to protests of this kind. Is that correct?
A Yes, they were very inaccessible to human considerations.
Q Witness, you said that you were in Athens once.
A Yes.
Q In October 1943?
A Yes, in 1943 but I want to stress that I did not express myself clearly.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Just a moment please, just until we are having a change of interpreters here. All right, you may proceed.
QUESTIONS BY DR. MUELLER-TORGOW:
Q How long were you in Athens?
A Only one day.
Q In October 1943. At that time, were you familiar with the band conditions in southern Greece?
A Well, yes, from reports. From these reports which I received from the OKW.
Q Do you know General Felmy?
A Only by name.
Q Did you know at that time that General Felmy was in Athens with Moshaft as Commander of the 68th Corps?
A I do not know today whether I knew it at that time.
Q Can you tell me why you did not go to him?
A I do not know. With one general I unfortunately had to call on him, I did not want to.
Q You say "unfortunately"?
A Well, because -- I mean, I had to jump channels -- I wanted to be alone and Schimana said I had to make a visit as a matter of courtesy. That is why I said unfortunately. After all, I came there as a private person.
Q Well, but you did not avail yourself of the opportunity to discuss the band situation in Southern Greece.
A No, no. not the overall situation.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Q Not the overall situation?
A No, I was not entitled to do that.
Q But you were the chief of antipartisan warfare units, were you not?
A What do you mean by units, there were no such units.
Q But you had to deal with the tasks of combatting of bands?
A Only centrally, only keeping the records and records were kept.
Q You received the reports from down there?
A No, they were directed, addressed to me by the Wehrmacht.
Q Well, that's what I mean.
JUDGE BURKE: Hasn't this situation been fairly well covered by the cross examination of other counsel?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: If it please the Tribunal, I do not think that this very point has been discussed; but I am almost finished.
BY DR. MUELLER-TORGOW:
Q Witness, I would like to put the last question and discuss once more the resistance which you mentioned previously, your resistance to Himmler. What kind of attitude did your SS leaders display? Did these SS leaders exert any pressure on Hitler or Himmler not to carry into effect certain orders and did you jointly exert that pressure against the supreme leadership?
A Certainly not, sir.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: Thank you. I have no further questions.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Any further cross examination? Is there any redirect?
MR. RAPP: Only one or two questions, Your Honor.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
MR. RAPP: Only one or two questions your Honor.
Q Witness, in the course of cross examination a number of terms have been put to you which I want to have elucidated. The term "Wehrmacht", armed forces was used. What part did the Wehrmacht consist of?
A The Wehrmacht consisted of the army, the air force, the navy and the Waffen SS.
Q You were a member of the Waffen SS, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q You were thus a member of the German Wehrmacht?
A Yes.
Q Witness, do you know having been asked whether you knew that the field marshal von Mannstein, dropped his surname von Levinsky during the war.
A Yes, his proper name is von Lewinsky, called Mannstein, but his name Mannstein is an adopted name.
Q Witness, you then went on to talk briefly about certain courtmartial decisions in connection with disciplinary measures and if I recall correctly you said that for you the judicial authority and disciplinary authority was the Reichsfuehrer of the SS Heinrich Himmler. Is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Now how did things happen, for instance when you as has been mentioned so many times, for instance in the case of Warsaw within a given army unit, for instance the Ninth Army if they were guilty of action which contravened the orders of the army commander - please explain to us the jurisdiction the courts-martial institutions all in connected sequence so everybody can follow you and please talk slowly!
