Whether the statements by Dr. Fenstermacher are correct cannot be seen from the document. I do not know a Dr. Lattmann but I can say at this stage that here in the prison I have for hours discussed this problem with the chief of the legal department of the OKW. That was Ministerialdirektor Lehmann and he had a completely different view from that expressed by Dr. Erich Lattmann. It is therefore not evident why the prosecution should insist on having Dr. Lattmann as a witness and not the chief of the legal department concerned who ought to be the best informed on these matters. For that reason, I object to the admission of the document.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Now, your Honor, I object to Dr. Sauter telling the prosecution how to try its case. We don't want his suggestions as to what witnesses to call. When he argues up here that Dr. Lehmann has a different opinion regarding the interpretation of these words, then I submit that he should have called Dr. Lehmann as a witness on his own behalf.
DR. TIPP: If it please the Tribunal, I should like to add another aspect to what has already been said by my colleagues. In this affidavit it reads "During the war, we in the OKH understood by the term 'standrechtlich erschiessen.." Now it ought to be a matter of recognized law that an affiant if he is to be consulted on his own opinion can only give his own opinion, but he cannot possibly say "We in the OKH." I do not know how many persons the OKH comprised but one thing is certain, there were at least several hundred persons, perhaps a thousand of them, I do not know. At any rate Dr. Lattmann whose name I am hearing here for the first time is indubitably not competent to declare that the whole OKH had a certain legal view. For that reason, I object to the admission of the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be overruled and the exhibit received for such probative value as the Tribunal deems that it merits.
DR. LATERNSER: If it please the Tribunal, I assume that the prosecution will then be obliged to produce the witness for cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: You will kindly do so.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: The affidavit reads as follows:
"I, Dr. Erich Lattmann, swear, state, and declare:
During the war, we in the OKH understood under the concept "standrechtlich erschiessen" liquidate a person without any sort of proceedings. That is therefore something different from the concept "Standrechtliche Erledigung" since this latter pre-supposes a proceedings before a summary court, which passes a judgment. In addition this must be certified. There was only one execution to this, that in case all 3 judges of the summary courts agreed,the death sentence could be executed at once."
There follows the jurat, signed 11 December 1947, Dr. Erich Lattmann.
We offer next NOKW-2835. This is offered as Exhibit 654 and it is to rebut the testimony of the defendants that it was impossible for them to disobey orders of their military superiors, particularly orders which emanated from Hitler, because very dire consequences would have followed such disobedience. If I might anticipate one objection, the affiant here is Hans Felber who appeared as a witness during the prosecution's direct case. At that time, we, of course, could not know that the defendants were going to raise specific examples.
THE PRESIDENT: This witness is still a witness, being held at the instruction of the Court, and I understand that he will be called before the close of the testimony. Besides, he is here in Nurnberg.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I don't believe that is quite true. He is now, according to my latest information, sent to the prisoner-of-war enclosure at Kallendorf to work for the historical section of the U.S. Army.
THE PRESIDENT: He was ordered by this Tribunal to be held here.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If I might take execution, your Honor, I believe Judge Burke made the statement at the end of the examination of General Felber that he could be released from the Courtroom but that Judge Burke expected that if he were wanted back here at any time prior to the close of the case, he should be produced. If we have instructions from the Tribunal to that effect, we shall of course comply.
JUDGE BURKE: It was my thought Mr. Fenstermacher, but I desired to ask a few questions of General Felber and I assumed it would be possible to have him returned to Court, perhaps at the conclusion of Fieldmarshal von Weichs' testimony, but regardless of that fact I wish to interrogate him to some little extent.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: You would like him brought here?
JUDGE BURKE: Yes.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Very well, your Honor, we can do that.
JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I withdraw this exhibit in that case.
I offer next Document NOKW-2829. Withdrawn--we don't have the mimeographed copies ready on that as yet.
We offer next OKW-2631. This is offered as prosecution Exhibit 654. This is an excerpt from the German newspaper "Voelkischer Beobachter" under date of 12 September 1943. It relates entirely to the Italian surrender and is offered to rebut the contentions of General Lanz and General Rendulic that at the time they were negotiating with the Italian commanders for a surrender they did not know that Bagdolio had ordered his subordinate Italian commanders not to surrender.
