A. As a general rule, possibly, but I have to qualify this statement as far as the first time after defection of the Italian 11th Army from the Axis is concerned. At that time, the telephone not in Greece had not been built up on the part of the German side. There was a good telephone communication with Saloniki and Athens but the Epirus area could not be reached from us by telephone at all. It took quite some weeks until in the late fall of 1943 these lines had finally been completed.
Q. They mentioned the Italian surrender. How were the communications during that period? Were you able to communicate with Athens and Belgrade regarding the surrender of the Italians?
A. Yes. During that period of time, we had a connection with Belgrade and Athens.
Q. So the people at Army Group F were fully informed of the events that were transpiring within the area of Army Group F during that time?
A. Yes, Army Group F was currently informed.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: No further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further examination by defense counsel?
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q. Dr. Weisgerber for General Speidel. General, answering a question of the prosecutor during cross-examination, you stated that the Military Commander for Greece was responsible for the security within a country. The commitment of troops directly or indirectly subordinate to him was ordered by the Military Commander. Now, I would like to discuss with you the conditions which prevailed at the time from the beginning of the activities of the Military Commander for Greece. when was the agency of the Military Commander for Greece created?
A. It was established before I took over the office of Chief of Staff of Army Group E. Therefore, I cannot give you the date exactly. I believe it was in summer, July or August, 1943, but I am not competent to answer that question.
When I took over office towards the end of September, that agency was already in existence.
Q. At that time, was there already the Higher SS and Police Leader in Greece?
A. I believe I recall that the Higher SS and Police Leader Schimana, at least where his own person was concerned, arrived when I was already down there but I am not in a position to say that precisely under oath. I know that he made a visit when he arrived with my Commander in Chief in Saloniki which is a matter of courtesy and that took place at a time when I was already Chief of Staff, presumably at the beginning of September.
Q.- Did the Military Commander of Greece at that time have any security tasks?
A.- At that time, the Military Commander had the general task to secure law and order within the country. Whether he had any specifically formulated security tasks which exceeded the basic tasks as laid down by the service regulations, I am in no position to tell you from memory.
Q.- Perhaps you can then recollect if I ask you whether the Military Commander at that time -- that is in September-October 1943 -- had to look after the security of pass highways?
A.- Yes, I am inclined to assume that he had to. Police Regiment 19, for instance, which was his main security unit, which was indirectly subordinated to him -- that it, it was also under the Higher SS and Police Leader -- a position of subordination which I tried to explain previously -- this regiment had security tasks. How the Military Commander committed this regiment in actual fact at the time I don't know but I am very sure he committed it for the security of pass highways because these passes were important for the inner tactical situation. Without having an indication by way of a map, I am in no position to make these statements from recollection and to give any information as to how the security troops were distributed at the time.
Q.- General, concerning the Higher SS and Police Leader for Greece, at any time was a band combat area assigned to him?
A.- Yes, in an affidavit for General Speidel, I testified to that effect from recollection. I said that in the late fall 1943, for reasons which in this affidavit I stated in detail, the Higher SS and Police Leader was assigned a certain area -- I think it was Boeotia -- for security purposes in the interior of that area. The purpose was that the units subordinated to him be concentrated there and that there should be no overlapping concerning security of communication lines. By that I mean roads and railroads with the troops under the corps. At that time, we had to commit troops also because since the 11th Italian Army was no longer available for our purposes, there was a complete vacuum in Greece.
Therefore, it became necessary that we did not have the forces which we had at our disposal work so that they overlapped, but that instead we should separate those forces. Therefore, the Commander-in-Chief of Army Group E instructed the Military Commander that the Higher SS and Police Leader with his units, according to the immediate instructions of the army group, be assigned a certain area, and be there charged with the exclusive security in that area. There were no troops of the tactical units committed in those areas.
Q.- The band combat area Boeotia-was that area established by the Commander-in-Chief of Army Group E?
A.- Yes, it was established by the Commander-in-Chief of Army Group E.
Q.- Is it correct that the Military Commander to that extent then only played the part of a passing on command agency?
A.- Concerning that particular commitment, the Military Commander was only the agency which passed on orders. The Commander-in-Chief of Army Group E had instructed him that the Higher SS and Police Leader and forces which were also assigned be assigned to a certain area which was also previously ordered.
Q.- The Commander-in-Chief of Army Group E -- did he instruct the Higher SS and Police Leader for Greece concerning his antiband activities?
