THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. TIPP: If your Honors please, I object against the introduction of this document, it is outside of the scope of the affidavit. The affidavit executed by General Reinhardt refers to General von Leyser and his division, that is General von Leyser's division and it however does not refer to the whole of the 41st Corps.
MR. FULKERSON: In the first place, I have not sought to introduce it and in the second place the witness just testified about his Corps and this does not pertain to a Corps.
JUDGE BURKE: You want to offer the exhibit in evidence?
MR. FULKERSON: No sir, I have no intention of offering it in evidence. I just wanted to ask the witness some questions about it.
THE WITNESS: This document is used in the indictment against me as evidence.
JUDGE BURKE: You will not therefore be required to answer any questions concerning it that may serve to incriminate you.
THE WITNESS: I believe this document has no connection whatsoever with the affidavit which I executed.
JUDGE BURKE: The answer -- I did not hear the answer please?
THE WITNESS: I believe this document has no connection whatever with the affidavit, which I executed for General von Leyser.
MR. FULKERSON: Now by that do I understand you to mean that you are refusing to comment on this on the grounds of self-incrimination?
THE WITNESS: It is a piece of evidence of the prosecution against me, against my person. The answer to this piece of evidence I shall give as a defendant in my own trial.
MR. FULKERSON: That is all I am trying to get at, General. Are you refusing to discuss this document because you are relying on your right not to incriminate yourself, because your answers so far have certainly not been responsive to my original question.
JUDGE BURKE: We will take the first answer first. Are you declining to answer the question with respect to this document because of the fact that it might serve to incriminate you?
THE WITNESS: I don't know how my testimony here might be used by the prosecution against me.
JUDGE BURKE: And you therefore choose not to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate you in your proceedings?
THE WITNESS: I am afraid of that.
MR. FULKERSON: Well, General, perhaps we can save some time here. That would also be your attitude on any other specific matters which I might ask you, which had to do with the carrying out of the Commissar order by your corps; is that not true?
THE WITNESS: I don't know how my answers here are to be brought into an immediate connection with the affidavit which I executed.
MR. FULKERSON: Well, would you just answer my last question, General?
THE WITNESS: May I have that question again please?
(The interpreter repeated the question in German.)
DR. TIPP: If your Honors please, I object to this question, it is so generally put that the witness cannot possibly answer it in this form. In my opinion every individual question can be decided by the witness whether he wants to answer it or not. I don't believe the question in this general form is admissible.
MR. FULKERSON: General, I have given you one document, which I ask you to comment upon as bearing on the question of the execution of the Commissar order by your Corps, Now you refuse to comment on the document because you said that what you might have to say here would possibly incriminate you in your own case. I now ask you whether if I submit similar documents to you, will your attitude toward them be the same; that is all?
JUDGE BURKE: I think that is rather a general question. Mr. Fulkerson. It is rather difficult to establish in advance the possibility of what might or what might not be considered as incriminating, as an answer incriminating to him. This man is here in this Court without counsel, it has been pointed out that he need not testify on any matters which might be incriminating. He cannot say in advance and wholesale of what could or what might incriminate him. If he had all that in mind which might incriminate him he would be an excellent lawyer. If you wish to ask some questions that might incriminate him, then you can save time by not asking those questions.
MR. FULKERSON: Very well, your Honor, I have no further questions.
JUDGE BURKE: Are there any further questions by defense counsel?
DR. TIPP: I have no further questions.
JUDGE BURKE: Are there any questions on the part of the Tribunal. The witness may be excused.
MR. FULKERSON: I would like to make a motion at this time that your Honors please strike this affidavit, you can of course reserve the ruling on the question later, but it is perfectly apparent that what we have here is a document which is absolutely self serving and about which the prosecutor is unable to ask the affiant anything without running head on into the self-incriminating rule.
JUDGE BURKE: What is your motion with respect to the affidavit?
MR. FULKERSON: Your Honor, the motion is that it be stricken from the record, if Your Honor please.
JUDGE BURKE: Just a moment, Mr. Rapp.