The document also goes to the question of the good faith of the negotiations between the German army and the Italian army. While this is a newspaper excerpt, it is offered not for the truth of the statements contained herein but rather to show that there was wide publication and great knowledge in Germany itself; and presumably the defendants who were in high places had better information than the general public regarding the matter of the Italian surrender.
DR. SAUTER: If it please the Tribunal, I object to this document which is to be submitted. It is a newspaper article written by a certain Wilhelm Weiss. This Wilhelm Weiss was a high official in the National Socialist press, a thorough party functionary, and a propagandist of the Third Reich. It is therefore no official notice and no information which may claim the credibility attached to an official notice. May I point out two more aspects?
This newspaper article is dated Sunday the 12th of September 1943. Up to now I have never heard that the prosecution can possibly contend or wants to contend that General Lanz used to read the "Voelkischer Boebachter" in the Balkans and that in particular he saw the issue of Sunday the 12th of September 1943, before dealing with the Korfu affair. That is one -
THE PRESIDENT: What is the objection you wish to make, Doctor? Maybe we can shorten it up. I say what is the objection that you desire to make?
DR. SAUTER: The prosecution has offered this article saying that the article showed that the facts asserted in the article were common knowledge and, therefore, were also known to General Lanz. How I contend that General Lanz at that time -- that is in September, 1943 -- was thousands of kilometers away from Munich and Berlin and that the article cannot claim any probative value as long as the prosecution does not contend that General Lanz did read the "Voelkischer Beobachter". A second point I wish to make is that there were a series of newspaper articles presented by the defense which have not been admitted.
For example, a number of newspaper articles concerning the officers who were in Greece; even notices by the Greek bishop have been refused by the Court. I don't think that in these circumstances, newspaper articles and certainly not from the "Voelkischer Beobachter" --- a nazi party organ --- ought to be admitted in evidence.
DR. FRITSCH: If it please the Tribunal, I object to the admission of this document in rebuttal evidence for the following reason. Mr. Fenstermacher has stated that he submitted this document on the grounds that, -- he had mentioned he did not know of Bagdolio having given an order to fight against the Germans. This assertion of Mr. Fenstermacher is erroneous. I believe he will recognize this if I draw his attention to the fact that in my submission of evidence I have proved the very contrary.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it that these various comments may be summarized that both you gentlemen are raising the objections that this testimony-offered testimony-- is hearsay, that the affiant cannot be cross-examined, and inasmuch as it has been our holding in connection with similar objections which have been made by the prosecution, the objection will be sustained. You may proceed.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: We offer next NOKW-1511 which is offered, if Your Honor pleas, as Exhibit 694. This document which is a captured document from the German files is offered to rebut the contention that the hostage practice by the armies of the world is unsettled and was unsettled during the last war. This document reveals the attitude of a high-ranking general of the British army on the question of the execution of hostages, General Alexander, and the document is offered further to show that the attitude of the British army on that matter was known to the German officials at the time.
DR. LATERNSER: If it please the Tribunal, I object to the submission of this document. It is not, as asserted by the Prosecution, an official comment of Field Marshal Alexander on the question of whether hostages can be killed or not, but, instead, an appeal by Field Marshal Alexander to German troops in Italy, which was necessarily to have a certain propaganda effect. Such an appeal is not to be construed as being an official comment on such an important or intricate problem as whether or not hostages could be used.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor please, I believe Dr. Laternser's objection goes only to the weight to be given the document.
DR. GAWLIK: If the Tribunal please, I have another objection because the Prosecution submits this document in order to discuss a legal question which is to be decided by the Tribunal. That is the issue in this case whether hostages can be killed or not, and according to universal principles of law the submission of documents on legal questions to be decided by the Tribunal is not admissible.
DR. LATERNSER: I have another comment to add, if the Tribunal please. It is not the best evidence, but merely secondary evidence. The Prosecution in their position would have found it very easy and we would have been grateful to them, if they could have submitted an official comment by Field Marshal Alexander regarding his conception -- that is, an official conception of the British Army, as to whether hostages could be shot in reprisal or not. I refer the Tribunal to the fact that I, myself, have wanted to submit a statement by the second highest judicial official of the British Empire, which was not admitted because it was objected to by the Prosecution and in this statement the probably more competent second highest Judge of Great Britain stated that it was not excluded that hostages could be killed by way of reprisals. I say, therefore, that this is not the best evidence, but secondary evidence, and the Prosecution would have found it very easy to obtain the official comment of Field Marshal Alexander. For that very reason, the document should be rejected.