A.- No. There is always some talk here about band combat activities. The task of the Higher SS and Police Leader read, although of course I haven't got it available here --perhaps it, in actual fact, reads a little differently from the way I remember it -- the instruction read that he was to secure the area. Concerning security tasks, we had our basic instructions which had been supplemented by instructions from the Highest levels and therefore it was impossible to prescribe certain de tails as to how he was to carry out his tasks.
That was left to his own discretion within the scope of the task which he was given. I can well imagine that it was pointed out to him that the South-North railroad was of particular importance.
Q.- General, during cross-examination, you talked about the service instructions for the Higher SS and Police Leader?
A.- Yes, I did.
Q.- I'll have this instruction shown to you, General.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I object to this type of re-direct examination. Dr. Weisgerber has relied on his affidavits. He chose not to call this man as a witness on his own behalf. I submit that this is outside the scope of the cross-examination which went almost entirely to the credibility of this witness.
DR. WEISGERBER: I couldn't quite understand the translation of the last sentence.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: It was to the effect that the bulk of my cross examination went to the credibility of the witness and not to substantive matters brought out in the affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: The cross-examination and re-direct examination necessarily should be somewhat restricted. However, because of the extent to which the prosecution carried on its examination along certain lines, we will permit this question to be answered; but in permitting it to be answered, Dr. Weisgerber, it is no indication that we will not limit further matters which are not covered in the affidavit.
DR. WEISGERBER: If It please the Tribunal, in any case, I shall endeavor to be as brief as possible. I will now show to the witness his own affidavit executed 20 December 1947, which was starting point of the cross examination.
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q.- This is Speidel Exhibit No. 14 contained in Speidel Document Book I.
Witness, would you please read paragraph 4?
A.- I believe that is comparable with what I said just now.
Q.- My question was whether on the basis of cross-examination -- you see any cause to change anything in this affidavit?
A. -- No.
Q.- Therefore, it is correct that at a date late in 1943 the Higher SS and Police Leader in the area assigned to him by the Commander of Army Group E for security purposes took his measures on his own initiative and responsibility?
A.- The Higher SS and Police Leader in the area assigned to him for security purposes took measures which had to be taken on the basis of his tasks on his own responsibility to the extent as every troop leader of the same rank would have done it in his area and had to do it in his area.
Q.- General, through the assignment of an own security area to the Higher SS and Police Leader in Greece, was any change effected concerning the state which prevailed up to that time?
A change occurred inasmuch as the Military Commander of Greece, concerning the tactical security of communication lines outside of this particular security area, had no longer any responsibility because he had no longer any forces which he could assign outside of this area for the purpose mentioned.
Q.- Just before you said Military Commander for Greece was a command agency which passed on orders.
A.- Concerning this particular mission.
Q.- Yes, I see, this particular mission. In the service regulations for the Higher SS and Police leader, it is further provided that in the band combatting, according to directives of the Reich Fuehrer SS, he acted on his own responsibility. Is that fact known to you?
A.- Yes, I know that. That was contained in his service regulation.
Q.- Did the Military Commander for Greece -- and here I have to ask for your personal opinion -- have any responsibility whatsoever then?
A.- Counsel, you ask me a question which only an expert could answer. Since I am under oath here, I must stress that I don't think I am competent to answer that question. I was neither a member of the staff of the Military Commander nor was I ever interpolated in territorial tasks. If you ask me for my own personal opinion, I will have to state that, according to that passage which was contained in all service regulations -
MR. FENSTERMACHER: He said that he feels incompetent to answer the question, and now he appears to be going on to answer it.
DR. WEISGERBER: If the Tribunal please, I am of the opinion that the objection of the prosecution is to late.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: It certainly is not too late. The witness has not yet given his personal opinion. The first part of his answer he has given, and he made it quite clear that he was not competent to answer the second part. Now it is time enough to prevent him from doing so.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained. The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. WEISGERBER: Your Honor, I have no further questions.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: Dr. Mueller-Torgow for General Felmy. General, I only have one question to ask you because I don't know whether a misunderstanding occurred during the cross examination or not. You said that the so-called operation of Kalavritha was carried out by the 117th Infantry Division and this was reported via the Corps to the Army Group previously, is that what you said?
A Yes, I assume that with certainty.