A Before Warsaw in the case of Warsaw I had army troops as well as troops of the Waffen SS and police troops under my command, I myself being commanding general was not the judicial authority neither did I have a judge advocate among my staff. When I did receive a report that Court No. V, Case No. VII.
in the lower echelons of the troops some delinquency had occurred I had to inform the division commander under my command or rather to report the facts so he himself could initiate the courts-martial procedure. The higher court rested with the army. I myself being threatened with the possibility that my procedure was disturbed by delay -- I had to go through rather tortuous channels and I didn't want to always use it. I have a very striking case that was when SS Brigadefuehrer Kaminsky -- let his troops loot and murder on purpose. I went to the spot myself, arrested Kaminsky and the whole of his staff, a courts-martial procedure was instituted by me personally on my command post and as he was caught red handed I had the sentence executed within 24 hours. Before, I reported to the judicial authority of his Brigadefuehrer, that was Himmler, informed him of the execution.
Q Certain things initiated in this trial, that is things which you allegedly committed in connection with the capture of Warsaw, things you ordered or which you carried out or ordered? What measures could your army commander order, take against you as being a member of the Waffen SS unit in order to punish you on the spot?
A Well, first if he knew I committed any criminal offenses or gave criminal orders, he could have immediately apprehended me, arrested me and could have ordered another to take my place and then had to apply to Himmler for courts-martial procedures to be instituted against me and as things were very precarious on the front line, he could have immediately put me before a courts-martial and shoot me.
Q What is a courts-martial?
A I myself recall I ordered one myself, it is learned by every professional officer. There is not much to be learned. It is a summary court consisting of three officers, that is the way I learned it, in which the facts are investigated, witnesses have to be called, confessions may be made. It is sufficient if the presiding judge has seen the facts himself and the man is either sentenced to death or acquitted or else it has to be submitted to another general court and then the Court No. V, Case No. VII.
term "summary court" is applied in a different sense. I think the troops did not comprehend the term as clearly. The troops in their reports also used the term "shot after summary courts-martial" or shot when caught red-handed-for the term summary court.
Q That is a little confused. Witness, are these terms synonymous or are they not?
A No, it is not the same thing. The term is not the same - it is "standrechtlich" may also mean "standgerichtlich", but the troops also used these words in connection with persons shot after having been caught red-handed or shot after an interrogation by summary court. Then it appears in the report: Shot after summary courts martial.
Q I have no further questions.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q Witness, I have only one question. Kaminsky - who was he?
A He was a so-called national Russian - an ethnic Russian, he may have been a Pole, I think he was born in Posen.
Q He was subordinated to you?
A I don't want to answer that.
Q Was he an SS man, SS leader, or what was he?
AAt that moment he was a Wehrmacht general, who had been deferred to the SS -- up to that time he had been a Wehrmacht general.
Q In that moment, when you turned against him, what was he then?
A Well, then he was SS Brigadefuehrer since a few days.
Q If it happened a few days earlier then he would still be a Wehrmacht general, would you have adopted the same procedure?
A Certainly, the same procedure as I was his superior general. The presiding judge of a summary court does not have to be a judicial authority.
Q You would have acted in the same way?
A I certainly would.
Q Would that have been in accordance with the rules?
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
A Certainly, it is prescribed by my duties, I had to. I caught him murdering.
Q Would it have complied with the procedures laid down by Brauchitsch and Hitler? You know them, don't you?
A What agreements?
Q Jurisdiction of the SS and Wehrmacht?
A These crimes do not interest me - when it is a question of crime. This is not a military court but a summary courts-martial.
Q You would have taken the right into your own hands, shot even a Wehrmacht general?
A In this case, certainly without any question.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Any further questions?
MR. RAPP: No further questions.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Any questions by the Tribunal? The Tribunal will stand in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
MR. RAPP: Is the witness excused?