Furthermore the statements are not sworn to, this is merely propaganda.
THE PRESIDENT: This is an official captured war document and will be admitted as bearing upon whether or not the law of hostages was settled at he times in question. Admitted for that purpose only.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I suggest that Your Honors number this document pages 1 through page 7, because in the course of referring to it, there will be some skipping around.
THE PRESIDENT: They are all numbered except the first page.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Oh, I beg pardon, Your Honor. You are quite correct. I refer first to page 3, which is a communication to the Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police, under date of 7 November 1944.
"The 'Neue Zuricher Zeitung' of 3 Sept. 44, page 2, contains an item concerning the report of an investigating commission, copy of which is enclosed.
"The Chief of the Wehrmacht Legal Branch requests information whether the Wehrmacht Investigation Branch for violations of International Law is to proceed with an investigation. Before this inquiry is answered, the Wehrmacht Operations Staff requests comment of Reichfuehrer SS in this matter."
If Your Honors will bear that point in mind regarding whether the Legal Branch of the Wehrmacht is to investigate this question until, a later document will be submitted by the Prosecution which reflects the attitude of the American Army so far as investigating violations of international law are concerned. Turn next to page 2 of the document, which is dated, "Fuehrer Headquarters, 25 November 1944," about two weeks after the preceding reference. Again the subject is the report of Neue Zuricher Zeitung, concerning the alleged murder of hostages in Rome on 25 March 1944. It is to the Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police. There follows -- I believe I neglected to point out on reading from page 3 that the communication there to the Reichsfuehrer SS originated with the OKW, the operations staff, and is dated "Fuehrer Headquarters, 6 November 1944". Nov, continuing on page 1 is the reply of the Reichsfuehrer SS dated Berlin, 11 December 1944, and it is sent to the OKW, and again the subject is the same.
"In answer to your letter of 6 Nov. '44 I wish to inform you that the Reichsfuehrer SS considers it more practical for the Wehrmacht investigation branch for violations of International Law to refrain from an investigation of this affair, particularly since this incident has been exploited thoroughly by enemy propaganda, after Rome was occupied by the Anglo-Americans. Comments concerning it have dimished. However, it is feared that a new wave of propaganda will bestarted if we, on our part, take up the case again." Signed "SS Obersturmbahnfuehrer and Chief Executive Officer of the Reichsfuehrer-SS, Grothmann".
Turning to Page 7, this is from the Wehrmacht Fuehrungs Stab, dated 18 December 1944, to the Wehrmacht Legal Staff. "By agreement with Reichsfuehrer SS, it is not considered practical to have the incident investigated by the Wehrmacht Investigation Branch. We are returning enclosure to your letter of 15 Oct. 1944."
Then on page 5 and 6 is the Proclamation by General Alexander to the various communications between the Wehrmacht Legal Branch, the OKW and the Reichsfuehrer-SS which was the subject of "Proclamation by General Alexander to the German Troops in Italy, 23 October." I think this whole matter relates to charges which were later brought against Field Marshal Kesselring, who was Dr. Laternser's client, and I believe he will agree the date of the Proclamation is 23 October 1944. "General Alexander issued the following warning to German Officers and troops in Italy:
"Murders of hostages, mass reprisals against innocent civilians, tortures and other similar barbaric acts committed by German Troops in Northern Italy are increasing daily.
"Therefore I call the attention of all German men and officers in Northern Italy who somehow might issue or execute orders for the carrying out of such atrocities, to the following:
"The fact that in a certain Italian village, for instance, patriots wearing uniforms, brassards or other insignia might have attacked German Soldiers is, according to International Law or any other legal or moral code, no justification for unrestricted retaliation against the population of this village nor for killing persons without lawful procedure or sentence.
"Officers and soldiers who execute such orders are war criminals.
"In the agreement concluded between the Governments of England, of the Soviet Union, and of the U.S.A., in Moscow in November, 1943, it was established that all German Officers and soldiers charged with war crimes will be taken immediately after the end of the war to those countries where they have committed the atrocities with which they are charged, so that they may be judged according to the laws of this country.