Q What does an "Entsatz" operation mean? That is, a relief operation?
A I do not remember that I used this term "relief operation".
Q Well, it would be a kind of tactical operation.
A Yes, I probably called it a tactical operation.
Q Well, then, might I repeat briefly, that the tactical operation of Kalavritha was previously reported through the usual channels up to the Army Group?
A Yes, I assume that with certainty.
Q Therefore, you do not mean by this that the reprisal operation was previously reported to the division?
A No, sir. Certainly not.
Q I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there questions by other defense counsel? Are there any questions by members of the Tribunal? If not, the witness will be excused.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors will recall that last week the Prosecution offered as a rebuttal document an affidavit by Dr. Erich Lattmann; that document NOKW 2679 was offered and received into evidence as Exhibit 653. At that time I believe it was Dr. Laternser who asked that the affiant be brought to Nurnberg for cross examination. The affiant is now here and available to the defense to proceed with their cross examination.
DR. LATERNSER: I am afraid this is rather a surprise to me, Your Honor. I only should like to undertake the cross examination today after the noon recess.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honor please, if the man had been present on the witness stand, the defense would have had to go forward immediately. They are not entitled to any particular notice, but the man has come from the British Zone and he wants very much to go back there tonight.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, of course, I am ready to do this. I am only rather astonished at the position taken by the Prosecution, who, when I finished the cross examination of Field Marshal List, was of a different opinion, but I am ready to undertake the cross examination now.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: That was an entirely different case; in that case a document was put to the witness and offered and received in evidence which had not been translated in its entirety. That was an entirely different case.
DR. LATERNSER: Of course, it is always a different case. If the witness had been there, I would have cross examined him immediately, I just want to point out that one time the Prosecutor says one thing, and the next time he says another. I am quite ready, but before I do that I would like to make a motion. Unfortunately, I must again refer to Exhibit No. 664. This is a rebuttal document, the staff order dated the 30th of October, signed by Field Marshal List. Your Honor, I looked at this document again and I have discovered the following. At the top, on the right hand corner, you will find the words "KTB", that is "war diary". These are the initials for war diary, and I have already mentioned this, but in the left hand corner you will find page numbers -- page 32/5, and at the bottom you will find another number, page 17. If you turn over this photostat copy you will find on the back "Orig.", which I think stands for "Original", "18 pages", and underneath that another figure "16". Your Honor, the certificate was made in Nurnberg on the day the document was submitted and this gentleman who gave this certificate, who therefore must have had something in front of him so that he could make out the certificate - I must have this man as a witness here in order to find out what is the basis for this certificate. What was submitted to him, because I assume that lots of pages were submitted to him and I want to find out whether this is the war diary, which I was not allowed to see.
I consider this a fundamental question in this case.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Now, Your Honor, I submit this whole document has been entirely disposed of. Dr. Laternser made his objection last week; the affidavit was received into evidence, and the objection overruled. Now any questions regarding any numbers on the document, I submit, are entirely irrelevant. The document speaks for itself.
DR. LATERNSER: I haven't any answer to that at all.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire, Mr. Fenstermacher, if there are any other portions of this document?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Not to my knowledge, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have any knowledge -- I don't wish to question you or cross examine you. Do you have any knowledge of whether this is a part of some other document?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: My only knowledge in this respect, Your Honor, is this: that we get documents from time to time from Washington in great bulk. Some of them we use; some of them we discard. Now this particular one I have no personal knowledge about.
MR. RAPP: If Your Honors please, I possibly could also add to clear this up: Washington has for many months sent us documents, which we were interested in, and they have arbitrarily stapled them together. That is, when documents are sent over here either by pouch or via airmail, in order that the individual pages of these documents do not get lost, they are being stapled together; sometimes fifty or sixty pages, with a great, big staple put right through, or they are being bound with cord. In any event, when you open these documents they don't necessarily cover the same units or the same areas of any of the particular defendants here. They deal with the Southeastcase, of course, but if a document has a number on the back, number 17, we have to sign -- that is, I, for my person, have to sign that I have received documents containing sixty-three pages, and I have to send that to Washington with my name on it, and we have actually received sixty-three pages, but these sixty-three pages may be composed of twenty different items.
