The objection will be over-ruled.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I would like the record to show that the Prosecution regrets very much the insinuations cast by Dr. Laternser's reflection upon the United States Government through its officials in Washington, I an certain that they did comply with the previous Court's ruling in this respect.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 17 January 1948.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal 5 in the matter of the United States of America against Wilhelm List, et al, defendants sitting at Nurnberg, Germany on the 16th day of January 1948, 0930, Judge Burke presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 5 Military Tribunal 5 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, have you ascertained that all defendants are present in the courtroom?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Burke will preside at this day's session. You may proceed.
MR. RAPP: Yesterday a number of photstated German mimeographed copies and a number of English copies were passed out during the course of our introduction of additional documentary evidence and they were not returned to us and I would like to ask the defense counsel to please return them and I give you the numbers: NOKW 1511, NOKW 1734, NOKW 2679, NOKW 1791. I will please ask the defense counsel to return these photostatic copies to me; then there are some German copies missing, 2431 and 2707 also NOKW and one English copy of 2707.
DR. LATERNSER: If it please the Tribunal, it was ahead, said yesterday that these documents or copies thereof had not been returned, I have already informed my colleagues in writing. Of course this will be settled in the course of the day.
DR. FRITSCH: If it please the Tribunal, yesterday I received at my request the photostat of Exhibit 655 from Mr. Rapp. The Tribunal will remember that it was an excerpt from War Diaries submitted against the defendant General Rendulic. I have a request to make. First, may I state that this is not merely a question of one war diary of one unit, but a series of war diaries of the 2nd Panzer Army and one of the 21st corps. I am most interested in the fact that some of the reports read here into the record by Mr. Rapp are not contained in the excerpt made available to me; as, of course, I need these very passages, I should like to request the Prosecution to hand them to me or to make available to me this photostat which has only been lent to me so far.
MR. RAPP: Of course, Your Honors, if some part has not appeared in the German transcript which we have read from the English -- I will furnish Dr. Fritsch the appropriate copies. We are very limited in one photostatic copies, but he can keep it until I exchange it for one mimeographed German copies.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: That should be satisfactory, I take it, Dr. Fritsch?
DR. FRITSCH: Yes, thank you.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, originally we intended to finish our documentary presentation this morning but Mr. Fenstermacher has had some transportation trouble and in order not to lose time, the Marshal is instructed to call the witness Hermann Hoth.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The Marshal will call the witness. Mr. Rapp, in what exhibit is the affidavit in question to be found?
MR. RAPP: That is contained, your Honor in the defense document book Number 1 for Helmuth Felmy, defense document 22 Exhibit Number 1, English page number 35.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Thank you.
HERMANN HOTH, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You will rise and repeat after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may be seated.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, are you the Hermann Hoth born on the 12th of April 1885 who gave on the 23rd of June 1947 an affidavit for the defendant Felmy?
A My name is Hoth not Holt.
Q Will you please spell the name for the record?
A H-o-t-h. The other statements are correct.
Q Do you still remember the contents of this affidavit?
A Perfectly.
Q I would like to give you now this affidavit that you have yourself written and like you to identify and tell us whether or not that is the affidavit you have reference to?
A That is correct, that is the affidavit I made.
Q Tell us how you came about to give us this affidavit, did you voluntarily send it to Nurnberg or did defense counsel approach you? Tell us that.
A I received a request by defense counsel for the defendant Felmy to make a statement as to the personality of Felmy in the form of an affidavit.
Q Were you told about what you were to write?
A No, not at all.
Q Is that all you knew to write - in other words you didn't know anything else about General Felmy?
A I believe that as far as I recollect now I could have added something.
Q I wonder if you could do that now.
A I met Felmy in the first World War, from reports which he being a young flight officer - air officer made on his activities on the Sinai peninsula where he was the leader of the only German air detachment. I remember very distinctly that at that time he explained the conditions and limitations of German warfare and in such a distant theater. He did that in a very serious way without making any bones about it and in a very responsible fashion which I still recall very distinctly today. He certainly knew that his report was in opposition to and contrary to the views of higher headquarters. I also know and remember from that time that Felmy enjoyed the special esteem and respect of the Arab tribes on the Sinai peninsula because he had been successful in feeling his way into the pecularities and lives of these people.