"I have ordered all Italian patriots and civilians in the areas occupied by the Germans to take down carefully in writing the names, units and other details of German Officers and soldiers who have issued or carried out orders for the execution of War Crimes.
"Pursuant to this order my headquarters has received the names of German Officers and details concerning German Officers who among many other War Crimes are charged with the following:"
I think the details are of no interest here. It is signed "Proclamation by General Alexander to the German Troops in Italy."
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, Mr. Fenstermacher just said that this appeal was signed by Field Marshal Alexander. That is not correct. It is merely a typewritten sheet which has not been signed. The copy is not certified nor authenticated.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I think Dr. Laternser's remark is correct and I will withdraw my statement about the signature.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me, just a moment, there was also a statement made as to the date of this document and that it is inferred that Dr. Laternser would agree as to the date.
DR. LATERNSER: That I cannot do, Your Honor, as I can't possible recollect. This came up today for the first time. I did not know the text of this appeal, and, of course, I do not know the date. It cannot possibly be correct, for this excerpt from the so-called Chi News these Chi News bear the date of the 21st of October, and the date of the 23rd of October has been filled in by hand, so it cannot be correct.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: In that connection I would simply like to call Your Honor's attention to portions of the document, which I didn't read and which relate to reprisals committed during the months of March, April and June, 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30.
(A recess was taken until 13:30 hours)
AFTERNOON SESSION The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, January 15, 1948.
MR. RAPP: If Your Honor pleas, we would like to continue with some rebuttal documents. The document we would like to offer, Your Honor, is document NOKW - 2632; it is to be offered as Prosecution Exhibit 656 --.
THE PRESIDENT: May I suggest that you check on that again. Should it not be 655?
MR. RAPP: The last document that I was told was put in was NOKW 1511, which was 655.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, which was 654.
MR. RAPP: Very well, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: There were two other documents which were numbered 654. Two of they - of the previously numbered 654 were not admitted.
MR. RAPP: I see, Your Honor, so it should be Prosecution Exhibit 655. Thank you very much. This document is solely offered against the defendant Rendulic, so that those defense counsels who do not have the document, we will furnish them some copies later on, but I believe that the most important thing is for the time that Dr. Fritsch has the document.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a rather voluminous document. If you will give Dr. Fritsch just a moment to check through it briefly.
MR. RAPP: Of course, Your Honor. May I, at the pleasure of the Tribunal, tell the court the purpose of putting in this document? The purpose is to rebut some of the alleged facts the defendant Rendulic has made during the direct and cross examination about the Italian surrender terms. It refers to Count 3, Paragraph 12-i of the indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: Inasmuch as this document is a rather lengthy document, it has been suggested that possibly objections might be made to the particular items read and we would save time?
Is that agreeable to you, Dr. Fritsch? You might stand up there and if you want to make any objections, well you will be right there.
DR. FRITSCH: I should be very grateful, Your Honor, if we could proceed that way. The document is so very voluminous.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I have before me some excerpts from the official court record to first recall to the Court's attention some of the statements made by the defendant Rendulic, which have to be rebutted with particular reference, and I will then read from the document, and I believe if we proceed that way we will get it step by stop. First, lack of knowledge regarding surrender terms. The afternoon session of October 31, 1947, on Page 5405 of the Official English Court Transcript, 5405, -- I am sorry I do not have the German cross-pagination -- I do not have a German court transcript, - on October 31, 1947, the defendant Rendulic having taken the stand on his own behalf stated in cross examination and I quote: -This, of course, is taken out of the contents of the entire cross examination, but this particular quotation has reference to the document: "On 8 September Italy leaves the Alliance. We had to expect that the Italian would become our enemy. We did not know what orders the Italian troops had".
On page 5406 of the same day, 31 October 1947, questioned about whether or not the Italian Commander who entered into this agreement was a traitor or not, the defendant stated, and I quote: "I found out later on that the Italians had no orders at all." Thirdly, on page 5409 -- on page 5409 of the same day, October 31, the defendant being asked about international law, made the following statement and I quote: "The agreements between Badoglio and the Allies did not concern me; secondly I did not know them, and thirdly it is definite that Dalmazzo concluded the capitulation. It does not matter under what conditions they were concluded. Of course, no duress must have been applied, which was not the case/"Fourthly, questioned on page 5406 on October 31, 1947, with whom he concluded this agreement, Rendulic stated, and I quote from the official court transcript:
"I made the agreement with the Commander-in-Chief of the IXth Italian. Army. The Italian Army and General Dalmazzo commanded all Italian troops in my area." Unquote.