DR. TIPP: If your Honors please, I would like to comment on the motion. The prosecution moves this affidavit be stricken, I don't know why because in this affidavit it did not matter what General Reinhardt did or said, at least as far as the documents are concerned which the prosecution wanted to show the witness. The point of the affidavit was what General Reinhardt told General von Leyser before the commitment in the theater of war, that was the subject of the affidavit and concerning that particular point General Reinhardt has so far not been questioned by the Prosecution.
If the prosecutor on his own account waives the further questioning of the witness without even touching the individual subject of the affidavit, I cannot see how the affidavit loses any probative value, therefore, if your Honors please, I object to the motion that this document be stricken.
JUDGE BURKE: It is the feeling of the Tribunal that the motion should be granted and it is hereby granted and the exhibit is stricken from the record.
Mr. Rapp.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, in reference to the Hoth affidavit given for General Felmy, defense exhibit 1, document 22.
JUDGE BURKE: The witness may be excused.
(The witness is excused.)
MR. RAPP: I hereby move that the motion made on behalf of the defendant Felmy be also stricken for similar reasons.
JUDGE BURKE: The motion will be granted for similar reasons.
You may proceed.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW (Counsel for Defendant Felmy): If your Honors please, I object to the motion. It has already been sustained or overruled? I am sorry I didn't hear the ruling, your Honors.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: It was granted. The Tribunal had discussed the matter and has decided that was the proper course in view of the attitude of the witnesses, an attitude which they had a perfect right to assume.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors, I am now prepared to cross examine the affiant, Walter Warlimont.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: According to the Marshal, it will be about three minutes before he arrives and, while the spectators and others may remain in their seats, there will be a short intermission of three minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH (Counsel for the defendant Foertsch): May it please the Tribunal, as Exhibit No. 12 and Exhibit No. 30, I had submitted two affidavits by General Warlimont who is now on the stand. I did this in the case of the defense of General Foertsch. After seeing the course of the cross examination of the other witnesses took who are also under indictment in Case 12, I withdraw both those affidavits and allow them to be stricken from the record since it has been established that the Prosecution conducts their cross examination, in my opinion, in such a way as to exceed the scope of cross examination and is going to put questions to this witness which he cannot answer in view of his status as defendant of Case 12. I withdraw the two affidavits.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Are there other affidavits on behalf of other defendants given by General Warlimont?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors, yes, there were similar affidavits given by General Warlimont on behalf of defendant Kuntze. If your Honors please. My records--I think Dr. Menzel may be correct. You have them in your document book, Dr. Menzel, but you did not finally offer them. Is that correct?
DR. MENZEL (Counsel for defendant Kuntze): If your Honors please, the affidavits given by General Warlimont which were contained in my document book have not been offered by me and they have no exhibit number. They have no exhibit number.
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for defendant Dehner): May it please the Tribunal, I had submitted an affidavit by General Warlimont, Dehner Document No. 42. It was given Dehner exhibit number 37. I withdraw this affidavit for similar reasons as those stated by my colleagues, Dr. Rauschenbach.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Are there other affidavits on behalf of other defendants known to defense counsel who are present?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I believe that takes care of the matter, your Honor, and there will be nothing to cross examine about.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Quite right. The witness will be excused.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I have not yet been informed, your Honor, officially, just which of the other affiants which the prosecution has requested to be brought to Nurnberg for cross examination have so far arrived. I am told unofficially that six of them are here and that they would be available for cross examination on Monday.
If your Honor has no objection, I wonder if we could adjourn somewhat early today and take up the matter of cross examining the affiants who are in Nurnberg on Monday.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Even if we adjourn now we won't be adjourning very early.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I know that your Honor always likes to continue until the very last minute.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The Tribunal will stand adjourned without further comment until nine-thirty Monday morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 19 January 1948).
