DR. LATERNSER: If your Honors please. From Mr. Fenstermacher's remarks it becomes evident that he is under the impression that I made a false assertion. The assertion which I made at the time I of course maintain only my application for evidence was not granted. I would like to clarify this situation because Mr. Fenstermacher is hereby trying to refute the incorrectness of my assertion. He cannot thereby refute my assertion and this assertion is being maintained by me.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I think the record will show whether Dr. Laternser is correct as to the assertions he made at the time.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I'm sorry, Mr. Fenstermacher, I didn't hear you.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I think the record will show whether I am correct or whether Dr. Laternser is correct as to what he said at the time.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The record will speak for itself.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honors please, we would like now to interrupt our rebuttal and cross examine the affiant Franz von Harling.
DR. LATERNSER: If it please the Tribunal. I regret having to make another statement concerning this point, in order to prevent a wrong impression arising. I have made a certain assertion and I wanted to prove it. Through the ruling of the Court I was in no position to prove my assertion.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I have no further comment, your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I beg your pardon?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I have no comment to Dr. Laternser's last remark.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed.
FRANZ VON HARLING, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Mr. Witness, you will raise your right hand 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. FENSTERMACHER.
Q You are Franz von Harling?
A I am Franz von Harling.
Q And your last rank in the German Army was Colonel, I believe?
A Colonel in the General Staff.
Q You were the Ia, or rather the Ic, Intelligence Officer, at Army Group F from, I believe, May 1943 until some time in 1945?
A I was 1c of Army Group E from 31 May 1943 until the middle of August 1943 and then I was Ic of Army Group F after that.
Q Do you recall giving affidavits on behalf of General Foertsch and General Geitner, Colonel?
A Yes, I do.
Q Are you still familiar with their contents?
A I hope I am.
Q Would you look at the affidavit you gave on behalf of General Geitner? It is found in Geitner Book 3; it is Document No. 57 and was introduced as Geitner Exhibit No. 43. First, a few preliminary questions, Colonel. As Ic of Army Group F you saw all the reports that came in from the subordinate units. You attended conferences, I presume, with the Chief of Staff of Army Group F, who at that time was General Foertsch, and made inspection trips, and were generally familiar with what was going on in Army Group F?
A Well, I was informed generally about those things of which the Chief of Staff was informed; mainly, of course, I was informed about my own field of activity. Concerning the individual incoming reports from subordinate units, of which there were many daily, I was not always and on principle informed.
Q But you did have a detailed knowledge of conditions in the Balkans during the time from May 1943 to March 1945?
A Well, concerning the events in large outlines and also about some individual events, I did have information.
Q Both in Athens...for both Greece and Serbia, and Croatia, and Montenegro, and Albania -- the entire area of Army Group F, I mean?
A The whole of the area which was under the jurisdiction of the Commander in Chief Southeast was well known to me in all its ups and downs and tos and fros. For instance, I participated in the chief conferences, as a matter of principle. Of course there are exceptions, which confirm the rule. On the basis of my specific sphere of work I was particularly informed about those matters which are probably under discussion here.
Q You are probably one of the most informed men we could have to testify here regarding what was going on within the area of Army Group F at the time you were Intelligence Officer of that Army Group - am I correct?
A Further examination will show that. I cannot very well anticipate that.
Q You have a pretty good memory of what went on while you were down there, Colonel?
A I lost some of my memory through my treatment in Prisoner of War camps.
Q I assume you still have some loyalty left for your old chief, General Foertsch. He was your superior, wasn't he?
A Yes.
Q And you still feel some loyalty towards him?
A Yes, I feel loyalty towards him, there can be no doubt of that. It would be mean of me if I would not say that. But I have every intention of answering your questions objectively.
Q How did you happen to come to give these affidavits for Geitner and Foertsch.
A The first affidavits I did on my own account, that is, at the time I was in the camp in Belgium; later, through written requests. Parts of the indictment were sent to me and I was informed that my affidavits were desirable. I wrote to defense counsel and offered to make my knowledge available.
Q Then did you actually compose the affidavits which later formed the exhibit?
A Yes, I wrote them. I did.
Q When was the last time you talked to counsel for General Foertsch and General Geitner?
A Yesterday.
Q Did you talk to both of them then?
