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.
Q. What units were engaged in this operation aside from the First Cossack Division?
A. As far as I remember, there were, apart from the Cossack Division which was rather strong -- I believe it comprised two brigades -- Kammerhofer had one brigade subordinate to him -- so I happen to know there were two or three brigades -- at least it was a very strong division; apart from this division, there were three battalions from the police, one so-called active police battalion -- it was a battalion which already existed and one which Kammerhofer's neighbor, Meizner, had put at his disposal from Belgrade, two battalions came from the area Belgrade - -
DR. LATERNSER: If your Honors please, all that is hearsay; all of it is hearsay.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: If seems that he could answer that question in much shorter language.
MR. FULKERSON: I agree, if your Honors please.
Q. Just sum this up. Now you have named two outfits already, if I understood you correctly: The police and the First Cossack Division. Now, what other outfits were engaged in this operation?
A. Units of this infantry division which had its command post in Ruma, tanks and artillery, engineers and possibly some infantry -I don't know that for sure -- but because I myself was sent subsequently with the General of the railway troops, because I was very interested in this operation -- that is General Schwarzenecker, whom I knew from Russia -- he was the man who was in command of these railway security units -- this railway security unit also participated in the operation.
DR. LATERNSER: If your Honors please, I point out again that all this is hearsay. I object.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Overruled.
Q Who was in charge of the operation at the time you were there?
A Brigadier General von Pannwitz.
Q Do you happen to know to what corps the First Cossack Division was subordinate at the time?
A Numerically, I can't say that any more but I do know -
DR. GAWLIK: I object. It is again cumulative evidence. Furthermore, it isn't best evidence.
MR. FULKERSON: Very well, I withdraw the question.
Q Now, General -- and I beseech you to be brief -- give us a short summary of the positions which these various units that you have named, which were involved in this operation -- give us the position which they occupied in relation to each other as the operations progressed.
DR. GAWLIK: If the Tribunal please, I object to this question as long as the witness doesn't state the basis on which information he is going to make these statements; whether he is going to relate what he heard from someone or where he gains his knowledge. The witness would first have to give information as to the basis of this statement.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Do you mind telling us what you are trying to show by this?
MR. FULKERSON: Not the least, if your Honors please. I am trying to show that this group of police troops, during this operation Kammerhofer, was completely subordinate to the Wehrmacht, that it received all its munitions from the Wehrmacht, that it received its intelligence from the Wehrmacht, that it was responsible to the Wehrmacht for everything that it did, that it received its gasoline, transports from the Wehrmacht, and that insofar as this operation is concerned it was completely absorbed into the Wehrmacht and that it is perfectly ridiculous for these defendants to say under circumstances such as these that the Wehrmacht is not responsible for what the police troops have done.
DR. GAWLIK: If the Tribunal please, today we don't even know -
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Objection overruled.
THE PRESIDENT: The record may show that one member of the Court has not joined in this ruling.
MR. FULKERSON: Would you please -- do you remember what the last question was?
A Yes. This operation was started from Belgrade. That is from the Southeastern direction to the Northwestern direction. It took place along the fringes of a mountain range along the Danube which is called Vukovar. The police was in the center of this newly led unit, led by Pannwitz. Its task was to mop up the mountainous area whereas the Cossack units as mounted units were to go through the plains and through the valley. The partisans were to be thrown back or annihilated. This operation was led by General von Pannwitz and, as far as material is concerned, this operation was supplied by the Wehrmacht. The supply installations of the army put the ammunition at their disposal, also took care of transportation, ie the police troops had to get there somehow. Gasoline was made available from that source and so was the food supply for the troops. The police units had been ordered exactly their provisional sources from where they had to get their material. I was able to ascertain that because Kammerhofer's operational staff -that is, the operational staff of the anti-partisan warfare -- was located in Ruma and this staff had to carry out these matters.
DR. LATERNSER: I object to the statement. The testimony should be restricted. All this is hearsay. He couldn't have been at the command post, at the munitions gasoline supply office and all these various offices. All this is purely an opinion given by the witness.