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal V in the matter of the United States of America against Wilhelm List et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on the 19th of January 1948, 0930, Judge Wennerstrum presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal V. Military Tribunal V is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Marshal, you will ascertain as to whether or not all the defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the courtroom.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: The prosecution is prepared at this time to cross examine the defense affiant August Winter.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will bring this affiant before the Tribunal.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: The Prosecution would also like to announce at this time that it will recall, as a rebuttal witness, Nikolaus von Falkenhorst, as a rebuttal witness against the defendant Rendulic, with respect to events in Norway.
AUGUST WINTER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will raise his right hand and be sworn. 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.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution just announced that its further rebuttal witness will be General von Falkenhorst. The Prosecution has so far not announced concerning what topic and against which of the defendants this further witness is to be examined. At this moment we heard of this examination for the first time, after the Prose cution some days ago stated that the four witnesses already announced would be the only rebuttal witnesses.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honors please, I think several days ago the Prosecution announced that it would call four rebuttal witnesses and that we reserved the right to announce the calling of additional witnesses except that we would comply with the twenty-four hour rule with respect to notice. We shall not call von Falkenhorst prior to tomorrow morning at this time so that the defense has twenty-four hours' notice. I believe I stated a few minutes ago that von Falkenhorst would be heard against the defendant Rendulic with respect to events in Norway.
DR. FRITSCH: If Your Honors please, like my colleague Dr. Laternser, I had not heard the announcement against whom this new rebuttal witness is to be examined. I object to the production of new rebuttal witnesses. To avoid repetitions, I would like to refer to the statements made by my colleague, Dr. Laternser. The Prosecution, when making a statement concerning its rebuttal, named a number of witnesses and at the same time stated that these four witnesses, I believe, were the only ones and that there wouldn't be any further rebuttal witnesses. Therefore I object to the introduction of new rebuttal witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems that as long as the rules are complied with and there is not any unnecessary repetition, there should be no adverse ruling on the part of the Tribunal in connection with this application. The rules are being complied with and the objection as made by Defense Counsel will be overruled.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:Q.- Your name is August Winter?
A.- Yes.
Q.- What was your last rank in the German Army?
A.- My last rank was General of the Mountain Troops.
Q.- You were, I believe General Winter, from August 1943 until the middle of March 1944, Chief of Staff of Army Group E?
A.- Yes, that is correct and towards the end of August 1943 I took over that office. I believe it was the 26th or 27th of August.
Q.- You took over that position from General Foertsch, I believe.
A.- Yes.
Q.- Then in March 1944 you relieved General Foertsch as Chief of Staff of Army Group F; am I correct in that?
A.- Yes, that is correct.
Q.- Do you recall giving affidavits on behalf of certain of the defendants in this case?
A.- I executed several affidavits for some of the defendants. That is right.
Q.- Do you recall how many affidavits you gave and for what defendants?
A.- I cannot remember the exact number. To the best of my recollection I executed affidavits for Field Marshal von Weichs, General Felmy, General Lanz, and General Speidel.
Q.- Do you recall the affidavit which you gave, General Winter, on behalf of General Speidel? It was executed by you at Neustadt on September 20, 1947, end was in Speidel Document Book I, on page 11, and it is titled Exhibit No. 40.
A.- I remember one affidavit that I executed for General Speidel. The book of documents of course I do not know. I never saw it.
Q.- What troops did General Speidel have under him in Greece, General Winter?
A.- General Speidel, concerning troops in the operational or technical meaning of the word, for the defense of the country, he did not have any such troops at all. As military commander, he merely had security troops, indigenous police troops, and there was a restricted number of those. I would have to comment on that and for some time he had indivi dual security battalions under him.
Q.- General Speidel had police troops under him?
A.- De jure he had police troops subordinate to him. Between General Speidel and these police troops there was the Higher SS and Police Leader interpolated. That is to the best of my information.
Q.- Now, you said in your affidavit in behalf of General Speidel that the Higher SS and Police Leaders for Greece were subordinate to the military commander Greece by assignment and personally. What did you mean by that?
A.- If I remember correctly, the words I put it in were "He was personally," that is, he was subordinate to him concerning his own person. That is a formulation which was used in the service regulations for the Higher SS and Police Leaders, as far as I know them, at the time.