A Yesterday, when I arrived -- I was called here by telegram from the Defense Information Center -- I went to see both gentlemen and asked them what was up. They told me they were not permitted to tell me anything about it; they had promised that they would not talk to me about things to come; they told me that probably quite soon I would appear before the Tribunal; that I was called here by the Prosecution.
Q I think we can probably make this examination somewhat short, Colonel. I wonder if you could tell us when you regarded as the most important military personality in the Southeast during the time you were there?
A The most important personality was General Field Marshal von Weichs. He was the Commander-in-Chief.
Q Do you recall being asked that question on another occasion and giving a different answer?
A Yes, I do. I don't think -- I beg your pardon -- I don't think I gave a different answer, but in the course of the very detailed interrogations which the Prosecution exposed me to, I was able to ascertain that the Prosecution was of the opinion that the motor of the whole business down there was General Foertsch, and in evaluating the individual personalities and the individual powers of the various persons, I could only repeat that General Foertsch was for all of us the moving power. He was for us the most important personality. I may restrict this by saying that we had comparatively little contact with Field Marshal von Weichs. All our business most of the time took place in the office of the Chief of staff.
Q You mean in that when you were asked the same question which I asked you just now on a different occasion, your answer was General Foertsch and not Field Marshal von Weichs?
A Yes.
Q Colonel, would you look at the affidavit which you gave for General Foertsch. It is in Foertsch Document Book No. 2 on page 6. It was Foertsch Document No. 18 and was introduced as Foertsch Exhibit No. 17. You gave that affidavit on 8 August 1947. Now would you look at the paragraph which reads, "It is, furthermore, of interest in this connection that the Higher SS and Police Leader and not the Commanderin-Chief Southeast had the executive power ever the civilian population in the Southeastern area."
If the Higher SS and Police Leader had executive power, what was the function of the military commanders in the various occupied areas within the sphere of Army Group F.
A There was a certain overlapping of jurisdiction. This existed between the Commander-in-Chief Southeast and the Military Commander Southeast.
Q Colonel, would you speak somewhat slower in giving your answers to my questions so that they can pick it up in the interpreter's booths.
You were explaining your answer.
A I started by saying there was a certain overlapping of jurisdiction and in the limitation of the spheres of work of the Commander-inChief Southeast was the actual leader of the troops. He dealt with preparations against a possible invasion. He was to defend against this invasion.
Q Let me interrupt you, Colonel. I don't think we need have this answer in too much detail, but I would like to ask you now whether you still believe that the paragraph which I read to you gives a complete answer? That is, are you satisfied that as that paragraph stands now it could not be misinterpreted or misunderstood and is not ambiguous?
A May I once again ask you to tell me what paragraph you are referring to?
Q The paragraph in which you say that the Higher SS and Police Leader had executive power over the civilian population in the Southeastern area.
A Yes. I see that statement. I maintain that assertion. The executive power in the occupied area in the Southeast was undoubtedly held by the Higher SS and Police Leader. That was Meyssner when I arrived down there. Later on he had a successor whose name I don't recall just now.
Q Now you are talking about Serbia, but let's take Greece. You were an expert on Greece, too. What was the function of the Military Commander of Greece? Did he have any executive power, or did the Higher SS and Police Leader for Greece have that power?
A To the best of my information, and that ought to be correct, the executive power there, too, was in the hands of the Higher SS and Police Leader, Schimana. I know that there were currently difficulties between the two personalities, that is, the Military Commander, who represented the soldier, and on the other hand the Higher SS and Police Leader, Schimana. I recall very well one incident where we had to make representations to the Reichsfuehrer-SS on our own account because the Higher SS and Police Leader in spite of express orders given by Himmler and the OKW did not put at our disposal the police units requested.
He refused to do that. That is, he went along his own ways.
Q Colonel, don't you know that the Military Commander of Greece, General Speidel, had executive power in Greece and not General Schimana? Don't you know that?
A No, I don't know that. I only know that it was always said that we were not an operational theater in the normal meaning of the word. We represented occupied territory and everything concerning the civilian population was done by the Police.
Q Who had the territorial jurisdiction in Greece?
A The territorial jurisdiction was in the hands of the Military Commander.
Q Now will you look at your next paragraph in which you say that the Commander-in-Chief Southeast had no influence whatsoever as far as the operational area and the operational task of the Security Service within the sphere of the area of the Commander-in-Chief Southeast?