It was very difficult to find a successor for him afterwards. That is what I wanted to add.
Q Witness, did you ever -- you can take your earphones off now. Have you ever during the war in Greece served under General Felmy?
A No.
Q Do you know what General Felmy did in Greece?
A Only by hearsay, very little.
Q Witness, will you please refer to your affidavit you wrote. I believe in the second paragraph of your affidavit at the end of the second paragraph you say "his strict and just decision and his warm heartedness, impressed me particularly at that time" and then two or three lines below, "on occasion of his turning over his office I was especially aware of his warm human feeling and his sense of justice." Then, "At the time I was removed from my position in Braunschweig, because I had taken measures against inhuman acts of the Party." The last I want to read to you: "I know that Felmy enjoyed the greatest respect of the population of the city on account of his just and independent attitude." Witness, these characteristics you recorded in your affidavit, I assume, are those characteristics which impressed you most?
A That is partially correct. These are his human qualities. But I was also impressed by his military qualities.
Q Do you now feel yourself, Witness, on account of those human qualities which you recognize in Felmy, do you feel yourself close to him i.e. that he is, on the same basis, the same level as you are?
A I dare say that is true.
Q Witness, did you know that General Felmy was a Party member?
A No, I didn't know that.
Q. Now, the last paragraph of this affidavit of yours, "According to my long personal acquaintance" -- have you found that?
A. Certainly.
Q. (Continued) "with Felmy he is anything but a wild militarist or a brute." Do you also agree with Felmy on that point?
A. I believe I can say that for myself.
Q. And then the very last sentence, "I believe him to be incapable of a dishonest act, and especially of using force or committing a crime." In consideration of his talents, his character and his upright character, is your personal character along the same lines as that of General Felmy?
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: What is the question?
MR. RAPP: I asked the witness whether or not he identified himself as far as his character is concerned also with the defendant.
A. That is an appraisal of another person. How I myself am appraised, I do not know.
Q. But you do appreciate in others these certain attributes?
A. I certainly do.
Q. Witness, what was your attitude during the war with regard to so-called "inhuman acts"?
A. I witnessed such inhuman acts on the Russian side and have certainly condemned them.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW (on behalf of the defendant Felmy): I object to this question as being irrelevant to the topic -- that is, the affidavit made on behalf of General Felmy.
DR. RAPP: If your Honor please, I am trying to impeach the credibility of the witness . . . I will rephrase the question.
Q. Witness, you said before that you appreciated these certain character qualities which you had enumerated, that you appreciated them especially in General Felmy apart from his military qualities?
A. That is correct.
Q. Were they the very same things and qualities which you expected from your officers and enlisted men, the same qualities of character?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: I object again on the same ground.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: We will take the answer to this question.
A. One moment please, I will answer that in a moment. One expects from an officer sometimes something different and exacts different demands than one puts to subordinates who hold a lower rank. Here I dealt with qualities I expected from a leader, an officer which I appreciated particularly and which I consequently expected from other officers and would have liked to have seen in other officers.
Q Witness, what was the largest unit which you commanded during the war?
A I shall -
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW (Counsel for defendant Felmy): I object to this question, Your Honors, as having nothing to do with the affidavit.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection will be overruled.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, the witness was about to say something. Inasmuch as defense counsel objected, may I inquire what the witness wanted to say?
A I wanted to say that on this question I shall make statements in the trial in which I shall be a defendant but, if the defense attached importance to my answer, I am also prepared to give that answer now.
Q You are being indicted in another case, are you?
A Yes, I am.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I think the witness should be warned that he has a right to rely upon his personal rights not to incriminate himself if he chooses not to answer.
Q Witness, can you answer the question, which was the largest unit which you commanded during the war?