Q.- What does "personal subordination" mean, General Winter?
A.- That is a conception of which I will have to tell the Tribunal that it was never quite clearly clarified. The subordination was a tactical one which however was however restricted by the fact that the Higher SS and Police Leader concerning the whole police sector received his directives directly from the Reichsfuehrer SS. Therefore what is supposed to be meant by a personal subordination in the legal meaning of the word I have during the time I was chief of staff in the Sputheast never been able to clarify certainly neither in Greece nor in any of the other areas. Even today I am not quite clear what it means.
Q.- What was the basis for your information then, when you wrote in your affidavit that General Schimana was subordinate by assignment and personally to General Speidel as military commander Greece?
A.- My information was my recollection of the service regulations (a) from the Military Commander Greece and, secondly, the service regulations of the Higher SS and Police Leader Greece, both of which were known to me in my capacity as Chief of Staff of Army Group.
In my affidavit, I stressed that I am citing the formulation of the service regulations from memory since of course I no longer have them. Furthermore I referred back to conversations with General Speidel during our joint terms of Office in Greece. That is from recollection.
Q.- What did you mean when you said that the Higher Police and SS Leader was subordinate to the Military Commander Greece by assignment?
A.- That means the following. The Military Commander Greece was, at least during certain periods of his activity and by virtue of his general service instructions, responsible for the security within the country. The commitment of troops, directly or indirectly subordinate to him by this I mean security troops amongst them police troops -- were ordered by him. In this capacity he gave operational and tactical orders to the Higher SS and Police Leader. For instance, he could order him that the focal point or the bulk of the police troops subordinate to him for security purposes was to be assigned to a certain railroad line or to a certain area. Here again, the execution of this order, the number of the troops or anything else which was to be ordered in this connection, was left in the hands of the Higher SS and Police Leader. That is what I mean by subordinate for assignment.
Q.- What reprisal ratios were used in the event that any police troops were killed by partisans or unknown perpetrators?
A.- From my recollection, I am not in a position to give any information concerning this point. I believe that during the period while I was chief of staff any instructions, any detailed instructions did not exist concerning this point. However, I do not know.
Q.- You don't remember anything about reprisal ratios, General Winter?
A.- No. Now, after the war, I learned several things about it and I read several things but I have to tell this Court that from my recollection of the time in the Balkans I cannot remember any such ratios.
Q.- Now, General, wasn't it your task to call together certain of the Chief of Staff of the units subordinate to Army Group E and instruct them regarding reprisal ratios?
A.- No that was not my task. Such informations, as a matter of prin ciple, if they were given at all -- which I do not know and which I do not remember -- they would originate with the Commander in Chief.
The calling together of chiefs within the Army Group E while I was Chief of Staff, referred purely to those tasks which the Supreme Commanded of Army Group E had to solve and that was the operational defense of Greece, toward an external or internal enemy, Police or reprisal matters were not concerned.
Q.- You never gave any reports concerning reprisal ratios?
A.- I assume that the Supreme Commander of Army Group will have passed on such reports if they received them from subordinate units. At the moment I cannot remember any such individual cases, but I assume that such reports were made.
Q.- Suppose you take a look at this document, General Winter. It is NOKW--839, It is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 671.
A.- I should like to ask the Court to give me some time to read this document, in case I am supposed to make any comments on it.
Q.- Would you look at the heading on the document, General Winter, and identify it? On the first page.
A.- Yes, it says it was the report which I had made concerning the general situation. However, without having examined the document in detail I cannot make any comments as to whether it was or whether what the document contains is in accordance with the heading. It has no signature, nor any certification notes.
Q.- What is the date?
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the witness should be given an opportunity to read it.
A.- At this point, I can make one statement, which I can gather from the text -- that it is undoubtedly the expose of an officer of the staff which neither according to its contents nor according to its form has any claim to be a document and does not contain my signature saying that I ap-
proved of that expose.
Q.- What is the date on the document, General Winter?