A Yes. Of course, I maintain what I said in that paragraph. I know very well that the SD appeared here and there, participated in this or that operation. But I was never informed about the combat areas and about the organization of commitments. I never knew anything of that kind, and so the Commander-in-Chief and the Chief of Staff couldn't know it either.
Q Now when you use the words "Security Service" in that paragraph, you don't mean units of the Waffen-SS, do you?
A No. No, for Heaven's Sake, I don't.
Q The units of the SS the Commander-in-Chief of the Southeast could command in combat, couldn't he?
A Yes. They were subordinate to him as purely military units. They had nothing to do with the SD.
Q Now would you turn to the affidavit which you gave on behalf of General Foertsch which appears in Foertsch Document Book 2 on page 58. It is Foertsch Document No. 38 and Foertsch Exhibit 35. Now in the course of that somewhat lengthy affidavit you talk about certain violations of international law on the part of the Germans, Colonel?
A Yes.
Q Suppose you tell us about some of those.
A I recall the following incident. During the course of evacuation measures along the Dalmatian coast, such measures had become necessary because we anticipated a landing of the British and of the Americans along that coast. During that operation the SS Division committed in the area of Ottopac had the order to lead the population of that sector back to an area which had previously been fixed. For this purpose the corresponding discussions had taken place with the Croatian Government with which we had to consult concerning all our measures. One day we received a report -- I don't know through which channel -- to the effect that this SS Division had shot a considerable number of persons to be evacuated.
Q Let me interrupt you, Colonel. You are talking now about an atrocity which you say was committed by the SS. Do you recall any atrocities which were committed by strickly army units and not SS?
A Well, I may add that this SS Division was subordinate to the Commander-in-Chief Southeast. It was a troop formation. I recall here also that Field Marshal von Weichs ordered an immediate investigation of the case.
Q Now I mean in the case of a strictly army division or corps, not an SS division or an SS corps. Can you remember any atrocities or violations of international law coming to your attention which were committed by a strictly army unit?
A No.
Q Now you were down there from May 1943 until March 1945, that is to say almost two years. This is a rather remarkable record for an army not to commit any violations of international law over the great period of time in view of the unusual severity of the warfare down there, isn't it, Colonel?
A Well, Mr. Fenstermacher, you talked about a German formation. In actual fact I stated this Ottopac case or the case that happened in Northern Greece where a village was burned, but I will not say that there weren't individual cases in the area where those or that incident happened. They did such enormous things on their own that the individual soldier and the troop leader couldn't do anything else and shouldn't have done anything else.
Q You are in effect repeating your previous answer that you know of no reprehensible acts which could really be charged against an army unit.
A I repeat that at this moment I really don't know anything of that sort. I am prepared to give you an answer if you cite an actual incident that occurred.
Q Now why didn't you mention in your affidavit here about the atrocity which was committed by the SS that you are now talking about?
A I beg your pardon. I did mention that in an affidavit for Field Marshal von Weichs.
Q Why didn't you mention it in your affidavit for General Foertsch?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: I object to the question and to the preceding one, if the Tribunal please, Nothing of this sort is contained in the affidavit which the affiant executed for General Foertsch. Therefore, it cannot be made a subject of cross examination. The witness should not be asked about incidents about which he does not say anything in his affidavit; that he did not mention any such incidents in that affidavit since he was not asked about them is only a matter of course. It seems to me that the Prosecutor is trying now to make this witness under cross examination his own witness, but that is not the idea of cross examination. He should ask him concerning facts stated in the affidavit.
He can attack him if he says certain things in the affidavit, for instance, that the partisans committed cruelties, but he should not try to get out of him what atrocities might have been committed by Germans and then approach him with the fact that he did not state that in the affidavit.
JUDGE BURKE: Your objection is that it is not proper cross examination?
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Yes.
JUDGE BURKE: The objection will be overruled. At this time we will take our recess until one-thirty.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1330.
(The Tribunal recess until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 16 January 1948)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Mr. Fenstermacher, at the opening of the morning session, Mr. Rapp made inquiry about certain photostat copies of documents. Do you know whether that matter has been disposed of or not?
MR. RAPP: If your Honor please, this inquiry was solely directed toward defense counsel.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Yes, that is what I mean.
MR. RAPP: And we are arranging it amongst ourselves.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very good.
