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.
At least it will have to relate to the southeast. The witness was in the east and in the west but never in the south-east. General evidence is being offered here, to be later applied to the SouthEast. The question will have to be put detained enough to have a connection with this trial. The question is too generally put to be admissable.
JUDGE CARTER: I assume it is a foundation question, otherwise I assume there is some merit to what you say. It will be over-ruled.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, were you in your capacity as chief of the army partisan units in the southeast?
A I was down there several times and in one instance, which I recall just now, on the basis of one report which came from the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle and was sent to the Fuehrer stating that in the ethnic-German area of Ruma atrocities were committed against Ethnic-German Croats by the first Cossak Division. For this reason, in order to ascertain the facts on the spot, I flew to Ruma myself with my JU and discussed the facts with all responsible leaders on the spot and later on obtained orders from the highest level.
Q Who was the commander at that time in Croatia?
AAt that time the plenipotentiary general for Croatia -I don't remember the words armed forces commander -- but the plenipotentiary commander was Glais-Horstenau, with the government in Zagreh.
Q Who led the German troops?
AAt that time, it was in 1943 when I was down there, the German troops were led, or the majority of them were led by the newly arrived General Rendulic, who led an army. The troops were also led by several commanding generals, among them also were a number of infantry divisions and then by the Higher SS and Police leader there, who was in charge of his Police units.
Q Who led at that time the so-called Coassack division?
A The so-called Coassack Division was led by General von Panwitz, whom I knew for many years in peace time.
Q Were you in the southeast again at a later period?
A Yes, I was there later on. I was once again in Belgrade, subsequently I flew to Athens. Even before that I was in the area of Brod when the commanding General Lueters was stationed there, whom I visited personally and with whose units I participated in an operation. This operation took place in the Pales mountains near Brod. I don't believe I can remember the name exactly, it was a kind of a strange name.
Q In other words, witness, you were in the southeast as well as in the east and west?
A Yes.
Q And when you were in the east and southeast, you were also chief of the anti-partisan units?
A Yes, I was the expert at the most central agency, which existed.
Q Witness, did the partisans in the southeast in actual fact increase due to the reprisal measures?
A Yes.
DR. LATERNSER: I object. That question is not admissable it is merely an opinion which is being asked. How can the witness, as I shall prove later during cross-examination, make such statements without ever having been in an official position in the southeast. This question is purely an opinion as the witness is being asked "did the partisan movement in the southeast increase due to the reprisal measures. The witness can not give an opinion on this, the question asks merely for an opinion, it should ask for facts.
MR. RAPP: If this witness does not know this answer, I don't know who does. This witness was the chief of the anti-partisan warfare responsible for the southeast and east and if he don't know the answer to the question, then he should never have been the chief of the antipartisan units.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please. I now want to find out the erroneous fact that the prosecution during the last few days of the presentation of the case asserts that this witness is responsible for the whole, entire partisan warfare in the southeast. This assertion here arises for the first time, it never arose during the case before. If the prosecution, that had been the case, produced the evidence to that effect. I ask not to admit an answer to this question.
JUDGE CARTER: The objection is over-rulled.
THE WITNESS: I was of course not responsible for the band combat in the southeast, I was responsible for the work on all reports coming in the southeast.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, you can deal with the question of the defense on cross-examination. At this point, I merely ask you if you observed an increase of the partisan movements due to the reprisal measures taken.
DR. LATERNSER: I again object, it is purely an observation which the witness can give.
JUDGE CARTER: Over-ruled.
THE WITNESS: I beg your pardon. I did not understand the question originally. From the band situation, map which was decisive for the decisions at the highest level, for troop movements and for the decision as to the focal point of the movement it was shown, clearly which consequences a partisan movement had. It showed altogether that consequences the orders from above had in actual fact. This could be seen clearly from the map and also from the statistics which I had to keep very exactly, in my statistics which had to be kept according to regulations which were expressly prescribed ----
BY MR. RAPP:
Q Slowly, witness, much more slowly.
A It became evident how many of our own losses occurred in partisan war-fare. A difference was made during our own attacks and between losses during enemy surprise attacks. Also it had to be put down in the statistics in various columns and in various colors every ten days how many enemy dead that is deaths which occurred on the part of the enemy -- how many partisans were killed in action, or how many partisan suspects were reported dead.