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The witness is excused.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The Tribunal will adjourn until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(At 1710 hours 14). January 1948, the court adjourned until 0930 hours, 15 January 1948.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Wilhelm List, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on the 15th day of January, 1948, 0930, Judge Wennerstrum presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal V. Military Tribunal V is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain whether or not all defendants are present in the court room?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all defendants are present in the court room.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, do you have some matter you wish to present now?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, if Your Honor please. Dr. Sauter for the defendant Von Geitner. Your Honor, yesterday we were shown lists of the documents which were presented at the cross examination of the individual defendants. In this list Brigadier-General von Geitner is charged with two documents which were not used in the cross-examination of Geitner, but in the cross examination of General Foertsch. This is first of all Document NOKW 2004 -- I am sorry, I must correct that: it is 2009, Exhibit 594, and then document No. 498-PS, with Exhibit No. 598. These two documents were submitted in the crossexamination of General Foertsch. The first document was submitted on the 20th of October 1947, and the second document on the 21st of October 1947, but these two documents were not submitted in the cross examination of Brigadier-General von Geitner. Therefore, it is only from the list which has been submitted that we learn that the prosecution is of the opinion that these two documents were supposed to have been submitted against the defendant von Geitner. Now the situation is this: that up until now we did not know that Brigadier-General von Geitner was also supposed to have been charged with these documents.
If Your Honor please, these two documents concern first of all the well known Commando order of Hitler dated the 18th of October 1942, and the supplements which the Wehrmacht Commander in South East, General Loehr, issued. These two documents, that is, the commando order and the supplement of General Loehr, were submitted by the Prosecution. With regard to this commando order of Hitler, however, the Commander of Serbia, that is, General Bader, also issued supplements, and this was on the 4th of November 1942. These supplements I have taken from the war diary of the commanding general and commander in Serbia, that is, General Bader, and these supplements have not been submitted, neither by the prosecution nor by me, because up until now I had no reason to do this. This supplements are, however, of very great importance for the defense of BrigadierGeneral von Geitner, because from this document which I have taken from the war diary it can be clearly seen that Brigadier General von Geitner had nothing at all to do with the working and passing on of the commando order. I would like to recall here that Brigadier-general von Geitner, during his examination, stated that he saw the commando order, but he had had nothing at all to do with it. Brigadier-General von Geitner also recalled that at that time he intentionally avoided any kind of connection at all with this commando order, because he himself rejected the commando order. In this new supplementary order of General Bader, it is now obvious that Brigadier-General von Geitner actually had nothing at all to do with the Commando order and we know from numerous other documents that Brigadier General von Geitner initialled all these orders which he had seen; either he initialled them before the order was passed on, or subsequently when the files were submitted to him to deal with. From this new document which I would like at a later date to submit to the Tribunal it can be seen that Brigadier-General von Geitner has not initialled this document. I say, therefore, that from this new document which we have taken from the war diary it can be seen that Brigadier-General von Geitner has not initialled this document, but on the document one finds the initials of First Lieutenant Bode.
First Lieutenant Bode, perhaps the Tribunal will recall, is the administrative jurist who has often been mentioned here and who was with the Commander in Serbia dealing with matters regarding reprisals. And now in the name of Brigadier-General von Geitner, I would like to request the Tribunal to allow me subsequently to submit this further document dated the 4th of November, 1942, which contains the supplements of General Bader to the commando order dated the 13th of October 1942. I have a photostat copy of this document and if the tribunal fulfills my request, I can obtain further photostatic copies and submit them later on to the Tribunal. This was not possible before, because we have only just found out that not only General Foertsch, but also Brigadier General von Geitner is charged with the documents. That is the request which I have to make to the Tribunal.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honors please, I submit this is entirely out of order. We charged in Count 3 of our indictment the commando order against all of the defendants except List.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me, that is Exhibit 25, is it not?
DR. SAUTER: The commando order.
THE PRESIDENT: The original commando order?