A.- I beg your pardon? 9 December 1943.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Would your Honors please note on your mimeographed copies the date "9 December 1943"? Unfortunately it was eliminated at the time it was translated. Would you let me know, General Winter, when you are ready to discuss the document with me?
DR. SAUTER: If it please the Tribunal, Dr. Sauter for the defendant Geitner. Perhaps I could use this interval in order to make a statement concerning this document so that there may be no misunderstanding. During this chief's conference, to which the document submitted refers, the defendant von Geitner was not present. Apparently the document refers -which, however, does not become apparent from the copy submitted, to a conference of the chiefs of the general staff of Army Group E. In this connection I would like to state that at that time von Geitner was not za member of that Army Group. In the copy submitted, the list of those present is not contained. In the photostat which has been submitted as an exhibit in evidence, the list of those present is contained and from this list I gather that the defendant von Geitner is not listed herein. Mr. Fenstermacher at this moment just had a look at it and I believe that he will confirm that what I said is correct.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I wonder if Dr. Sauter would stipulate that there is in fact a representative from the staff of the Military Commander Southeast present at the conference. I am willing to stipulate that from the list of persons present von Geitner was not present, if Dr. Sauter will stipulate what I just asked him to.
DR. SAUTER: With the permission of the Tribunal I would briefly like to ask the defendant von Geitner about this fact and then I am ready to give the information.
If the Tribunal please, in the list of those present, no member of the agency of the defendant von Geitner is listed whatsoever. Therefore, neither the defendant von Geitner was present nor was any other representative of his agency. The explanation for this is that concerning this particular matter he and his agency were not involved in it. I wanted to make the statement lest there be any misunderstanding.
BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q.- Are you ready now to discuss the document. General Winter?
A.- Yes, I am. This document, the documentary value of which I am in no position to recognize -- I have read the document to the extent that I am ready to discuss it now.
Q General Winter, isn't it true that on this date, 9 December 1943, you held a conference at which you made an address or delivered a lecture, and these are the notes which were taken of that conference?
A Yes, I assume that this is correct. I don't remember the date but I have no reason to doubt your statement.
Q Do you recall this conference?
A I recall it.
Q Now, would you look under Paragraph 3? it relates to reprisal measures.
A Paragraph 3?
Q Aid you talk there about a minimum ratio for shooting to death of hostages having become the maximum: "1 to 50 if they are dead, 1 to 10 if they are wounded." I thought you told me you didn't know anything about reprisal measures and reprisal ratios.
A I said that I didn't recall them. This document, if the notes are correct, proves that I knew about these things at the time and that I expressed the fact that I knew them -- that is an instruction of the gentlemen there at the time concerning the orders which were valid at the time.
Q You have rather a bad memory, don't you, General?
A I believe, Mr. Prosecutor, that it would be a phenomenal memory if after four years after the war one could still remember all those details of conferences or documents, I must state that such a good memory I do not have. I believe in the preliminary discussion I have proved that it is no bad intention on my part if there are gaps of memory.
Q Reprisal ratios were a rather important matter for you, weren't they, when you were Chief of Staff of Army Group E?
A I believe that the importance to me as Chief of Staff of Army Group E is being overestimated. As Chief of Staff of Army Group E, I would like to repeat again I had nothing to do either with the ordering or with the establishing of reprisal orders immediately.
If in this conference here I announced these measures, I fulfilled a duty which was to inform the officers present about everything that went on in the area where army troops were committed. Of course, within the scope of the extensive work of the Supreme Command which concerned a different sphere altogether, it was not my task as Chief of Staff to be particularly interested in reprisal measures which, after all, had been ordered from higher levels and were not due to an initiative of my own commander in chief.
Q You think this is the first time you were heard about a 50 to 1 ration, General?
A I cannot tell you that, Mr. Prosecutor. It is possible that I had heard about it before. That is even probable because I don't think it was on the 9th of December that I learned about those figures for the first time but I may again stress that the focal point of my statements was not the announcement of these reprisal measures as something new but it becomes evident from the whole of the question of reprisal measures the emphasis is put on the restrictions which I pointed out to the officers of the Staff who were present there. From the whole tendency of my then commander-in-chief and his staff, if I may mention, this fact becomes very evident.