MR. RAPP: Fifth, during the morning session of October 29th on page 5184 of the court transcript during the direct examination of the defendant Rendulic in connection with Prosecution Exhibit 323 in document book 13, Rendulic was questioned about OKW orders pertaining to the treatment of the Italian forces. Rendulic made the following statement on page 5190 during this session.
"This means that this order did not commit the people whom it was given. It was not binding. The entire meaning of the sentences reveals that the German words "for instructions" which might in certain circumstances be translated into English "in a order" is so weak in its meaning here, that it has the other English meaning, that is, it has the meaning of "instructions," it must have had that meaning. In points 1 through 6 of this order there are provisions, rulings which are to be passed on to the Italian Corps. Therefore, this is not an order to the German Corps, but these are instructions or directives passed on to the Italian Corps" This particular statement was then tied with Prosecution Exhibit 327.
Now going back to my first and second statement I would like now to submit; firstly that this document will prove that duress was used; that General Dalmazzo was in fact not the commander of the Italian forces until he was appointed by General Rendulic; that General Rossi refused to sign the agreement that he knew exactly on the night og the 8th to 9th as will be found in this document what the surrender terms were, but that he subsequently used duress to have General d'Almazzo sign these orders. If Your Honors will now please turn to Page 4 of the document. There is an entry in the middle of the page dated 11 September 1943. This I may by the way say, your Honors, is a War Diary Number 4 of the 2nd Panzer Army started 23rd August 1943 and finished on 31 December 1943. Now on page 4 it states under 11 September 1943:
On 11 September, forenoon, the Commander-in-chief of the 2nd Panzer Army landed with a parachute rifle company of the Luftwaffe in Tirana and in quick action captured the Commander-in-Chief of the Italian Army Group Este his Chief of Staff. Thereby the chief source of the Italian resistance which still exists was removed. "At the bottom of the page:
The Commander-in-Chief of the Italian Army Group Este was imrisoned with his entire Staff by the Commander-in-Chief of the 2nd Panzer Army because of his anti-German attitude and apparently undesired influence on the troop units subordinated to him. General Dalmazzo was named Commander-in-Chief of the Italian Army Group Este, and is to receive his instructions concerning concentration and orderly withdrawal of his units from the Commander-in-Chief of the 2nd Panzer Army.
If Your Honors will be so kind as to turn now to page 9, there we will find under the entry of 9 September 1943 at 0020 hours that the defendant Rendulic already knew the Italian forces had surrendered:
2nd Panzer Army informs by teletype that following the declaration of marshal Badeglios the Italians are fighting together with the Allies. Italian units in the Balkans are subordinated to the American General Wilson:
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I object to this submission. The Prosecution should simply have taken the same document from my book and argued thereon. I think I submitted it under Number 57.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, certain parts of this document have not been the defense, and therefore we are putting them in at this time, and the are to rebut ....
PRESIDENT: Finish your sentence Mr. Rapp.
MR. RAPP: Certain parts of this document at that time were not submitted by the defense and we could not anticipate what the defenses of the defendant Rendulic to these facts would be, therefore they are being rebutted at this time.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I have just looked at this passage which the Prosecution has just read, and I find it was exactly the one I submitted under Exhibit Number 57. I think by this fact alone these matters are known to the Tribunal and, therefore, another submission is not necessary.
PRESIDENT: It may not apply to all the portions the Prosecution may wish to read, and in order to keep it in a more regular form, the objection will be overruled. You may proceed.
MR. RAPP: If Your Honors would, please look on page 9. Under the entry of 22100 would your Honors please look at the top of the page 9, entry under 2210 hours, this is the date of 8 September 1943, "2nd Panzer Army (Army Signal Officer) orders by telephone that the cable from Durrazzo to Rome is to be cut at once."
