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.
He can not say there was a distinction made between certain terms. That is a conclusion and this is not a matter about which the witness can be heard. Therefore, I object to this manner of examination of the witness.
JUDGE CARTER: I think it is proper for him to explain what is meant by the term "house partisan". There can't be anything wrong with that, I wouldn't think.
MR. RAPP: Will you please continue, witness?
A. These terms were, after all, clearly established in the official regulations which came from the OKW. These regulations - that is the band-combatting regulations--stated very clearly that by "partisan" first of all were meant the militarily-organized partisans. I shall now deal with the main part of the question; that is, the "house partisans." On the basis of the band situation map, of which I, myself, was in charge and which was kept according to the regulations ordered - it was quite clearly evident that the partisan movement was a people's insurrection. Such people's insurrections, of course, bring unrest not only the noble motives of a nation --.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I regret to have to intervene again. These are completely general statements. The year isn't mentioned; not even the theater of war. What are we to do with this testimony? Against whom is it directed? What new facts are to arise from this testimony against this defense? I see no reason to hear this testimony at this moment in the proceedings. I see no materiality at this point.
MR. RAPP: I can only answer that part of Dr. Laternser's question which deals with the fact as to what we are trying to rebut, or, to say it better, what connection does the witness' testimony have to this case. We, in our direct case, did not once, in a single instance that I recall, use the word "house" partisan. That word was solely introduced by the defense for the purpose of proving that "house" partisans were in the majority who were opposing the German forces, and not organized military partisans, as we contend.
DR. LATERNSER: That may well be true, but after all it has to be refuted by facts and not by general statements of a witness.
JUDGE CARTER: Objection will be overruled.
MR. RAPP: Witness, were all partisans combatted in the same manner?
A. No.
DR. LATERNSER: I object. If the Tribunal please, that is a leading question. It must not be asked, "were all partisans combatted in the same manner?" The question should be, "How were the partisans combatted?" That would be a question which is admissible, but not in the way the prosecutor put the question, which is now--.
JUDGE CARTER: I don't think the question is leading. The objection will be overruled.
MR. RAPP: Please, will you answer the question, witness?
A. Before I answer this question I have to point out as expert--.
JUDGE CARTER. Eliminate the details and answer the question.
JUDGE BURKE: Please have him answer the question that was asked.
MR. RAPP: Please just answer my question and be brief, Witness.
A. The partisans, to the extent to which they were organized, were combatted according military and tactical concepts. This combatting according to military regulations was of matter of the operations. Apart from those there were, however, the "house" partisans and the so-called "wild" partisans, who made use of the whole of the partisan fighting. These were small groups or individual personalities which were active on the fringes of the area of the original partisan movement. These so-called "house" partisans were not combatted according to military tactical aspects, but instead this combatting was a matter carried out according to police and security principles.
Q. Witness, about what area are you talking?
A. I am talking quite generally, of the East as well as of the Southeast.
Q. In connection with the combatting of the bands were so-called reprisal measures carried out?
DR. LATERNSER: I object. If Your Honors please, such a general question is not admissible. It does not ask about any facts because it is so generally put. A fact is an event which actually took place. The question aims at a general opinion and the witness is not to make such an opinion. For this reason alone this question is not admissible.
MR. RAPP: If your Honor please, the witness told us on several occasions that he read the daily reports; from these daily reports he could obviously glean the fact that reprisal measures were carried out. I have first to establish that question which he could answer "yes" or "no" before he could answer any subsequent question.
DR. LATERNSER: If Your Honors please, we have to make a distinction if he is asked "were you there on such-and-such a date? Do you know what was carried out in the course of such-and-such an operation?" That is an admissible question, but if he is quite generally asked about a period of several years and simultaneously concerning several theatres of war, if this question is put, for instance: "Were in the course of partisan operations, reprisal measures carried out?", that is not a question which relates to facts, but that concerns an opinion and such a question is not admissible. Furthermore, it is not admissible at this stage of the proceedings because again it does not concern a rebuttal subject matter. That should have been discussed in the Prosecution's case in Chief and the witness should then have been heard. The question is not admissible in the form in which it was put.
PRESIDING JUDGE Carter: I am inclined to agree with you. Up to the present time there has been considerable evidence that ordinarily would not go in if we are going to get to the facts. I think the question is too general. It will be sustained.
QUESTIONS BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, do you know of one or several cases in the southeast on the basis of such reports as you read where reprisal measures were carried out and can you make such statements here?