Q Witness, may I ask you if you can do this, to make the answers to my questions a little more brief and to the point. I believe the Court will appreciate it.
A From the material previously mentioned, on which I had to work, it was evident what consequences arose from certain directives.
Q Witness, were more partisans, -- or rather should I say did more people join the partisans due to this fact.
DR. LATERNSER: I object. The witness cannot possibly know that. He was never in the Balkans in an official capacity, how can he know why partisans joined the movement. I think it is a purely a conclusion. I object to the question.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I think it is a conclusion of the witness and the objection should be sustained.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, if I may say first of all, I don't know if Dr. Laternser had his earphones on. The witness told me he was in the southeast he was in charge of Partisan warfare and he saw the reports. I don't think it is a matter of conclusion or possibly a matter of opinion to say whether or not more people joined the partisans. If he kept statistical records of it he ought to be able to say "yes" or "no". I believe he has been established as an expert and could give an opinion.
JUDGE CARTER: If he can give figures on it, that is one thing and if he says it was caused by this particular thing or that particular thing would be something else.
MR. RAPP: Witness, can you give us figures showing whether these reprisal measures caused the units of the partisans to decrease or increase.
DR. LATERNSER: I object. It is just a general question, which the witness cannot answer. The question should be put in a specific way as to date or theater of war. In this way, the witness cannot possibly answer. I object.
JUDGE CARTER: Let him answer if he knows.
THE WITNESS: Numerically I cannot of course recall it at this point.
MR. RAPP: Witness, if you cannot give us the exact figures, could you possibly give us a percentage?
DR. LATERNSER: A percentage would be an estimate and an opinion. A percentage again would have to be based on numbers and I would have to know the numbers. A percentage is merely a conclusion. As the witness just said he did not know the numbers, therefore he cannot know the percentage. I object.
JUDGE CARTER: Over-ruled.
THE WITNESS: It was clearly evident that due to the wrong type of reprisal measures used in combatting the partisans there was a considerable increase and that could be established.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I move that this statement be stricken. There are no facts as to what the witness has testified, it is merely an opinion.
JUDGE CARTER: The Court will take into consideration the weight and credibility to be given to this evidence. The objection will be over-ruled.
MR. RAPP: Witness, if you as commander of an SS unit received an order from your army superior, which was given in connection with reprisal measures, what channels could the army commander use to insure your carrying out this in the event you refused to do that?
DR. LATERNSER: I object. That is a hypothetical question. The prosecution should ask the witness about the facts, there are no theoretical questions permitted during direct examination.
MR. RAPP: The witness, testified that he was an SS commander and as such he certainly is qualified to testify this. This is a profound well known statement and I may say usage in German army - SS relations, that we don't have to pick on a particular instance.
DR. LATERNSER: If one discusses it, one can talk theoretically but if I examine a witness I must do so with regard to facts. This question is a hypothetical question.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor the defendants in their own defense tried to rebut the evidence which was put in by the prosecution strictly on hypothetical grounds. They did not in one instance, that I recall show that they could not give this or that particular order because they were prevented from certain conditions at that time. It was always told in great generalities I believe the Tribunal has been extremely liberal on that particular point.
JUDGE CARTER: I don't see how this evidence can bear on the guilt or innocence of these defendants. In any event, the objection is sustained.
MR. RAPP: If your Honors please, Mr. Fulkerson has a few questions to put to the witness.
DR. LATERNSER: I object to questions being put to the witness by two members of the prosecution. It is customary that questions be put to the witness by one prosecutor.
JUDGE CARTER: I believe that is the rule we made.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I believe you will recall that Mr. Denney and I divided the cross-examination of the defendant List. The case is so large we had to divide the prosecution. No prosecutor can be an expert on a case on each defendant. It is impossible. You will remember further that for every witness that the Prosecution had brought here whether he testified against each one of the defense counsel have gotten up here and asked many questions, whether the evidence related to his defendant or not. This has been particularly true today with Dr. Laternser making objections when the witness testified regarding relationship between Schimauar oad Speidel.
JUDGE CARTER: Objection over-ruled. We will permit further cross-examination by Mr. Fulkerson?