Your Honors, I am merely trying to preserve the continuity of this presentation. We could have picked out some excerpts which Dr. Fritsch did not include, I believe it will be more helpful which we wanted to include, we then would have had to have cross-references put in for this exhibit, if we put in the whole phase in continuity and I am sure that the Tribunal will recognize very easily whether that had been put in before. It had been taken out of it's context at that time by Defense Counsel, and we feel that certain portions have to come back in view of the Rendulic assertions. And then will put in others in one course of this present on which have not been put in Dr. Fritsch document desk.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honors, Mr. Rapp is mistaken if he thinks I was going to make an objection, of that kind. I am merely going to point out a technical error with regard to the entry on page 9 in my book. I think Mr. Rapp made a slip. He said the date was the 8th of September with regard to this entry, 2200 hours on page 90. In my book the date is set down as 9th September.
MR. RAPP: If Your Honor please, I would like to check this with the original.
MR. RAPP: If Your Honors permit, I would like to show this to Defense Counsel.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honors, then I can only state that the original or the photostat copy does not agree with the copy in German which I have here.
MR. RAPP: I believe Your Honor possibly error is human for the person who typed this stencil. We have had that on occasion and I would like Dr. Fritsch to look at the original and either concede or contest the point, I think that would be the easiest way.
PRESIDENT: You question the original document in any matter? Dr. Fritsch?
DR. FRITSCH: Of course I was convinced that the original was exactly the same as the copy I was given and made by comments accordingly.
PRESIDENT: I say do you question the original document and the date there shown?
DR. FRITSCH: I would like to look at it just once more, Your Honor, if I may. -
Your Honor, of course, at the moment I can't finish my final checking, but I would ask that when Mr. Rapp has submitted the whole document I can reserve the right to make an objection then.
PRESIDENT: You can make the motion to strike if you feel that your grounds may justify it. Unless there is some objection at this time to this particular piece of evidence it will be admitted, subject to motion to strike if you care to do so. You may proceed Mr. Rapp.
MR. RAPP: If Your Honor will now please turn to Page 7, there is an entry under the statement "page 23 of original": In an order of the Commander-in-Chief of the 2nd Panzer Army concerning combating of bandits," -
I am sorry, Your Honor, I withdraw this. I am on the wrong page.
If Your Honors would please turn to page 5, under the entry marked 313/43 Secret, 52/9 page 11 of the original it states:
By order of OKW, a short-term ultimatum is to be put to Italian units who offer resistance and thereby it is to be expressed that the commanders responsible for the resistance are to be shot as francs-tirours, if they have not passed on to their troops the order to surrender their weapons to the German troops up to the time established.
This entry was also made under the dateline of 11 September 1943. On 11 September 1943 on page 11 under the entry of "page 38 of original", second paragraph, it states......
The Divisions receive the order to offer a short-period ultimatum to the resistance of the Italian units and threaten the responsible commanders with treatment as francs-tireurs.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honors, I just want to ask Mr. Rapp to tell me where I can find this entry. I can't find it in my cop 7.
MR. RAPP: It is on page 10 of the German. -
Will Your Honors now please turn to page 2 of this document. At the bottom of this document we find an entry regarding the executive power in Montenegro and Albania. I am now making reference to court transcript of October 30, morning session page 5277 and 5278. General Rendulic during his direct examination by Defense Counsel alleged that in Albania and Montenegro he had no influence whatsoever over the administration. He further stated that these countries were under one command of the Military Commander Southeast and his deputies in Albania and Montenegro respectively. If there should be any question I will now read into the record if the Court so desires a repetition of that court record. Does one court desire that I do this or can we dispense with it?
PRESIDENT: You may dispense with it. We have made a notation I think on one respective note here. Your statement is also in the official record of this date so that there's no necessity for further comment.
MR. RAPP: Thank you, Your Honor, this entry is under date of 9 September 1943 and can be found on page of the original.
The Fuehrer has refused the transfer of the executive power in Croatia to the 2nd Panzer Army; nevertheless, executive power in Albania and Montenegro is transferred to the 2nd Panzer Army until the setting up of a Military Commander in Albania and Montenegro.
DR. FRITSCH: I object to the introduction of this passage. According to Mr. Rapp's own words, this declaration here is in no way a contradiction of the restricting of one defendant on the witness stand. I think it is only cumulative evidence if such documents are allowed to be introduced here.
PRESIDENT: The objection will be overruled. The Tribunal will evaluate its contradictory qualities, if any.
MR. RAPP: This will terminate this particular document against the defendant Rendulic. Mr. Fulkerson will continue.