The other matter was the determination of Dr. Laternser as to whether or not the order of the Tribunal covered the item which you had in mind.
DR. LATERNSER: If it please the Tribunal, meanwhile I have studied the ruling of the Court, as the Court had announced at the beginning of the afternoon session of 14 August. In this order, I am quoting a short part. The Court ordered:
"The Tribunal rules, therefore, that the war diaries, documents, and other papers, from whatever documentary evidence is preferred as evidence by the Prosecution, are to be made available to the Defense."
This is followed by an enumeration of the possibilities under which the Prosecution could effect the presentation of these documents.
I should now like to draw the attention of the Court -- I shall be brief -- to the Prosecution Exhibit 42 contained in Document Book II on page 23. If you will turn to the last page of this document, you will see that it is that copy of the original which was distributed to the war diary, AOK 42. When I looked it up I doubted whether the war diary was extant or not yesterday, after Exhibit 664 had also extracted from the war diary, been submitted, I now think that I can maintain with a fair degree of certainty that this war diary exists and had not been made available although the Exhibit 42 had obviously been extracted from the war diary.
We are then in the position that this material is fragmentary and that the Prosecution, in my view, ought to decide to withdraw Exhibit 664; if they do not, I shall move that it be stricken because, according to the ruling of the Court, they were obliged to make available this material to the Defense.
That is all I should like to say on this topic.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors, I believe Dr. Laternser is still misunderstanding the order of the Tribunal. He seems to believe that because the initials "KTB" are on two of the complete documents -- not excerpts, but complete documents which the Prosecution introduced --, that, therefore, the Prosecution has in its possession the entire War Diary.
We never offered any excerpts from the war diary of the 23rd Army during the time it was under the command of Dr. Laternser's client. If we had he would have been entitled to ask us to produce the entire war diary and we would have done so. I think the very fact that we didn't introduce excerpts from every other war diary, would in itself almost convince everyone, I believe, that the war diary was never captured.
Dr. Laternser's argument seems to be akin to this: that if I have a spoon with the initials "GH" on it, I must, therefore, have in my possession all of the silverware of the Grand Hotel.
I submit he is still misunderstanding the order of the Court.
DR. LATERNSER: If it please the Tribunal, may I reply to this? I base my statements on the text of the Court order which explicitly states that such war diaries, documents and other documentary evidence from whatever documentary sources whatever they may have been excerpted and proferred by the Prosecution ought to have been made available to the Defense. I do not maintain that the Prosecution possesses these documents in Nurnberg, but I do contend that they are in Washington. How else could these Exhibits 42 and 664 belong to the war diary unless the war diary were not available?
I was still in doubt regarding Exhibit 42; but now, since recently a new exhibit has been offered and I am unable to clarify the context of this exhibit, I do maintain that this War Diary is extant.
It may be a chance if it happened only once but if the same thing occurs twice it is very improbable that it was merely a matter of chance.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Exhibit 42 which Dr. Laternser is referring to, is, coincidentally enough, the List order of 5 September 1941. It is introduced here in its entirety -- no excerpts -- and I assume when Dr. Laternser says it is from the war diary he means the initials "KTB" are somewhere in the corner. That does not appear on the translation; but accepting for the purposes of argument in Dr. Laternser's assertion, I think that what I previously said covers the point.
I can well understand his concern over the introduction of these two documents, the List order of 5 September and the List order of 30 October 1941. I don't see any cause for this outburst simply because we have not offered evidence in its entirety.
DR. LATERNSER: If it please the Tribunal, I am not saying that it is merely a fragmentary document. The document in itself is self-contained but if you see that there are six copies and that it is a sixth copy and if you refer to the distribution list, you will see that the sixth copy was sent to the war diary, it must then originate from the War Diary. Therefore, Prosecution is bound by order of the Court to produce the war diary here.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I think it should be borne in mind here we are dealing with a case of captured documents. In view of the fact that there are initials on certain of these documents, there are no indications the entire diary was captured. These particular copies may never have reached the war diary itself. They may have gotten mixed up with some other files, with the files of the Commander-in-Chief, in the files of the Armed Forces Commander Southeast, which was the simultaneous office of the 12th Army at that time.
We introduced excerpts from the 12th Army files, I believe, during 1942, and the war diary of the 12th Army, as I recall, from July to December 1942, was sent here because we had introduced excerpts involving the months March and April 1942.