DR. LATERNSER: I object. The question is not best evidence. At this point I take the point of view of the prosecution of the last few days. It is secondary evidence. He was asked "do you know on the basis of reports, if such an event took place". That is secondary evidence and not admissible. In rebuttal, we must have the best evidence. We don't want what the witness learned from reports.
MR. RAPP: I submit this testimony of the witness as he saw it himself is best evidence. It is furthermore well settled that anything which tends to establish a state of facts contrary to that asserted by the defense is proper rebuttal evidence.
PRESIDENT JUDGE CARTER: I think the conclusions he drew from his reports is secondary evidence. The objection will be sustained. He can testify to what he knows himself but what he saw in these reports I don't think material at this stage in the proceedings.
Q Witness, what did you yourself experience relating to socalled "reprisal" or retaliation measures?
DR. LATERNSER: I object.
JUDGE BURKE: May I suggest to Dr. Laternser perhaps it might be a matter of convenience to exchange places with Dr. Weissgerber during the balance of this examination.
DR. LATERNSER: I object to this question. I am sure the witness experienced quite a lot if he is to answer this question it will take a few days. He will have to be asked about events dealt with during the course of the evidence of the defense. If I ask him "What did you yourself experience during the hand fighting," that relates to the eastern theater as well as the southeast, furthermore, not to new facts and it is not admissible.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Objection sustained.
Q Witness, did you know SS Gruppenfuehrer Shimana?
A Yes, I know Shimana since the year 1941 when he was in command of a regiment at the front near Moscow. For these battles he received the Iron Cross first class, later he was in the committed bandcombatting under General von Schenkendorf in Russia, Center, and received from the armed forces the German cross in gold. In 1943 he as successor of the high SS and police leader Stroop in Greece came to Greece. I personally visited him there at one time.
Q What did you discuss with Shimana at that time? Did you know what his position was?
A Yes, I knew that as chief of the anti partisan warfare unit, I received a copy of the service regulations, if a high SS and police leader was appointed. Therefore, I knew of the appointment and the service instruction which was given to Shimana.
Q To whom was Shimana subordinated.
DR. LATERNSER: I object.
DR. WEISSGERBER: If your honor please, I object to this question. The service instructions for the higher SS and police leader in Greece is in evidence in the regulations, the subordinations are provided, therefore we don't have to hear a witness concerning this fact. This question is cumulative and therefore immaterial and irrelevant. Above all does not relate to any facts which have only arisen in the direct case of the defense. It concerns a document which the prosecution themselves introduced, therefore we don't have a witness concerning it.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, the defendant Speideh has told us that the document was ambiguous and doesn't mean what it says, when we put it in, we thought it was self-explanatory.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Objections overruled.
Q Will you answer my question please, witness.
A I recall that according to that service instruction which Shimana confirmed to me orally on the spot, he was subordinated in the police technical sphere to Himmler personally and concerning his tasks on the spot to the military commander. That was at the time General Speidel. May I continue? Shimana to the best of my recollection had the following tasks to carry out.
DR. LATERNSER: I object. That is hearsay.
WITNESS: No, I know this.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, if the witness knows it, it can hardly be hearsay.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: It is outside the scope of the question asked, at least. Objection sustained.
Q Witness, to whom was Shimana responsible?
DR. LATERNSER: I object. That is not a question concerning facts, a legal question and it is not admissible. We are dealing with facts. This is purely a legal question. I object.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I believe that the witness can testify to who he was subordinated, if he knows who Shimana's superiors were, I think he ought to be able to tell us about it.
DR. LATERNSER: Then that should be asked. The Prosecutor asked "to whom was he responsible?" That is a legal question and not admissable.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I think probably the matter of subordination is admissible, but responsibility is rather a general question.
MR. RAPP: I am sorry, the German work "verantworlich" is not only a question pertaining to legal matter but also who he was to report to and he gave him his directives. And only in that way did I want the witness to answer the question.
PRESIDING JUDGE CAREER: All right, if he knows who he was subordinated to we will let him testify.
Q Please answer the question. Who was the superior, from whom could he receive orders?
DR. LATERNSER: I object. The question is cumulative, it has been put before and answered before.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The objection is overruled.
MR. RAPP: Please give your answer.