A On reflection I think I can answer that question without damaging my own case. The highest rank which I held was Generaloberst (General) and Commander in Chief of an armored division.
Q Were you ever commander of the 17th Army?
A I was Commander-in-Chief of the 17th Army.
Q Witness, you told us before that you attached great importance to the character qualities of your staff officers?
A Certainly.
Q What about ideology?
A Do you mean my own ideology or what do you mean?
Q That of your officers. Did you attach importance to the ideology of your officers?
A I did attach importance to the fact that my officers were schooled in the traditions of the old German officer corps and that they maintained those traditions.
Q Did you attach importance to your officers studying the Hitler ideology?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW (Counsel for defendant Felmy): I object to this question, Your Honors. This has nothing to do with the affidavit.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection will be overruled.
A May I comment on this question in my own case in which I am the defendant?
Mr. Rapp: Your Honors, I submit if I cannot cross examine this witness on questions pertaining to his own character for the purpose of impeaching his veracity, I am sort of at a loss.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: That is a choice you will have to make in your behalf.
MR. RAPP: That being the case, Your Honor, I have no further questions of the witness. I would like to have the Tribunal take judicial notice of the fact that the affiant of this affidavit is under indictment, that he cannot be properly cross examined - and I would like the Court to take judicial notice of that fact.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: When was he indicted? When was he placed under indictment?
MR. RAPP: I do not know, Your Honor.
Q Would you please - witness , what was the date on which you were indicted?
A It was the beginning of December of the year 1947. That is when the indictment was served on me, on that date.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Do you recall the date of the affidavit on behalf of the defendant Felmy?
A That was the 23rd of July 1946 - correction - the 23rd of June 1947.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Are there any further questions to this witness?
MR. RAPP: Not in view of the fact that the witness pleads selfincrimination; in other words, if he does not want to answer any questions which I may like to put to him in connection with self incrimination, then I have no further questions, Your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Any questions on the part of the Court?
Any questions, Mr. Rapp?
MR. RAPP: If the ruling of the Court -
JUDGE CARTER: Mr. Rapp, there has been no ruling of the Court.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, the Court has instructed the witness that he may, if he so chooses, not have to answer questions which may tend to incriminate him. I have now asked the witness a question. He said he would be prepared to answer that question before another Tribunal under indictment. These questions are important for me. I presume very many more questions I am trying to ask the witness will be selfincriminating. If he pleads this, there is no purpose in trying to question the witness further.
JUDGE CARTER: Judge Burke made a correct statement as to the rule; there is no question about that. The witness, of course, is entitled not to answer if he would thereby incriminate himself.
MR. RAPP: Then I withdraw the question. I will put a new question to the witness and will go on from there, if Your Honors please.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
Q Witness, did you attach importance in your capacity as Commander in Chief of the 17th Army that your officers corps was indoctrinated in the racial Nationalist Socialist sense?
A I did not quite understand that. What do you mean by indoctrination?
Q Did they have to identify themselves in the Nazi ideology?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: (Counsel for the defendant Felmy): Objection, if the Tribunal please; this question is irrelevant to the affidavit.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection is overruled.
MR. RAPP: May I ask the Tribunal to effect a ruling on this particular statement?
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Do you think it might serve to incriminate you in the proceedings now pending against you?
A I believe it would because I don't know what other questions it would entail.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The witness will not be required to answer.
Q Witness, did you, yourself, advocate the racial theory of Adolf Hitler?
A Never.
Q As you have given me a direct answer, witness, I should like to hand you a document. Witness, will you please peruse the document and identify it?
A The document is very lengthy. It consists of about five pages. I don't think that it will be a very fast job for me. May I also say that it is a document which will certainly be important in the case in which I am under indictment, therefore, I have certain scruples to comment on this document.
Q Witness, does this document bear your signature?
A It does.
Q What is it? Does it concern an order, a daily report? What is it?
A I have already said that I do not wish to comment on this order in this case before this Tribunal.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, may I inquire from the Bench whether or not the witness is required to give an answer?