MR. FULKERSON: That answer is no more hearsay than for these defendants to. He could be as ambiguitous as they are. He couldn't have been at two places at the same time, if that is what the objection is. To a certain extent, I don't think we should go into the realities of the external world here and that seems to be almost here what counsel is trying to raise. The kind of testimony we are getting now is the same kind we have been getting for the past several months.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The objection will be overruled.
Q Now, what part did the SS and Police Leader Kammerhofer play in this operation? In the first place, was he there on the spot where it was going on?
A Yes, he was there on the spot when the operation started and he was there also on the day -- that is in the middle of the operation -when I arrived there. On that day Kammerhofer himself was in Ruma.
JUDGE BURKE: The question has been answered a couple of minutes ago.
Q Now, did Kammerhofer order the police units where to go or were the orders for the police troops so far as their tactical movements channeled through Kammerhofer or not?
DR. LATERNSER: I object. That is purely a leading question. The witness just has to avail himself one of the opportunities which are given to him in the question. He has to be asked what orders arrived and through what channel but the question must not be put in the way the prosecutor has just put it. The question has to be rejected as a leading question.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Objection overruled.
Q Will you please answer the question in a brief manner, please?
A The corps had ordered the three Ia's of the three divisions to its post and the order for the operation was given at the corps command post in a Croatian town the name of which I don't know any more. It is Vakuvar or something like that. There on the spot, as I know from the orders -- and the orders were shown to me -- these orders were given to the Ia, of the Police, to the Ia of the Division of Ruma and also to the Ia of the Pannwitz division.
Q Now was this liaison that you have described between the police and the Wehrmacht during this operation -- was this typical or was this an unusual situation?
A No, that was typical.
DR. GAWLIK: I object to an answer to this question. The witness is not being asked as to facts.
Furthermore, the question is too generally put.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Objection sustained.
Q What could a Wehrmacht Corps Commander do, for example, do to prevent police units in his corps area from doing things of which he didn't approve?
DR. LATERNSER: I object. That is a hypothetical question.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Overruled.
MR. FULKERSON: Well, if it is hypothetical, it is certainly given in answer to a good deal of hypothetical testimony.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Let him answer the question.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't see any need for argument after the Court has ruled.
MR. FULKERSON: I didn't hear the ruling; I beg your pardon.
Q Would you answer the question?
A Would you please repeat the question?
Q What could a Wehrmacht Corps Commander do to prevent a police units in his corps area from doing things of which he didn't approve? What preventative measures could he take against such police units?
A The Commanding General had a number of possibilities. First of all, he could through refusing material support make the operation impossible from the start. Secondly, if such an operation had been started and was in action he had the right to have a court martial procedure against the personalities responsible.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, this man was never a commanding general. He was never a commanding general in the army. How can he make statements about the functions of a commanding general as an expert here?
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Overruled.
Q Was it possible for police units to carry out operations within a corps area without the knowledge and approval of the corps commander, of the Wehrmacht corps commander?
A No, the police couldn't take one step without being materially supported by the Wehrmacht and yet that material that it needed to move. They couldn't make one step, let alone fire one shot. The SS Police troops had no sources of supply themselves.
MR. FULKERSON: Take the witness.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. LATERNSER (Counsel for defendants List and von Weichs):
Q Witness, how long have you been in Nurnberg?
A I am in Nurnberg since October 1945.
Q That is more than two years then.
A Yes.
Q Where are you in Nurnberg?
A In the jail here.
Q How often during this period of time have you been interrogated? Just make an estimate?
A Very frequently by the prosecution.
Q How often approximately?
A I estimate approximately 80 times.
Q I see.
AAnd from the defense 20 times.
Q I see, and from the defense 20 times. By what defense, by the defense of this trial?
A No, not in this trial.
Q In other trials then, and eighty times by the Prosecution.