DR. LATERNSER: If your Honors please, I would like to add something to this point. At one time during this trial, it was permitted that two prosecutors examine and I am now forced to deal with that through a personal courtesy of the defense outside of the courtroom. That was done because Mr. Denney did not fell well at the time and because of this courtesy on the part of the defense the prosecution now dares to conclude a rule. I leave it to the Tribunal to judge such an attitude.
JUDGE CARTER: We will adhere to the ruling made.
MR. FULKERSON: I must say I am very flattered with the objection.
BY MR. FULKERSON:
Q Witness, you testified a moment ago that you made two trips to the southeast, that on the first trip you flew by plane and landed at Ruma, do you remember.
A Yes.
Q What was your purpose in going there?
A The purpose of my trips was to ascertain whether this report concerning the atrocities of the Cossack Division was in accordance with the facts.
Q Was the Cossack division located around Ruma?
A Yes, on the spot I discussed matters with General von Pannwitz. I discussed with him the whole of operation which took place at the time and I may perhaps briefly describe the manner of this discussion. Present was General von Pannwitz, further his chief of staff, Lt. Col. Schulz and further to my recollection, there participated in this discussion the 1-A.
DR. GAWLIK: I object to this statement. What the witness says is not evidence from his own knowledge, it is merely based on hear-say. He said originally he reported what he heard from Schultz and Pannwitz.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I think the witness is inclined to make many voluntary statements after he has answered a question, and I think that is highly improper.
Q. If you will just confine yourself to a short answer to the question -- just a moment, now. You said you did have conversation with these two officers, where was that?
A. Yes, of course, I had a discussion with them.
Q. Just a moment, General; where did the discussion take place first?
A. In Ruma, right down there, at the command post of the division. A commanding general doesn't go much farther. After all, where does he get his information? From the division commander first of all before he goes down to see the individual troops.
Q. Well, now then -
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: General, would you kindly eliminate some of the rather unnecessary details and answer what counsel asks you. Counsel asks intelligent questions and I am sure you can give him an intelligent answer if you make them brief.
Q. Now, General, were there any other officers present from other outfits aside of these two officers of the First Cossack Division?
A. Yes, in Ruma there was an infantry division and the command post of Gruppenfuehrer Kammerhofer with his operational staff -all those were in Ruma on that day -- also the local Obergespan which had the civilian responsibility for this area. With all these people together, I then discussed the matters and the reproaches raised against the Cossack Division. I wanted to clarify the situation.
Q. Then there was a conference at which was present yourself and these officers from the Cossack Division and these officers from this other unidentified infantry division and some officers from the Kammerhofer group, is that right?
DR. GAWLIK: I object to this question. It is a leading question and there is no connection with what the witness has said heretofore.
The witness said nothing of the kind in this manner. What he was asked is a leading question.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The objection is overruled.
Q. Now, what was the First Cossack Division doing at that time? Was it engaged in an operation or was it in bivouac somewhere or what?
A. Yes, it was engaged in combat.
DR. GAWLIK: I object to the answer to this question for two reasons: first of all, it is not best evidence. It is evidence by hearsay. The witness said that these statements are merely based on his information and, furthermore, it is no rebuttal evidence. Rebuttal evidence will have to be directed against new facts produced by the defense. Nothing has been produced in this respect. What the witness states now is not directed against any evidence produced by the defense. It is purely cumulative evidence which the prosecution ought to have presented in its case in chief.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Objection overruled.
Q. What is the code name of this operation, if you remember?
A. This operation was an operation which consisted of a number of individual parts and had different code namers. According to the reports which I received on anti-partisan warfare groups, it was, first of all, called "Cornflower" and then it was called "Ferdinand" and at the time when I arrived the operation was called "Armin" which was a designation chosen since General Pannwitz himself -
Q. When was the exact time of which you speak, General, when you were down there?
A. I was down there during the first days of the month of October 1943.
Q. And this operation was in progress at that time?
A. Yes, the beginning of the operation "Cornflower" which was first of all carried out almost only by police units -- later on reinforced by heavy arms of the 176th or 173rd Division -- I don't know exactly -- was towards the middle of September -- The start of the operation took place at the beginning of October and at that time General Pannwitz had taken over the total leadership of the command of his Corps.