A Shimana was subordinated to the Reichsfuehrer SS who was his judicial authority as well as also to the military commander who was his territorial superior. He was subordinated to the Reichsfuehrer in all purely police technical questions, which applied according to general regulations for police matters in the Reich, and he was subordinated to the Military Commander above all in the active band warfare. Shimana had for this reason received at the time from the military commander his own area in which he had to take care of security. That is when I was there.
Q Witness, as divisional commander and corps commander, was it part of your task to make so-called daily reports?
A Yes, of course that was part of my tasks.
Q Did you have to keep a war diary?
A Yes, I had to keep a war diary also that was a general order.
Q These war diaries and daily reports, which you delivered, were those official documents?
A Yes, that was a document.
DR. LATERNSER: That is an opinion. It is a legal question whether something is a document or not, it is not a fact. The witness may not be asked that question in that way. It is not a rebuttal subject...
MR. RAPP: I don't see how Dr. Laternser can stand here and say this is not a rebuttal subject, when these defendants on the stand have testified in their own defense these reports were mock reports and shadow reports. I cannot see how how Dr. Laternser can come here and say these are not rebuttal matter. I am trying to lay a proper foundation and if Dr. Laternser would be a little more patient and wait he would understand the purpose of calling this witness here.
JUDGE CARTER: I think you can get down to the questions you want to ask directly. I think this is a sufficient foundation laid for his qualifications. You may proceed.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, will you please answer the question whether or not those documents were official documents.
A Yes.
DR. LATERNSER: That is an opinion, I object to the question whether they are official documents or not. It is an opinion which this question is driving at.
JUDGE CARTER: Objection over-ruled.
THE WITNESS: The regulations concerning the keeping of war diaries were expressly provided according to the regulations of secrecy, they provided expressly who was to keep a war diary and the circle of those was a very limited one.
Of course, everything that was to be entered in the diaries had to comply with the true facts.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, in your capacity as the leader of tactical SS units, were you at any time subordinate to army commanders?
A Yes, I myself have been subordinated to army commanders and Wehrmacht, Generals in turn were subordinate to me.
Q You are now talking of the Russian war theater, or what theater of war are you discussing?
A I am now talking of Russia and all my front assignments, including that in the west.
Q Witness, as the leader of an SS unit fighting the scope of a larger army unit to what extent were you subordinate to your superior army commander?
A With the exception of the judicial subordination -- he was not the judicial authority for me -- I was subordinate to him in all respects during such operations by this I mean he gave me orders orders concerning operations and he also gave me orders as to the manner in which I had to carry out such operations. It was a very clear military-tactical subordination.
Q Witness, you said that the army superior was not the judicial authority, as far as you were concerned; is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q What do you mean by judicial authority?
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I object as that again is not a fact. He has to be asked when were you subordinate to anyone, at what time, who was your judicial authority; but not put it as a theoretical question. It is not a question driving at facts, and that has to be observed, it must, in the direct case. These are theoretical statements and no facts.
JUDGE CARTER: Objection over-ruled.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q Will you please answer the question, witness?
A Every division had its court, the divisional commander was the divisional judge. There were also similar installations with the SS and Police, the divisional commander of the Waffen SS was also the divisional judge. There were also similar installations with the SS and Police, the Higher SS and Police Leader was also the judicial authority for the troops subordinate to him. The relations therefore on a legal basis between the commanding general and the divisional commanders subordinate to him was the same everywhere, irrespective of whether it was an SS unit or a Wehrmacht unit, the commanding officer always had to deal with the divisional commander if he demanded a punishment for anybody. The difference was since the SS had its own judiciary, that the SS channel was more complicated, than direct channels. Similar measures existed vice-versa. If an SS leader led Wehrumacht units, or, for instance, if a commander of the army had air force units subordinate to him, -- which also existed-- they had to turn to their military courts, the proper military courts which were to deal with such matters. This did not change the fact that court existed to judge over certain officers, but the channel was different.
Q Witness, you yourself, did you ever have so-called army units under your command?
A Yes, quite frequently. The majority of the units subordinate to me as commanding general were army units, more than 80% even at the time when I led a so-called SS corp. According to the designations, even then there were up to 80% Wehrmacht units and the generals subordinate to me were Wehrmacht generals.
Q Witness, did you in your capacity as chief of the anti-partisan warfare units ascertain the fact yourself that specific groups or units excelled within the partisan movement?
A I did not quite understand the meaning. Do you mean the groups on the side of the partisans or on the side of the Germans?
Q I mean on the side of the partisans.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, the question is again too generally put.