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: On matters he considers may incriminate him in the case he is at present a defendant, he will not be required to answer so long as I am presiding.
MR. RAPP: Very well, Your Honor. In view of the ruling of the Tribunal, I see no further purpose in cross examining this witness.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Are there any further questions by the defense counsel? Any questions on the part of the Tribunal? If not, the witness will be excused. The witness will be excused.
MR. RAPP: For the record, I would like to state that I would like the Court to take judicial notice of the fact that the witness was pleading self incrimination during his cross examination.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: It was quite obvious.
MR. RAPP: Very well.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed, Mr. Fenstermacher.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Thank you, your Honor. I want to continue now with the presentation of a few more rebuttal documents. We offer now NOKW-3791. It is offered as Exhibit 665 and is offered to rebut the testimony of General Foertzch and General Lanz with respect to the Italian capitulation.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH (Counsel for defendant Foertsch): If it please the Tribunal, I object to presentation of this document, as long as I have had no opportunity of reading this lengthy document consisting of 35 pages and until my client has also an opportunity of looking at it, I have only had one copy so far.
Further, if I shall then have further reasons for objection will depend on the outcome of that.
The same statement I wish to make on behalf of Dr. Sauter for the defendant Lanz.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I point out, your Honors, that this entire war diary of Army Group E and Army Group Southern Greece came from Washington. The defendant had ample opportunity to examine it at that time. As a matter of fact, certain portions of it, I believe, were introduced by General Lanz himself.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection will be overruled. If counsel desires to make an objection to a specific passage that is presented, of course, he will have an opportunity to do so.
You may proceed.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Those are excerpts from the War Diary of the German General Staff of the Italian 11th Army and/or Army Group South Greece for the period 19 July 1943 to 4 October 1943. I don't want to try the Court's patience by reading many of these excerpts in detail but I think we can skim through it quite rapidly.
On page 2 there are entries under 8 and 9 and 10 September, the various hours of the entries are marked on the margin.
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for defendant Lanz): May I say something?
This document consists of 36 pages. Being the counsel for defendant Lanz, I cannot possibly agree to the presentation of some fragments which are taken out of the context. I have not had an opportunity of reading the whole document within a few minutes and do, therefore, not know whether the excerpts read by the Prosecution are not given a different sense by other passages contained therein.
If this document has any value at all, then I must ask that, in view of the volume of this document, it should be read, in its entirety so that I have an opportunity of acquainting myself with the contents. In my judgment, it is improper and incompatible with a fair trial that a document of 36 pages be submitted of which only a few fragments are quoted but expecting that the Tribunal take judicial notice of the whole content without the defense or the defendant having the slightest opportunity of becoming acquainted with the document.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: For the reason already stated, the objection will be overruled and an objection may appropriately be made to the specific items when presented by prosecution.
DR. SAUTER: If it please the Tribunal, would you please tell me how I am to make objections against those parts which are not being presented by the Prosecution? The rules of the Court, if I understand them right, are that every document submitted to the Court is submitted in its entirety as evidence. The Prosecution then submits evidence, not merely by reading a few fragments but by presenting the whole contents, and I see no opportunity of protesting against the document of whose consents I am ignorant within the short time limit. That is impossible for me.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I am sure, Dr. Sauter, you will be able to adjust yourself in such a situation. I am sure, Dr. Sauter, that you will be able to adjust yourself to the situation.
With the explanation made by the prosecutor of the origin of the document, the objection will be overruled.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Turning first to page 2 of the document, the entry under 1945 hours.
"general Vecciarelli gave the explanation to General von Gyldenfeldt that the enemy intelligence service has announced the capitulation of Italy. He himself does not believe this and has no official information about this. In order to avoid any sort of incidents in this case in advance, nevertheless, General Vecciarelli declares that Italian troops will continue to hold and defend their positions until they are replaced by German troops. No Italian units will proceed with force against Germans, insofar as the same happens from the German side. He nevertheless emphasizes that he will meet force with force. An order drawn up according to those points of view will go to the Italian troops after the official cognizance of the capitulation. Until then, a strained and nervous mood prevails amongst the Italian General Staff of the 11th Army.