Some of them may be diaries, some of them may be daily reports. It may be any and all of that situation. I felt that also would be helpful if the court would know that.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honors, in reply to this, I would like to say that on the back of the photostat, which I pointed out to the Tribunal, "Orig.", in my opinion that is an abbreviation for "Original - 18 pages." That is the difficult situation in which we defense counsel are. We know that there is an enormous amount of material in the hands of the Prosecution, but we can't get hold of this material, and the situation is that the Prosecution only submit that which is of an incriminating nature, and in this connection we never find material which is of use for us because the defendants can not remember any in all this abundance of material.
DR. SAUTER(Counsel for defendants Lanz and von Geitner): Your Honor, the explanation which Mr. Rapp has given us is not at all satisfying, in my opinion. He told us that "we write to Washington for such and such documents and then we get the documents from Washington, packed somehow or other, and we sort them out, etc." But now the whole thing is like this, and this is the most important point. The Tribunal has ordered..... I said the situation is like this. The Tribunal ordered some time ago,that the War Diaries from Washington should come here. It was quite clear that the order of the Tribunal was that this material should come here. The Tribunal does not want part of the material and in this way it does not want to reach a false decision. As a result, therefore, we assumed that the material which was sent from Washington was complete and the prosecution must also have acted on this assumption because I assume quite definitely that the prosecution thought that all these War Diaries arrived. As a result, therefore, it is quite incredible that the prosecution writes to Washington - please send us the War Diary, let us say, for General Weichs, or some other defendant because they assumed, in the same way as the defense and in the same way as the Tribunal, that everything was sent. The defense counsel have only recently found out that in the meantime War Diaries must have arrived which, until now, have been kept a secret from the defense counsel, and we have only found out in this way because individual parts from these War Diaries have been submitted as incriminating material and also only parts of them, we have assumed obviously rightly, that in the meantime a large number of other War Diaries must have arrived with documents which certainly might be very valuable for defense counsel. This question really must be cleared up because this is demanded, in all fairness, and we must know whether the order of the Tribunal was actually carried out.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I believe there is one basic misconception in Dr. Sauter's mind. As far as I understood the Court's ruling, it pertains only to those parts of the War Diaries that we have used excerpts from. I did not understand the Court's ruling to mean that all the documents had to come to Nurnberg and that we had to stop getting documents from Washington.
We are daily getting documents from Washington. If the rebuttal would go on for another six weeks we probably would have many more documents. If those documents are excerpts we are not defying the Court's ruling; we of course submit to the defense the missing portions. If they are documents by themselves I do not think the defense is entitled to any consideration.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I maintain that the War Diary of the 12th Army or the Wehrmacht Commander Southeast is available and I maintain this assertion because otherwise it would not be possible for this Exhibit 664 to appear which consists of 18 pages, as can be seen from the note on the back of it; and I maintain that these pages came from the War Diary of the Wehrmacht Commander Southeast; and I further maintain, and I can prove it at once, that also, for instance, the order dated the 5th of September, Exhibit No. 42, came from the War Diary because it is the sixth copy and according to the distribution list the sixth copy went to the War Diary. I maintain that this War Diary has not been given to us although the prosecution, according to the ruling of the Tribunal, is obliged to do this.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, there is still a basic misconception regarding the Court's order and regarding this document. This document, Exhibit 664, is not an excerpt, and that being so, even if, assuming for the purpose of argument that there was a 12th Army War Diary, Dr. Laternser would have no right to it.
DR. LATERNSER: It is not a complete file here; on the back it states that the original consisted of 18 pages. Where are the other 17 pages? At the top, and it is exactly the same handwriting, KTB, and I assume it is the same handwriting, page 32/5. Where are the rest of the pages? I assert and maintain that this is the War Diary which has not been shown to us and this is the question which must be cleared up.
DR. FRITSCH(Counsel for defendant Rendulic): Your Honor, I myself wanted to refer to Exhibit No. 655, which was admitted here in cross examination later, when I had finished my investigation which I have already started, but since, in my opinion, it fits in here, I would like to state now what I think I have found out.
I wanted to ask for the submission of the War Diary for Panzer Army II, but in the meantime I have been told that the Washington documents....
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritsch, it seems to me we should dispose of one motion and one objection at a time or we will get a little involved here in our...rather, further involved in our rulings, perhaps.
