection with that of an Obergruppenfuehrer?
A. Yes. Obergruppenfuehrer of the Waffen SS, and General of the Police.
MR. RAPP: Wait, please, Witness, until my question has been finished before you give the answer.
INTERPRETER EVAND: The answer to the last question was: "I was General of the Waffen SS and of the Police."
Q. Who was your direct superior as chief of the antipartisan warfare unit?
A. My direct superior was the Reichsfuehrer SS, Heinrich Himmler.
Q. Please tell us, quite briefly, why Himmler, as Reichsfuehrer and not the OKW, was responsible for the band combatting. Anyway, that is what I gathered from your answers.
A. With regard to the combatting of the bands, the Reichsfuehrer SS was not alone responsible, but according to a general order of the OKW the responsibility was varied in the individual districts. In the operational area of the east that is, in that area of the rear army areas and in the rear army areas, the responsibility for the combatting of the bands was that of the OKH.
For all areas in the east with civilian administration, that is in the Reichkommissariaten, Heinrich Himmler was responsible; and for the southeast the OKW was responsible, the Wehrmacht Operational Staff. These three offices had to work closely together. Daily reports from all of these three various areas, also the monthly reports, were exchanged mutually with a certain date, so that I received all the reports from the OKH and the OKW and these two received all my reports. All reports, to the highest commander of all the parts of the Wehrmacht, that is to Hitler, were made in the situation conferences by Himmler.