"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.
Q. Which period are you talking about now?
A. Now I am talking about from the beginning of 1943 onwards.
Q. Did you personally, Witness, receive such reports, or something similar to that, from the southeast areas with regard to the combatting of bands, which you as chief of the antipartisan warfare units read or evaluated?
A. Yes, indeed, of course. I received all the reports also from the southeast area and had to evaluate them on the general situation map. It was expressly laid down how these individual movements and actions were to be designated.
Q. Witness, speaking from the point of view of a military expert, what kind of warfare was it against the partisans in general?
DR. LATERNSER: This rebuttal concerns direct evidence. The views of the witness are not of interest. He must be questioned about facts. The witness is not a military expert in this connection. Therefore I would ask that the Prosecution be limited to asking about facts.
MR. RAPP: I believe, Your Honor, that I have qualified the witness. He saw the reports, he knows the conditions. I think this is a matter of fact, of the kind of fact we were engaged with, and not a matter of opinion.
DR. LATERNSER: Quite clearly an opinion and a judgment which is demanded from the witness in this instance. In rebuttal, direct evidence is concerned and therefore this question is not admissible.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The objection will be sustained.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, may I inquire as to how far this objection is sustained? I am at the present time under the impression that Dr. Laternser, although making only one statement, implied two objections -one of them pertaining to the very objection that this question could not be put to the witness; the second one being in the nature that this witness was not qualified to testify as to this type of material.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I think the objection is sustained to the question asked and was not intended to be sustained as to his competency to testify.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q. Witness, as former chief of the antipartisan warfare units, you are in a position to tell us from which point of view you carried on the warfare against partisans.
A. The warfare against the partisans-
DR. LATERNSER: The question is so general that it does not ask for facts. The witness cannot be asked about opinions but must be asked about facts from which the Tribunal can for its opinions, point of view. It is only the same question in a camouflaged form. Therefore I ask that the question be stricken.
MR. RAPP: If I may call your Honors' attention to the way in which the examination by Defense Counsel was conducted of their own witnesses and particularly the defendants, I believe that this question should be admitted. The witness was the chief of the antipartisan warfare. He ought to know what prevailed on him and what considerations had to be taken to carry this fight against partisans. I do not think this is a general question at all and I believe that the witness can answer too. After all, he formulated the policy.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, points of view are not facts. Of course the Prosecution can ask the facts and if he draws the fact to my attention that questioned in a similar way, then I can only speak for myself. During my examination of the witnesses, I always asked for facts and I always adhered to his rule. Also in the examination of my client. The question is not admissible.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor -
DR. LATERNSER: Also, it does not refute anything presented by the Defense. The purpose of rebuttal is only to refute facts which have been presented by the Defense by new facts; but the Prosecution's representative in this instance does not refute any rebuttal question. If the regulations of rebuttal are not adhered to, the whole proceedings will be extended to a great extent and at this stage of the proceedings we must submit to the regulations.
MR. RAPP: Firstly I submit that the theories of the OKW are facts as far as this case is concerned. Secondly, I submit that the defense has introduced rather new material into their case. It covers everything that we have put in during the direct case. Therefore it seems superficially to us that Dr. Laternser is under the impression that we would have to backtrack over our case again, though the Defense has dealt in their case with every single point that we have raised and has answered such points with an entirely new issue. Therefore we must go over this and I haven't even scratched, with this witness, the surface of what I tried to cover with him. It will deal with the entire scope of this case, including -
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The witness will be permitted to testify as to what he knows, but his opinions as to general matters of course are not permissible.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, might I make the following brief comment? For some time now there has been in existence a certain antagonism between the SS and the Wehrmacht because during the last period, for understandable reasons, the SS tried to make out that everything which the SS did and which has already been the subject for various trials, to push all this onto the account of the Wehrmacht. The witness Bach-Zelewski is of course the typical SS representative.
MR. RAPP: I object to this rostrum being used for the opinions of Dr. Sauter. I believe that the Tribunal is here to decide for themselves and draw any conclusions -
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The Tribunal is not going to decide any disagreements between the Wehrmacht and the SS. We will evaluate the evidence of both sides and give it the weight we think it is entitled to. You may proceed with the examination of the witness.
DR. SAUTER: Then, your Honor, this would be a considerable disadvantage for the generals charged here. We had no idea, during the presentation of our case, that exactly an SS leader would be sent here to talk about the regulations for band warfare and particularly that SS leader who is regarded as mainly responsible for the millions of murders in Russia.