DR. FRITSCH: But your Honor, I just thought that this matter, too, is an indication for the correctness of the statements of my colleague, Laternser. I can say what I want to say in two sentences: about the request for the submission of the War Diary of the Panzer Army II. This was not submitted in the cross examination. Submitted by the prosecution as Exhibit no. 655--at least a partial excerpt from it. It is Document NOKW-2632. Thus this War Diary, too, which I have not received, is in existence.
THE PRESIDENT: The order of the Tribunal relative to the production of certain documents pertained to those documents, a portion of which had been introduced into evidence by the prosecution. We take it, and we assume, that in requiring the remainder of the documents, a portion of which was introduced in evidence, that that order has been complied with. Now may I inquire, Dr. Laternser. as to whether this particular document to which you now make reference, could have been included in that order which we originally made? Was it a part of any other portion of the prosecution's documents ?
DR. LATERNSER: I think that it is included in it, for the following reason. I said that a part of the War Diary of the Wehrmacht Commander Southeast was submitted by the prosecution as Exhibit No. 42. When the War Diary of the Wehrmacht Commander Southeast was not included among the documents which came from Washington, I doubted its existence; but now the prosecution comes again, with Exhibit No. 664, and brings another part from this War Diary. I therefore state that at that time the prosecution should have told me; but now I assume with certainty that this War Diary must exist.
THE PRESIDENT: If there is a War Diary which you desired, you had a way and a means, through the rules, to obtain it by making application and apparently you did not avail yourself of that opportunity.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, in our first motion this War Diary was mentioned. I have just been told that. I could not state it with certainty before. But the obligation of the prosecution to submit the missing parts arose from the utilization of Exhibit No. 42 and it arose again from the utilization of this Exhibit No. 664. Even if I had not made the motion, the prosecution, according to the ruling of the Tribunal, because they used Exhibit 42, had to submit the whole thing because, as I have already stated, this was the sixth copy of the order dated the 5th of September and the sixth copy went to the War Diary. Therefore it was part of the War Diary.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, this all is about the same question which we went through many times - it is the mere fact that this page or, if you wish, 17 other pages which may have subsequently been produced, proof of the fact that the War Diary exists or not. That is really what it amounts to. Dr. Laternser can stand here for two hours and tell the Court that he, for himself deduces, on the basis of the existence of these pages, that the War Diary must exist. Maybe we have only captured individual pages. I still say that if it had been there, it would have been forwarded. So much for that. Now one other point which I think is really much more important.
JUDGE CARTER: Just a moment. Do I understand your statement to mean that you have no 12th Army War Diary here now? Is that correct?
MR. RAPP: To the best of my knowledge, that is correct, your Honor. And I also must assume that when we tell Washington to send them here, and enclose a Court Order, that they would use enough judgment to understand what a Court Order means.
Now the next point, which I think is important, is the following. These matters that we have introduced are not excerpts in themselves. I would like to explain what I mean and the way we understood the Court Order to read. This is a complete order. Nothing has been taken out of its context. It has a heading and it has a signature. It is a complete order. Now this order, according to Dr. Laternser's argumentation, was subsequently entered into the War Diary, or was made an exhibit of the War Diary, which Dr. Laternser then claims we have. Now, even for a moment assuming that we would have that diary, and that Dr. Laternser would have asked for it, and I have just been informed that he has not, then this order is a complete order, it is not an excerpt. Certainly it is an excerpt out of a certain file which it may never have reached -any order that has been used in this Court is an excerpt of the entire German Army. The point is where are we going to call a halt? We interpreted the word excerpt to mean when we haven used a portion of this war diary we were then obliged to give the rest of that war diary to defense counsel. First of all, we say it never reached the War Diary. It was earmarked for it. Dr. Laternser assumes it was part of it. We say we do not have the War Diary. Dr. Laternser says we got it. I say the order is complete. If it never had the word ETB on it it would have been an instrument in itself and Dr. Laternser would never have been able to raise the question.
DR. LATERNSER: With regard to this last point, your Honor.....
THE PRESIDENT: Somewhere along the way we will have to stop the argument, Dr. Laternser, and without being discourteous I would like to rule at this time, if I may. It seems that this is apparently a portion of several papers or documents that have been stapled together and is one page out of several pages. Whether they are of a kindred nature I do not know and the Tribunal does not know. It seems to me that they should be furnished to the defense counsel for such use ss they see fit. That is the ruling of the Tribunal.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I would just like to say one last thing. I have just seen on this copy which is at our disposal, "page 16 of the original" but this is not contained on the photostat copy. Perhaps I could show this to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has made its ruling and we are not disposed to open up this matter in connection with our original Washington order but it pertains only to this document offered and received in evidence and such kindred parts as the defense may wish to refer to and which will be considered in any later proceedings that nay be presented to the Tribunal.