The Ia of the Italian 11th Army, Lt. Col. Scoti informs Gen. v. Gyldenfeldt that official information of the capitulation from Italy is at hand and that General Vecciarelli will hold to the agreements which had been discussed."
Turning next to page 4 of the document, the entry under 9320 hours, which is on 9 September 1943, I call your Honors attention to the third paragraph:
"The order given for the "Axis" case, according to which all Italian troops are to be disarmed completely and have to give up their entire material, is to be carried out immediately and without exception by the most severe means by order of the C-in-C of the Army Group. The Italians are to be informed at the same time that the betrayal of the Italian Supreme Command has proved itself so widespread that any sort of consideration of previous cooperation is out of place.
It has furthermore been proven that Italian troop units in Athens have already begun to do energetic business with the civilian population with the weapons, trucks, and horses which had been left with them temporarily. Excepted from this order are the troop units which sign up unconditionally for further combat within the framework of the German Army."
Turning next to page 6, at the bottom of the page, communication dated 9 September 1942 to "German General Staff with the 11th Italian Army for the attention of Brigadier General Gyldenfeldt."
Your Honors, will notice on page 7, "Received," and the communication reads as follows:
"Advance report to the radio situation report 2nd Company, IX Corps:
"The 11th Army (Athens) transmit at 2310 hours to the XXVI Corps (Janina), the Military Detachment in Crete (Neapolis), and to the Division Acqui (Argostoli/Cephalonia) the following message in clear text:
"As a result of the conclusion of the armistice, the Italian troops of the 11th Army will take the following attitude:
"If the Germans do not resort to military counter-measures, the Italians will not, I repeat, will not raise their arms against them, they will, not, I repeat, will not make common cause either with the insurgents or the Anglo-American troops who might land later. They will defend themselves by arms against any force of arms. Everyone has to remain at his spot with the previous tasks. In any case, exemplary discipline must be upheld. Inform the competent German commanding offices of this. Confirm this."
"General Vecciarelli," signed in hand, "Seemueller."
Then, continuing at the bottom of page 7, communication from Army Group Southeast dated September 18, 1943, General Vecciarelli -
DR. RAUSCHENBACH (Counsel for defendant Foertsch): If it please the Tribunal, I must repeat my objection to the submission of this document. I have meanwhile ascertained by means of the list which we made of the Washington documents -- that is, the list which we were handed -that this war diary was not included among those documents. We cannot, therefore, possibly know this document and are unable to check what else was contained in the document and that was the purpose of the ruling at the time, that as to all documents submitted by the Prosecution we ought to have knowledge of the entire document. That is also true for rebuttal documents.
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for defendant Lanz): If it please the Tribunal, may I also state that I join on behalf of General Lanz in objecting to the Prosecution stating at the beginning that this document had arrived from Washington at the time and that I had an opportunity of inspecting it and that I, in fact had inspected it. I doubted whether this assertion of the Prosecution was correct because we had with respect to the Italian affair perused these documents with particular attention and I can say with a hundred percent certainty that this war diary was not among them.
Meanwhile, I have consulted the list and have ascertained that what is being read now was not included among the war diaries sent from Washington. Prosecution himself had the feeling that as to the admissibility of the document it was significant to know whether the defense could inspect the document at the time and, therefore, what he did assert has now turned out to be incorrect.