If we had any idea that the Prosecution was not going to bring any other expert and was going to bring an SS Obergruppenfuehrer who is supposed to testify about the behavior of ten or twelve generals of the Wehrmacht, then of course we too would have brought people from the Wehrmacht who would have given an objective picture and not a subjective picture as the witness Bach-Zelewski must of course give from his point of view in order to save whatever there remains to be saved for the SS. And therefore we do not think it correct that the Prosecution here in the trial against ten or twelve generals of the Wehrmacht brings an SS Obergruppenfuehrer who is strongly implicated, to speak in some way here as an expert on the partisan warfare.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, the premature argument advanced is, of course, not proper at this particular time. We are not concerned with those arguments at all.
JUDGE CARTER: You may proceed with the examination of the witness.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, were you personally present when within the leadership of the OKW or the OKH general conferences took place about band warfare?
DR. LATERNSER: I object. The question is a purely leading question. The answer is already contained in the question. I therefore would ask that the question be stricken because it is a leading question.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, if Dr. Laternser knows the answer to the question since it is contained in the question, I will submit, Your Honor, I don't. I just thought about this question.
JUDGE CARTER: Objection over-ruled.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q Would you please answer the question? Witness, would you please answer the question?
A Would you please put the question once more?
Q I asked you whether during discussions with OKW or the OKH you were present when there was discussion about band warfare?
A Yes. The first fundamental conference took place in 1942. It was held at the suggestion of General Schenkendorf of the staff of Quartermaster General Wagner at the OKW. At that time at the proposal of the Wehrmacht I became Chief of the anti-Partisan Warfare Units. Then later on my men, my I-a and my I-c, my experts, were daily in conference with the men from the OKW and the OKH, who were there dealing with the band warfare, so that such conferences took place daily. I, myself, of course also took part in the discussions regarding fundamental questions.
Q Please tell us the sort of fundamental questions which came up in such conferences.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I object. Those are not questions the prosecutor has to ask the witness for facts. He asks such general, questions that he can give any kind of answer to them and he again asks for an opinion. I don't understand this type of questioning at all.
MR. RAPP: I asked the witness to give us the nature of the discussion. That is a fact; that is not an opinion. If he knows what was then discussed, the subject matter, I think the witness is entitled to testify to that.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, that -
JUDGE CARTER: The objection will be sustained.
MR. RAPP: Please answer the question now, witness.
DR. LATERNSER: The objection was sustained.
MR. RAPP: I am sorry. I withdraw that question. Witness, what did you personally, from your own experience and your own participation, learn in the discussions and the conferences which you have just described?
DR. LATERNSER: First of all, the question is completely general. I don't know what its aim is, and also it is not important, and also the witness is asked about his own experience, and experience is also a judgment or conclusion which is not of interest here. He was especially asked about experience and the experience of this witness can not be important, and also the question is so general and the question must be limited by the Prosecution to facts. Also, what has this question to do with rebuttal. What facts does the Prosecution want to refute with this? I object to this question.
JUDGE CARTER: The subject of these conversations couldn't possibly be binding upon these defendants. It will be sustained.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I was trying to lay a foundation for the subsequent partisan publications which we have referred to. They were introduced here in evidence, and I want to show the Tribunal how they came about. I can not do this if I am constantly being interrupted at a time when Dr. Laternser has not the slightest idea what I am trying to lay a foundation for.
JUDGE CARTER: I think probably you should go to the facts which you seek to establish. I think there is possibly sufficient foundation.
JUDGE BURKE: What occurs to me, Mr. Rapp, why was this not a proper part of your direct case, if it is important. The question is based on the charges laid in the indictment. Surely there is nothing you could ask this witness at this time that could not have been asked at that time.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, the reason we believe is that the defendants have introduced the theory here, which we have never introduced in our case, that partisan warfare is a military necessity, and reprisal measures are military necessity. That was basically introduced during the defendants' case.
JUDGE BURKE: That appears as part of the evidence in the documents, the war diaries, and the other exhibits presented here during the main case of the Prosecution.
MR. RAPP: We can't draw that conclusion. We have to assume that we have to prove our case first.
JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed. We will rule on the objections, as they come up.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, did you take part in the drawing up and compilation of the so-called band warfare regulations?