MR. RAPP: I wonder if this can be clarified whether this refers to this trial or to others inasmuch as the witness did not testify 20 times for this trial. I would like that cleared up for the record, if you please.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I think he said he hadn't been interviewed by the defense in this trial.
Q When were you interrogated the first time by the Prosecution?
A The first time, after I had been here for about three weeks.
That must have been in October or November 1945.
Q How often did you appear as a prosecution witness in the trials?
A Here in Nurnberg?
Q Altogether.
A Here in Nurnberg, this is the third trial where I appeared as prosecution witness, including the main trial.
Q You were in three trials?
A Yes.
Q Will you please name those trials?
A In the main trial against Goering, Keital and Jodl, et cetera -that is, the International Military Tribunal -- and then the trial against the SS, the Race and Settlement Office and now here.
Q In the meantime, were you at any other places to be examined as a witness?
A Yes, once I was in Warsaw.
Q What trial were you in Warsaw?
A I was there in a trial which dealt with all the leading personalities of Warsaw.
Q And when was that?
A That was in January of last year.
Q Were you prosecution witness there, too?
A I don't know that. I don't think that existed in that trial.
Q Who fetched you there?
A Polish officers.
Q When did you return here?
AAbout four weeks after that.
Q Since when are you in Nurnberg again?
A Since I returned; that is February last year.
Q When were you interrogated by the prosecution for the last time?
A Yesterday was the last time.
Q When yesterday?
A Yesterday afternoon.
Q In the evening also?
A Yes, it took quite long.
Q How long did it take?
A Well, it was dark when I returned.
Q I would like to know how long it actually took.
A You mean the interrogation?
Q Yes.
A The interrogation by the last gentleman who made the examination? It must have been about three hours.
Q From when to when, then?
A Well, I wouldn't want to tie myself down. I didn't write it down.
Q Well, approximately. You must know whether it was in afternoon or when it was.
A Well, I told you I returned to a dark cell. The lights had been turned out. It must have been ten o'clock. Maybe it was eleven. It might have been twelve.
Q You mean eleven or twelve o'clock.
A The interrogation lasted three hours.
Q Were you also interrogated in the afternoon?
A Yes, also yesterday afternoon. It might have been in the morning too; I don't remember.
Q Well, that was the second time in the evening. During any of these 80 interrogations were you ever told that you might possibly be a defendant?
A No.
Q Never?
A No.
Q Were you ever told that you might be extradicted anywhere?
A No.
Q Did you have any advantages or were you promised any advantages at any time in connection with these interrogations?
AAdvantages? No, I don't think so. I was the only one who didn't get any leave, although all generals of the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS got their periods of leave. If that is supposed to be an advantage -I don't know.
Q Yesterday, during your interrogation were you told what testimony the prosecution attaches importance to?
A Well, may I be a little more detailed here?
Q Be quite brief.
A When I came in here in 1945 I was interrogated as to whether I was in Belgrade, Ruma, Trieste, Athens. All that is on file and my interrogations are always submitted during later interrogations and I was always asked again about these same visits which I paid?
Q During your interrogation yesterday were documents shown to you?
A Just a moment; I will have to think. The interrogator had a large document in front of him and there were several documents which were underlined in places. From these documents he confronted me with several passages.
Q Did he read to you?
A He read to me through an interpreter who was with him. He himself doesn't know German and I don't know English. He had an interpreter.
Q Before you were able to testify to certain details. You mentioned several code names. Were those mentioned during the interrogation?
A No, that was the other way around. They were wrong names. In the documents which he read to me there were wrong names, to the best of my recollection. There was some talk about "Aktion Kammerhofer" and I said, "That is out of the question. Such a term was never used," because I, of course read the names of such interrogations, because I had to report them.
Q How does it happen, witness, that you still know the names?
A I can tell you that exactly. The man whom I sent down there who was to inform the layman Kammerhofer, -- who in my opinion was a layman who couldn't even lead a platoon -- my man who was sent down there was a man by the name of Korn, and I was struck by the fact that the operation was called Operation "Cornflower," and that is why I remembered.