I think under the circumstances it calls for a check on the part of the Tribunal as to whether this ruling ought to be upheld on the basis of justice and equity.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I will send someone down to my office to check the list of documents which were received from Washington, if your Honors please. If what Dr. Sauter and Dr. Rauschenbach maintain is correct, that the entire War Diary of the General Staff of the Italian 11th Army and the Army Group South Greece was not brought from Washington, then of course under the previous ruling of the Tribunal, we are not entitled to offer excerpts unless they are furnished with the entire document. I am sure I will be able to ascertain that fact in just a moment.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I understood you to say they had been made available to them at the opening of your statement.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: That was my understanding, your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Will you check that, please, and inform the Tribunal? Then the decision of the Tribunal will then await your report on the matter.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I think we can hold this document in abeyance if your Honor please and pass on to another one until we can ascertain that.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The matter will be held in abeyance until then.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: We offer next NOKW-2829.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Mr. Fenstermacher, what is the number?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: This is offered as prosecution Exhibit No. 666. This document is an affidavit of Dr. Karl Schmauser, an army judge, and goes to the question of the consequences which......disobedience of an order of Hitler's It relates specifically to the testimony of General Lanz and gives as examples of the consequences of the disobedience of a Hitler order the case of General Sponeck and the case of General Ziehlberg.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Sauter for the defendant Lanz. I have recently talked to Dr. Schmauser in the local prison. We discussed the same questions to which this document obviously refers.
I request that the Prosecution comment on the present whereabouts of Dr. Schmauser.
DR. FENSTERMACHER: Dr. Schmauser, according to our records, was returned from Nurnberg to the prisoner-of-war enclosure in Dachau.
DR. SAUTER: If it please the Tribunal, before this document is admitted, I request that the Prosecution be ordered to ascertain whether Dr. Schmauser is still interned in Dachau or not, because my informations are to the effect -- but I am not quite sure whether they are correct -that Dr. Schmauser has been extradicted to France or is to be extradicted. If this affidavit by Dr. Schmauser is to be read, then we demand that Dr. Schmauser be presented for cross-examination because other high military officials adopt a different view from that hold by him, but if he is no longer available for cross-examination then I think that the reading of his affidavit is inadmissible.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: He have not asked Defense Counsel where each one of their 1500 affiants is at the present time or was at the time his affidavit was offered into evidence. But, we will be very glad to furnish Dr. Sauter with information as to his present whereabouts, although I think that fact is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not the affidavit is admitted. His point is apparently that if he requests the affiant to be brought here for cross-examination, we won't be able to produce him. Of course, he has his remedy if that fact is true. I submit it is not important as to whether or not the affidavit is admissible.
DR. LATERNSER: May I ask, your Honor
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The Tribunal is prepared to dispose of the matter without further discussion. The affidavit may be introduced with a request that the witness be produced and in the event that the witness is not produced before the conclusion of the hearing, a motion to strike the affidavit will be entertained. That is all.
DR. SAUTER: Yes. I thank the Court.
DR. FENSTERMACHER: The affidavit reads as follows:
I, Dr. Karl SCHMAUSER, depose, state and declare: I can make the following statement with reference to tho SPONECK Case:
Shortly before Christmas 1941. SPONECK took over, as a deputy for a Commanding General who was ill, the command of an Army Corps which was located in the Western part of the Crimea with its main tactical location in Kertsch. This front was generally considered as quiet and not endangered. SPONECK, however, concerned himself with the idea that, in case the Russians should land on the Southern coast of the Black Sea near Feodesia and, at the same time, on the northern coast, the forces located in the western part of the Crimea would be cut off around Parpatsch. He therefore applied to the Commander of either the Army or the Group of Armies that he be permitted, in case of such an attack to retreat up to (as far as I remember) approximately the vicinity of Ismail Pascha. This request was definitely refused by the Commander in question and SPONECK was ordered to hold the position under all circumstances, even at the price of having the Corps surrounded. He could count upon being transferred if such should be the case. On the following day SPONECK made the same request of the Chief of Staff, which, however, was also refused by him. Nevertheless he repeated this request a third time and again personally approached the Commander of the Army or Group of Armies. He, however, answered him briefly and gruffly and states that the position was to be held under all circumstances. He did not give any detailed reasons for this.
I was later informed that the reason for this order to unconditionally hold this position, was based upon the fear that if the Crimes was lost Turkey would enter the war against Germany with approximately 60 or 65 fully equipped Divisions.
As far as I can remember, on about 25 December, a convoy was sighted north of the Crimea, traveling from east to west close to the coast.