A Yes, the band warfare regulations which were issued in 1944 were drawn up and worked on by me with my staff. Every sketch in this regulation I myself drew up. All the paragraphs in there were drawn up by me in close cooperation with the OKW and the OKH, and this took one whole year to do.
Q And did you have any kind of influence on the issuance of the band warfare regulations for 1942?
A No, at that time I was not yet chief of the Anti-Partisan Warfare Units.
This first band warfare regulation was so awful that -
DR. LATERNSER: I object. If the Tribunal please, how are we supposed to listen to the opinion of this witness on the value or the non-value? What is the evidence and what is the subject raised during the defense which the Prosecution is supposed to refute here? This has nothing to do with rebuttal. This should have been brought forward during the main prosecution case. I really don't know what the prosecution is trying to refute here. If the further examination does not concern itself with important facts, then I request that it now be discontinued.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, we submit the Defense has introduced the document dealing with Anti-Partisan Warfare. The Prosecution did not. I want to find out from this witness how binding such regulations were; how they were distributed, and how they came about.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, the document was submitted and it speaks for itself, and the next point that the witness was asked about whether it was binding or not - is a legal question and is not a question of fact. Both points which were announced here play no part at all at this stage of the proceedings.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor please, the prosecution has just stated that it wishes to find out from the witness how these band warfare regulations dated 1944 came about. The Prosecutor has just stated that he wanted to find out from the witness how these band warfare regulations dated 1944 came about. It is completely unintelligible to me what this question has to do with out defendants here. Until now nobody has maintained or even indicated ever that any one of these defendants here had anything to do with the working out of the band warfare regulations. If, nevertheless, the witness is asked how these band warfare regulations originated, then, of course, this can only have one definite purpose. That is, that the guilt, if guilt must be mentioned at all, will be pushed on to the OKW, and then the witness Bach-Zelewsky, will have an opportunity here for his own trial - which he cannot escape - to take precautions here and now against it.
MR. RAPP: I don't think I have to stand here and take a personal attack from Dr. Sauter on my witness. I think that is entirely out of the scope of this case.
DR. SAUTER: Then I will ask the Tribunal who is allowed to speak? Whether I can speak here with the permission of the Tribunal, or whether I can be interrupted here in the middle of a sentence by the Prosecution. I wouldn't do such a thing and I would like to ask the Prosecutor the doesn't interrupt me.
JUDGE CARTER: These proceedings are quite evidently proof of the necessity of what I said a while ago: that we have got to have control of these presentations out there or we will have a lot of confusion. We are not concerned with arguments of facts at this time. We are trying to decide what is competent and what is not competent. I don't think we are concerned with the reasons for the issuance of these regulations, and to that extent the objection will be sustained.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I would like to submit to the Tribunal that it please caution defense counsel not to attack this witness here on the stand on the basis of these completely personal conclusions. I don't believe this is the place to do this. He can do that if he wishes in cross-examination and it is for that very reason that I have interrupted Dr. Sauter, because I did not know how far this could go.
JUDGE CARTER: I have already cautioned Dr. Sauter against argumentative matters out there, and the court will adhere to that decision. We have now reached the time to recess and will recess until 1:30.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 14 January 1948)
JUDGE CARTER: You may proceed.
ERICH von dem BACK-ZELEWSKI - resumed
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
Q. BY MR. RAPP: Witness, as Chief of the Anti-Partisan Warfare Units, you told us this morning it was amongst other things your task to study the incoming reports, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. I mean daily reports and other reports, etc.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you at any time in these reports read the term "house partisan"?
A. Yes.
DR. LATERNSER: I object. If the Tribunal please, that is a leading question.
MR. RAPP: If -
DR. LATERNSER: I am still speaking. The Prosecutor may not ask "Did you ever read such and such a term". He should ask, "What expression did you read?" The question, the way it was put, is a leading question and as such not admissible. We are still in the process of direct evidence.
MR RAPP: I assume, Your Honor, it would be rather general. The witness can answer the question yes or no. I don't see why it is leading.
JUDGE CARTER: Objection over-ruled.
MR. RAPP: Witness, will you please answer my question?
A. From the reports the organization and the type of the partisans was quite clearly evident. There was a difference made between the militarily organized partisans, or at least those organized in a manner similar to military units. These were organized into Battalions, Regiments, Brigades, etc., and on the other hand there were the so-called "wild" partisans, for whom the term "house partisan" was used.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I very much regret having to object again. The witness now made statements of a general nature. He should say in such-and-such a report he read such-and-such a remark.