Now, if we did that, it shows that Washington was complying with the Court's order and it certainly can be assumed that Washington was complying with the Court Order with respect to any earlier date.
DR. LATERNSER: If it please the Tribunal, may I also comment on this statement? This, of course, is a pure conjecture if the Prosecution states that these two orders which he refers to may possibly have become mixed up with other files. That is something extraordinary. I refer to the usual routine and in normal routine the document does not in fact reach the agency to which it is channeled.
The Prosecution pleads that something out of the ordinary took place. May I point out that the activity reports of the Armed Forces Commander Southeast for 1942 did arrive -- that is for the period in which Field Marshal List had already left the Balkan area; but I keep on returning to my opinion that if two documents from the same period from the war diary are available then the war diary is also extant and, unless that is clarified, then I am entitled to move that the document be stricken as the Prosecution would expect the Court to decide on evidentiary material which is only available in part.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Since the matter appears to be one involving some dispute, the Tribunal will take the matter under consideration and make a finding at the opening of the afternoon session at three-fifteen.
You may proceed.
FRANZ von HARLING - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q. Colonel, just prior to the noon recess we were discussing your affidavit on behalf of General Foertsch in which you discussed certain atrocities which were committed by the partisans. I then asked you whether you recall any atrocities committed on the German side and you mentioned an SS atrocity and I believe I asked you then why you didn't mention that particular atrocity in the course of writing your ten page affidavit. Could you answer my question now?
A. I have not included it in my affidavit because I did not remember it. The cases mentioned in the affidavit were very clear in my memory because they were discussed in the Oberkommando and the Commander-in-Chief Fiezhar von Weichs had ordered an investigation and punishment of the guilty.
Q. You just don't happen to have a very good memory for the atrocities committed by the Germans, isn't that correct, Colonel?
A. I would probably remember it if I had myself been on the spot and had witnessed all these incidents and events with the divisons and battalions. I have gone through a good many things in those years but I do not remember any definite excesses -- only the three cases mentioned in my affidavit.
Q. Well, now, you were down there for a long time and you saw all the reports and attended a lot of conferences and, as a matter of fact, you say in your affidavit on behalf of Geitner something to this effect. This is on page 16 of Geitner Book III, Document Book No. 57, Exhibit 43, paragraph "a". You talked about ideological and political antagonisms and then you say:
"According to my indubitably very detailed knowledge of conditions in the Balkans."
Aren't you holding yourself out as something of an expert on what was happening while you were down there.
A. I would like to say in connection with this that by virtue of my activity in the Oberkommando Southeast I probably had a very thorough knowledge of the ideological conflicts which I referred to, particularly because through my liaison officer with the Foreign Office I had a certain contact with the German envoy whom I met also on offical business from time to time. To be added to this is the fact that I also endeavored to establish contact with the enemy; that is, the partisans. I have personally met some partisan leaders under General Mihajlovic and I also had connections with Tito via individual gentlemen. May I remind you in this connection of the prisoner exchange point which we had arranged for acting against orders so that we received our prisoners back from Tito.
Q. I think you have mentioned all that in your affidavit. We don't have to go over it again. Let me just ask you this.
You recall the Commando Order, don't you?
A. Certainly.
Q. Do you remember its being carried out in the Southeast?
A. I do not recall one case in which it was enforced but I do recall several cases where we quite clearly contravened the Fuehrer Order. I remember Brigadier Davis, Captain Hopkins and other cases. In one case we arranged for a surgical operation, in another we dispatched a prisoner by special plane from his place near Athens to Belgrade and I also recall in this connection that -- and I remind you that certain of my chiefs asked for a surgeon in order to have a member of the British Commando forces operated on so as to save his life.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH (Counsel for defendant Foertsch):
I object to the questions in connection with the Commando Order. I expect further questions in connection with it will be forthcoming. This is a cross examination. The Commando Order is a very special subject. It is not mentioned at all in the affidavits submitted by the defense on behalf of the defendant Foertsch.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection will be overruled.
Q. Colonel, I wonder, would you take a look at this document. This is NOKW - 1496 which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 668. Colonel, this apparently refers to a telephone conversation which you had with the Wehrmacht Fuhrung Staff in Berlin on or about 16 July 1942 regarding the treatment of seven Englishmen in connection with captured bandits in the Balkans and it is in reference to the treatment of seven Englishmen captured as bandits, whether they are to be treated as commando members or transferred to the SD, and in the second paragraph there is some reference to the commander-in-chief Southeast regarding that the SD does not follow the Commando Order.