DR. SAUTER: Exhibit 594 -- Exhibit 598, and the supplements of General Loehr are Exhibit 594, and with these two exhibit numbers you will find the supplement of General Bader which was not submitted by the Prosecution at the time.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, the references I made was to the original exhibit which I understand is Exhibit No. 25. Prosecution Exhibit No. 25. Which is the original or it relates to the original commando order, and is the one upon which we have been giving the main consideration. Now that was the nature of my inquiry to Mr. Fenstermacher.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honors please, I don't know the exact exhibit number, but I think the document to which Your Honor refers were certain instructions of Hitler with respect to the commando order. They outline, in effect, the entire substance of the commando order. The commando order itself was introduced during the cross examination of General Foertsch, as well as a supplement to the commando order which General Foertsch, as Chief of Staff of Army Group E, then distributed to the units under the command of Army Group E. One of the units under Army Group E at that time was the Commandant of Serbia, of which General Geitner was chief of staff. Now, in view of the fact that we charged in Count 3 of the indictment the commando order against all the defendants except List, and in view of the fact that we put in the instructions of Hitler, I believe as Exhibit 25, as part of our direct case, and the commando order was well known and was introduced in the international trial, I submit that defendant Geitner had full notice of all the allegations of the indictment with respect to this order. If he wanted to introduce anything about a supplement given him by Bader, he had plenty of time to do it during his direct case. The supplement which was sent out by General Foertsch was introduced during Foertsch's cross examination. Geitner took the stand several weeks after Foertsch left the stand. He had plenty of time to answer that subject. I submit that Dr. Sauter's application is very late indeed.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, might I correct one thing. You just stated Exhibit 25 - that is another order; that is the "terror" order. In the prosecution's list of the cross examination documents for Foertsch, the figure before the 19th is "598, 21 October 1947, 498 PS, commando order signed by Hitler on the 18th of October, 1942." That is the order about which I am talking at this time, and this order was charged against General Foertsch during the cross examination; but not against General von Geitner and it was only from the list which was submitted yesterday or the day before yesterday concerning the cross examination documents that we saw, to our surprise, that this document is now to be charged against General von Geitner, I am of the opinion that if the Hitler Commando Order and the execution regulations by General Loehr are submitted then a thorough method of presentation is achieved, if the execution regulations of von Bader are submitted also because von Geitner was not chief of staff with General Doehr, but with General Bader, and the execution regulations of this General were not submitted, and these are the ones I would like to submit in order to show you that actually General von Geitner had nothing at all to do with this order.
I couldn't do that earlier.
THE PRESIDENT: These memorandum - or memoranda that were submitted the other day are not exhibits and are merely presented to the court for information purposes. The commando order or directive which was submitted in connection with the original case is the one to which the Tribunal has been giving primary attention, and it will undoubtedly be the one to which we will give final consideration as being that part of the prosecution case in which we will dispose of that particular matter.
It should be stated here that we are now in the rebuttal stage, as far an the Prosecution is concerned, with the exception of such matters as pertain to two defendants who have certain other evidence to present. Under the circumstances the request and motion will be denied.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: We continue, this morning, if Your Honors please, with presentation of more rebuttal documents. Your Honors will recall that yesterday the prosecution offered NOKW 1734 as Exhibit 645 in evidence. That was an affidavit of Theodor Fischer. Dr. Sauter made inquiry at that time as to the present address of the affiant. We have made investigation and learn now that as appears from the final page of the affidavit that the affidavit was executed here in Nurnberg on the 18th of June 1947. On the 16th of July 1947, the affiant was returned to the Prisoner of War enclosure at Dachau. I think that probably satisfies Dr. Sauter's objection and I will offer it again at this time. I should like to read the affidavit. I believe I mentioned yesterday for what purpose it was offered and against which defendants, but I will do so again. It is offered against the defendant Speidel because it clarifies the work of administrative sub-area headquarters. It is offered against the defendant Geitner because the affiant served under Felber and Geitner, and is to rebut the contention of Geitner that many of these reports were reports of "fake" shootings.