Q You mention here -- you apparently mentioned during your conferences "unfortunately it is not feasible to behead everybody." Is that your attitude?
A I believe that again has to be read in the proper context. Of course, it was never my attitude that everybody should be beheaded. I believe from the text which I used, although again this is not the actual words which I used -- it is just an excerpt -- I still believe from this it is evident that such a thing was out of the question. I stated that one would have to look for other means to counter this danger in a reasonable way.
In this case I merely transmitted what my commander in chief wanted passed on concerning information concerning this particular fact.
Q You were just a messenger boy, weren't you, between your commander-in-chief and the army groups subordinate to Army Group E?
A Messenger boy is not quite enough. I transmitted the ideas of my commander in chief just as every chief of staff does; I believe that is the same in all armies. I myself had no jurisdiction over armies nor was I entitled to make any arrangements which deviated from those of my commander-in-chief. I merely had to transmit the orders and instructions of my commander-in-chief and that is the task of the chief of staff and I don't believe any chief of staff has any different task -- at least, I didn't in the German army.
Q General, you apparently mentioned during this conference that unless you got the really guilty and s topped burning down entirely innocent villages, the bands would increase in number. You meant by that, I take it, that reprisal measures were boomeranging -- they were making matters worse.
A That is what I meant. That was my contention which I stressed at all times and of which I informed all officers who worked in my staff.
Q You meant that reprisal measures were not a military necessity; they were, in fact, military suicide?
A I don't believe one can put it in this way. It was unfortunate that during that terrible war on all parts reprisal measures took place if one believed that one could not achieve one's purpose by other means, that the reprisal measures were only a last resort if one could not succeed in bringing the population in some other way to a peaceful attitude which would not impair the military operation. This fact, unfortunately, cannot be denied.
I have always regarded reprisal measures as a very last resort but without them one could not get along in this war, particularly in the specific conditions in the Balkans which I believe have been discussed before this Court.
This is my contention, even today.
Q You said during the conference that reprisal measures were increasing the number of bandits, as you called them.
A Reprisal measures which eventually lead to the fact that any country with the idea of vendetta has been a moving factor for centuries and is today reprisal measures only sponsor this idea of vendetta and are, therefore, wrong in their efforts because they only represented a chain without any end to it; but I can well imagine that in individual operations under certain circumstances reprisal measures were necessary because in any other way it was not possible to cope with the situation. If these reprisal measures hit only the guilty and in this way they were made to realize that only the guilty were being hit, then the danger I described only hit to the extent to which I mentioned it and you will realize that these necessary measures can be a deterring measure against new acts from the opposite side.
I believe, if I may summarize, that the problem of reprisal measures cannot be appraised and decided as a matter of principle but only in individual cases and pending the individual situation. I believe that was the case in all armies during this war.
Q You mentioned, General, that there were certain excesses on the part of even German troops in the Balkans. Suppose you tell us a few of those.
A I recall an incident in Greece, which took place in the area of Ottoc, where troop units of the forces SS Panzer Grenadier Division, undoubtedly were guilty of excesses. By heart I cannot remember the date of that event. It can, however, not be disputed that German troops were also guilty of excesses here and there. At no time, however, was this done on order or with the knowledge of their higher leader but I would assume that it was conditioned by the manner of the warfare and the provocation which existed.
Q The SS units were the bad boys of the German Wehrmacht, weren't they?
A Yes, in my opinion, they were.
Q And the strictly German army units always behaved themselves.
A Mr. Prosecutor, even today it is my contention that with the troop units of the German army, of course, also certain things occurred like they did in all armies, certain things which were not justified, but it is my contention that on the whole they upheld their honor. At this point, however, I have to state without wanting to decide questions of guilt that the measures which took place within the Waffen SS and which are connected with matters under discussion here were carried out not with the approval of the any commanders and they were at no time approved by the any commanders because they exceeded the scope of matters concerning the army. The army units could not call them to account because there was no jurisdiction by army commanders over the Waffen SS.