MR. RAPP: Very well, your Honor.
Could the Marshal of the Court be instructed to call the witness, Lattmann?
ERICH LATTMANN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will rise 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.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. Witness, would you please state your full name?
A. My name is Lattmann.
Q. And your Christian name?
A. Erich.
Q. When were you born?
A. The 11th of December, 1894.
Q. Would you please take your headphones off? What is your profession?
A. I am a jurist.
Q. And what are you at the moment?
A. I am a judge of a local court.
Q. You gave an affidavit to the prosecution and I would like to show you a copy of this affidavit.
Did you make this affidavit for the prosecution on the 11th of December?
A. Yes.
Q. Where were you at that time?
A. I was in Nurnberg.
Q. And where did you live at that time?
A. I lived in the Muggenhoferstrasse.
Q. I mean where were you when you made the affidavit - where did you live in Nurnberg?
A. I lived in the Muggenhoferstrasse.
Q. You were no longer under arrest?
A. No.
Q. When were you released from arrest?
A. On the 9th of May 1947.
Q. And where were you?
A. In Dachau.
Q. From when until when were you in Dachau?
A. From the 8th of March until the 9th of May, 1947.
Q. From which 8th of March?
A. 1947.
Q. Well then, from the 8th of March 1947 until when?
A. In Dachau.
Q. Until when?
A. Until the 9th of May. Before then I was a prisoner of war.
Q. From when until when?
A. From the 2nd of May, 1945, until the 8th of March 1947.
Q. And where were you -- where was your prisoner-of-war camp?
A. Ausgburg, Seggenheim, Neu Ulm, Garmisch.
Q. You were released from being a prisoner of war without getting your freedom?
A. Yes.
Q. While you were in Dachau were you interrogated by the prosecution?
A. No. I did not know why I was there.
Q. Do you know of any reason why you were arrested, or why you were further interned?
A. No.
Q. And how long were you under arrest without knowing why?
A. The whole time, from the 8th of March.
Q. Please wait with your answer until the question has been translated. That is, when I have put the question, please make a little pause.
How long were you under arrest without knowing the reason for your arrest?
A. The whole time from the 8th of March until the 9th of May 1947?
Q. And then how was it that you were released?
A. Well, I was not told. One day I was just taken out of isolated custody and put into the main camp in Dachau.
Q. Were you also in solitary confinement during this time?
A. Yes, the whole time.
Q. What kind of solitary confinement was this?
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I object. This is entirely going outside the scope of the affidavit. I don't furthermore, think that Dr. Laternser is trying to lay a foundation. I think he ought to be confined to talking to the witness about the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Overruled.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. What kind of solitary confinement was this?
A. Well, I was alone in a cell.
Q. Even when you were a prisoner-of-war?
A. No. Only while I was in Dachau.
Q. And how long were you in solitary confinement?
A. 7½ weeks - that is, the whole time; and then the last few days when I was released from solitary confinement, I was in a large hut.
Q And do you know on whose instigation you were held under arrest after you had been released as a prisoner of war?
A Well, I only heard that my name was on the list of the Chief of Counsel.
Q What list do you mean by that, a list which is made here in Nurnberg?
A Yes.
Q And then you were released during the course of that, as you said in May, and then where did you go?
A I went to Hannoversch-Muendon.
Q And how did it happen that you were in Nurnberg on the 11th of December?
A One day I was called to the Public Safety office in Goettingen and he told me that I should make myself ready to go to Nurnberg because I was to be used as a witness in a trial which was *** in the process of being prepared.
Q Well, witness, when you heard about this did you have any misgivings that you might be arrested when you came to Nurnberg?
A No, not at all.
Q Well, you didn't hear anything about the fact that witnesses who came to Nurnberg were arrested?
A No, I knew nothing about that at all.
Q And then, when you arrived in Nurnberg with whom did you speak?
A I was interrogated by Mr. Fred Kauffmann.
Q And about what were you interrogated?
A On the first day I was interrogated about my knowledge of typical orders by Hitler which were contrary to International Law.
Q Were you told that the prosecution then needed an affidavit of the kind which you made later?
A No.