The affidavit reads as follows:
"I, Theodor F I S C H E R, born in Suthm, West Prussia on 19th December 1888, swear, state and depose:
I am a regular army officer and my last grade was Brigadier General. At the beginning of the war I went to the front as Commanding Officer of the 328th Infantry Regiment. In this position I remained until approximately August 1942. In between I commanded temporarily the 223rd and 227th Divisions in Russia. Effective the 1st October 1942, I was appointed Commanding Officer of the 610th Administrative Area Headquarters at Banjaluka, Serbia. At a later date this Administrative Area Headquarters was transferred to Cacak and I remained there until October 1943 and then commanded the 373rd Division as a deputy in Croatia for a period of two months. In December 1943, I returned to Administrative Area Headquarters in Serbia, and, based on my request, was relieved in January 1941. As Commanding Officer of the 610 Administrative Area Headquarters, General of Artillery Bader Was my direct superior. Later on my superior was General of Infantry Felber. My Administrative Area Headquarters was sub-divided into six district Headquarters, each of which was commanded by a District Commander who was responsible to me personally. The troops under my command merely consisted of approximately 150 German Field Policemen which were numerically distributed among the various District Headquarters.
With reference to reprisal measures, I state the following:
All reprisal measures were carried out by order of General Bader and later on by order of General Felber. I know that these two Generals, just as I, were not in agreement with the entire complex of reprisal measures, which, however, had to be carried by explicit order and under pressure of the OXW. I remember that the death of a German soldier which had been caused by a cowardly attack was avenged by the lives of 50 enemies. In case of a wounded German soldier 25 enemies were killed.
As far as I can remember the executions were carried out by shootings. Another method which was ordered as a revenge for the death of German soldiers was the burning down of Hamlets and villages. The victims who were selected for such executions were either so-called communists or DM-Followers. It can be assumed that a small number of hostages who were confined in the local prisons of the District Headquarters were used to fill the death quota which had been ordered by General Bader or General Felber. In various cases, however, hundreds of persons were affected by the executions and it was therefore impossible to obtain this number from hostages confined in the prisons. For this reason, the SD itself carried out the further selection of communists or DM-Followers in the neighborhood of such places where attacks on German soldiers or German property had occurred. These selected hostages were then turned over to the execution detachment for the carrying out of the reprisal measures. As a matter of course I personally have never given any order for the execution of reprisal measures and must emphasize that General Bader or General Felber reserved for themselves the right to give such orders. Naturally, I was under orders to pass on reprisal orders which I received from higher headquarters to the agencies which were subordinate to me for the purpose of execution. Based on my military education, my conception of honor as a soldier and the old customs of the Army, it was, as a matter of course, impossible for me either not to pass on orders of this kind or even to destroy them. Owing to the considerations mentioned above it is my conception that neither General Bader or General Felber were in any position to do anything but to decree such orders. So called "fake shootings" could never have taken place. Bader or Felber already gave orders for the shootings to the District Commander over the telephone before these District Commanders could receive the written order which I sent them through the much slower working channels. The unit on whose behalf the reprisal measures were carried out, watched keenly that these measures were actually executed, and would immediately have reported to higher headquarters any "fake measures", or falsified reports on our part.
In addition the SD for its part supervised the execution. The result would have been that I myself and the responsible officers under my command would have been hanged for refusing to obey orders.
As I said before, such matters as refusing to obey orders or gross negligence were not tolerated in the Germany Army especially when one was conscious of the consequences. I have frequently discussed the subject of reprisal measures with General Bader as well as with General Felber and have protested against them as much as was possible for me. I know that General Bader and General Felber loathed the ordering of reprisal measures just as much as I did. Our duty as a soldier, however, did not leave us any other way out, than to execute those orders. For the Area Commanders, like myself, who were in daily contact with the local population of the country and whose task it was to liven up the economy in order to help ourselves the kind of measure was naturally even more regrettable. I consider this kind of measure wrong from a psychological point of view now as I did then. From the Military - Administrative point of view almost suicidal. In addition these measures naturally helped to swell the ranks of the partisans to an ever increasing degree and finally provoked the hostility of the entire population against us."
Then the jurat, signed "Theodor Fischer".