What is this all about, if this refreshes your recollection?
A. The word "Brac" does recall things to my mind; as far as I recall -- I am almost certain -- it refers to the case "Churchill". Churchill was at the time leader of a commando on the Island Brae. I remember that at the time he attacked with drawn sword and bagpipes Churchill was at the time to have been interrogated by the Ic of the 2nd Panzer in the area. He was transferred from Brac, from the island Brac, to the area of the army headquarters as far as I recall. Then, contrary to our special washes, i.e., the wishes of the commander-inchief Southeast, and in spite of our efforts, Colonel Susskind-Schisendy of the office in the OKW, he was taken away by plane of the Reichfuehrer SS and was put somewhere in Northern Germany. The ordnance officer of the Ic of the 2nd Armored Army, upon the wishes of the Army Group, went to Northern Germany in order to talk to Churchill at his new location. It was our right as Ic's because we wanted to know what he knew about the enemy.
He was then accommodated in a very well furnished private house so there was no special treatment inflicted upon him by the SD, but he was transferred directly. Whether that had certain foreign political reasons I don't know, nor what other reasons there may have been for this.
Q. You say then that the troops involved here are troops of the Second Panzer Army?
A. I said that the Brac incident happened within the area of the Second Panzer Army. Brac belonged to the command of the Second Panzer Army.
Q. And then when you say in the -- when it said here in the second line, "Commander-in-Chief South East does not know whether the troops have treated the seven Englishmen," the troops there are the Second Panzer Army troops, isn't that correct?
A. Certainly, that probably does refer to the seven Englishmen in Brac. No, I beg your pardon, they were not together with bandits. That was an attack by a British Commando.
Q. Then when it refers here to the treatment of the seven Englishmen which is being given the Englishmen by troops, who does the word "troops" refer to? Which troops?
A. Well, that can only refer to army formations.
Q. And now, Colonel, didn't you just say that the Island of Brac was in the area of the Second Panzer Army? Isn't it quite clear from the context that the troops involved are the troops of the Second Panzer Army?
A. They ought to have been, according to the text.
Q. Now, Colonel, when it says here "treating the Englishmen as Commando members or transferring them to the SD," what does that mean? What kind of treatment would they have been given as Commando members?
A. If they had been transferred to the SD, then they received a treatment, either such treatment as was accorded to Churchill -- that they were treated well for political reasons like Churchill -- or the very contrary. I have never been present myself but "Special Treatment" usually meant liquidation.
Q. When it talks about treating as Commando members, that clearly means treating them "Sonderbehandlung" with special treatment depradaling them.
That is correct?
A. They had to be treated by the SD on the basis of the Fuehrer Order, but you couldn't say that the troops effected it. In cases where we heard about such cases or witnessed them ourselves, at least as far as I know, these orders were not carried out.
Q. Now, Colonel, we are getting a little confused here. If you will read the document again, it says "Have treated the seven Englishmen captured with bandits as Commando members or transferred them to the SD." Now that clearly implies two different types of treatment, doesn't it? The first type is treating them as Commando members, and I take it that means in accordance with the Commando Order. And the second type is transferring them to the SD. Do you follow?
A. Yes, I can, but the SD certainly had the same orders as we had at the time.
Q. Well now, if the Englishmen were transferred to the SD, they would be given special treatment, wouldn't they -- the Englishmen?
A. I would assume that happened but I don't know. I know of one case in which the SD also refused to do it -- to carry out the order, that was very interesting -- it seems as if from some high authorities some instructions had been sent to the SD to restrain them.
Q. Now, Colonel, look down below there where it says "Commanderin-Chief Southeast further reports that the SD does not follow the Commando Order." What did he mean by that -- that the SD was not liquidating the Kommandos in accordance with the order.
A. Well, that would have been the same case or a similar case in which we ascertained, I think it was somebody in Belgrade as far as I recall, we had talked with the SD, who said at the time that they would not inflict special treatment on these people, although that was prescribed by the original order.
Q. Now let's get the theory of the thing straight first, Colonel, before we go into what you say actually happened.