DR. SAUTER: According to the statement of Mr. Fenstermacher this document by General Fischer has been submitted as proof that fake shootings were not supposed to have taken place. This document is new and up to now General von Geitner could not state his opinion on it. In order to avoid misunderstandings I would like to state that Herr Geitner never maintained that fake shootings took place with the sub-area administrative headquarters, on the contrary, sub-area administrative headquarters could not carry out fake-shootings because the secrecy involved would not have been possible there. Further, von Geitner expressly stated that such fake shootings which were in reality not shootings at all only took place in Belgrade and then were only possible with the cooperation of a leader of the SD. Therefore, if a sub-area administrative a Commandant such as General Fischer confirms to the Prosecution that fake shootings did not take place, then this proves nothing at all in face of the assertions and descriptions given by General Geitner. If this assertion of General Fischer is regarded as important, I request that Brigadier General Fischer be brought here for cross-examination so that he can give more details about fake shootings, because as Herr von Geitner is convinced that if Herr Fischer, who did not find anything out about fake shootings and could not have found out anything about fake shootings previously is present here, then we shall see how this question was dealt with, and it will therefore be seen that he could not possibly know anything. I therefore request that Brigadier General Fischer be brought here for cross examination.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honor please, we will be glad to bring Fischer here for examination. It has been the policy, of the Tribunal I believe to have these applications done in writing, heretofore. Would you just put the application down in writing, Dr. Sauter?
THE PRESIDENT: We are getting down towards the close where we cannot wait for five or six days to transcribe certain things to go through channels We do not wish to restrict counsel in any way but we are going to be limited in our time. Dr. Sauter is within his rights in making this request and I take it then that the prosecution will be required to present this man.
"You may proceed. The matter has been disposed of.
DR. SAUTER: May I add one more thing your Honor? Perhaps it will help things. This is a relatively unimportant point. Since we have already prove this question of fake shootings, as it is called, with documents, perhaps the whole thing can be settled like this. Brigadier General von Geitner could perhaps be called to the witness stand in order to clear this up, this might perhaps he a solution, and therefore because of this small point it will not be necessary to fetch Brigadier General Fischer from Dachau.
THE PRESIDENT: You have made your request, Dr. Sauter, and if you stand upon it the only thing the Tribunal can do is to endeavor to see that it is complied with.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you, your Honor.
DR. WEISSGERBER (FOR GENERAL SPEIDEL): The prosecution has submitted this document against my client. In the whole document the name of my client does not appear one single time, and also from the whole document one cannot see anything at all about my client.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not wish to be discourteous and it is not with that thought that I ask do you have in mind making an objection? Otherwise the matter of comments concerning a particular document should be restricted to the closing arguments.
DR. WEISSGERBER: Your Honor, I don't want to allow this point to pass without protesting on behalf of my client General Speidel but I don't want to make a formal objection.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I object to being interrupted as I put in these documents by argument of counsel. We state the theory under which these documents are offered and I believe it that theory is incorrect that can be shown in the final argument.
THE PRESIDENT: If counsel desire to make an objection the court will entertain them, however we do not wish nor will we entertain arguments at this time. The defense counsel have a right to make objections and that right will be reserved and granted to then at all tines.
But we will not entertain arguments. You may proceed.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: We offer next NOKW 2814. This is the Personnel File on General Wilhelm Speidel. It is offered to rebut his statement regarding his approval or disapproval of National Socialism. It is offered as Exhibit 648.
THE PRESIDENT: None of these men are being charged with being members of a particular party or organization, are they?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: That is quite true, your Honor, that is why we made particular point of this in our direct case, but as long as the matter was brought up by the defendants we think we are entitled to rebut it.
THE PRESIDENT: It isn't an issue, is it?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I think it goes to the credibility of the defendants your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. WEISSGERBER: Your Honor, I object to the submission of this document. This document without doubt has already been available for some time to the Prosecution, and furthermore it has nothing to do with the rebuttal as such. It has no connection at all with any Count of the Indictment.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: This document arrived in the hands of the prosecution not more than one week ago from the war Ministry in London. It was the British Army that captured the files of the Air Force and not the American army. It was not available to us at the time of our direct case.
THE PRESIDENT: Bearing upon that question alone the exhibit will be admitted.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: This is the personal file on General Speidel from Colonel General Staff Corps Wilhelm, the Luftwaffe personnel office. I call your Honor's attention to page 2 of the document, Judgment as of 15 March 1939 concerning Speidel, office chief of staff in 1st Air Flotilla, Paragraph III:
"General Judgment:
Excellent soldier of clear conduct and concept. Widespread education and interests.
Incorporates in himself the ideals of National Socialism, which he can pass on to his surrounding world from the originality of experience. Soldier in the best sense of the Third Reich!
..........
(signed) Kesselring Lt.Gen., Air Corps Chief of Staff, 1st Air Flotilla Berlin 22 March 1939
MR. FENSTERMACHER: We offer next NOKW 2815 which is a similar personnel file on General Helmuth Felmy. It is offered for the same purpose as the preceding document. It is offered as Exhibit 649: "Headquarters, Army Group E, 1 January 1944:
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: For General Felmy: Your Honor, I object to the introduction of this document because it is not rebuttal evidence and the contents of this document here could have been presented by the prosecution in its main case months ago. This is nothing produced in rebuttal of evidence presented by the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be overruled.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: This is one personnel file of General Felmy from one Luftwaffe Personnel Office. The document page 1 shows:
Headquarters, Army Group E, 1 Jan. 1944 War Judgment as of ....... 1 Jan.
1944 for officers, excluding medical and veterinary officers concerning Lt. Gen.
Air Corps 4 Feb. '38 Hellmuth Felmy.
On page 2:
Short judgment (evaluation of personality, National Socialist attitude, Value in the face of the enemy, official ability, mental and physical comments and adaptability, infantry experience, when and where recruited): National Socialist Fuehrer personality. Has also further filled his position very well and met all demands in the ideological, mental, and physical aspects completely. He made the operations for the capture of the Sporades much easier by unselfish and especially intelligent assistance.
Adaptability for what next higher utilization.
for what special or other use? in the Southeast Area and for commanding foreigners.
(signed) Loehr General, Commander-in-Chief, Army Group E
MR. FENSTERMACHER: The next four documents which we offer form part of a Commando complex with respect to whether or not the Commando Order was ever issued in the East. Several of these defendants particularly Generals Felmy, Lanz, Rendulic, Dehner and Leyser were serving in the East in October 1942 when the Commando Order was issued. They have testified they did not receive the Commando Order and did not pass it on. These documents are submitted to show the wide circulation of the Commando Order in the East. The first document is NOKW 1737, and it is offered as Exhibit 650.
DR. FRITSCH (for General Rendulic): I object
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I can anticipate one or two objections. None of these orders show the precise receipt of distribution of the Commando Order by any of the units commanded by the defendants at this particular time. But it is offered to show that there was wide distribution and from the text of the documents it appears that the order was widely destroyed following receipt. The Prosecution submits that it goes to question the credibility of the witnesses when they testified that they never received it.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I object to the introductory words of the prosecution. It has never been asserted here that this Order was not known. If therefore the evidence against an assertion of this kind is made against defendant General Rendulic then I object to the introduction of this document because it is inadmissible as rebuttal evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, do you desire to make an objection?
DR. GAWLIK (For General Dehner): Yes, Your Honor, I object to the submission of this document against General Dehner - the document is dated 21st October 1942. General Dehner was no longer in the East in October 1942, as the Prosecution itself has submitted.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I don't wish to enger into argumentation on this. I believe the record will show whether or not the contentions of the Prosecution or the contentions of the Defense are valid in these cases.