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.
Q Well, then how did this special affidavit arise?
A On the second day I was interrogated about a large number of individual questions; for instance, on the question of the Einsatz Commandos and the Einsatzgruppen, about my opinion on the shooting of hostages and within the xcope of these questions I was also asked about what I understood by shooting after sentence by summary court martial.
Q And when your statements had been heard you were then told that you had to make a special affidavit about this?
A No, I was interrogated again on a third day and all the interrogations were summarized by the interrogator and compiled into four affidavits.
Q Who compiled the affidavits you or the interrogator?
A No, the statements as such were compiled by the interrogator from the record of the interrogations.
Q And did he take into account then all the interrogations or did he only take excerpts and compile them?
A No, he made excerpts in which all the material was summarized in the other affidavits but in this affidavit he just took exactly the part which was contained in the record of my interrogations.
Q And were the affidavits dictated by you or were they just presented to you for signature when they were finished?
A No, the affidavits were submitted to me on the fourth day.
Q In a finished form?
A Yes, complete and I was told that I should read them through in peace and I had the possibility of altering them so that it was in line with my opinion and my views. I think in two of the affidavits I altered certain small details.
Q Would you please look at this affidavit?
A Yes. Well, at that time I was shown the German copy.
Q Isn't that the German? Oh, I am very sorry. I am very sorry. It is my mistake.
Witness, I don't want to trap you in anyway but do you remember making any kind of alteration in this affidavit?
A No, I made no alterations at all in this affidavit.
Q I expressly told you that I didn't want to trap you. Please look at the photostat copy.
A Oh, you mean "during the war" -- "during the Russian campaign." Yes, I altered that.
Q Well, then, first of all would you please read what you wrote first of all?
A "During the Russian campaign."
Q And then you altered that to -- Would you please read?
A "During the war."
Q Witness I am extremely interested -- and, please, would you check your memory very carefully -- on whose instigation this alteration was made.
A The alteration was made by me on my own initiative because during the original interrogation I stated quite generally what was meant by the term, "shot after sentence by summary court martial," When I was quite generally asked, "What do you mean by this?" The addition, "during the Russian campaign," was made by Mr. Kauffmann and when I was supposed to read it through I said to him, "That isn't correct. The opinion which you have set down here existed for me in the same way during the whole war at the beginning as well as at the time when during the war I was in the OKH"; and by the alteration, "during the war," I wanted to avoid the opinion arising here that during the Russian campaign there was a special idea of the concept.
Q Well, then, in other words, it wasn't you who set up the fundamental basis for this affidavit but the interrogator.
A No, the basis for this affidavit I see in the record of my interrogation.
Q But you have just said that the interrogator wrote it because it seemingly wasn't in the record of your interrogation, "during the Russian campaign."
A No, it isn't contained in the record. The addition, "during the Russian campaign," originates with the interrogator.
Q Now, Dr. Lattmann, in this affidavit you wrote, "during the war we in the OKH understood" -- this is Exhibit No. 653 -- "we in the OKH understood under the concept, "standrechtlich erschiessen," shot according to martial law, shot without any proceedings. Then that is, therefore, something different from the concept, "standrechtliche Erledigung." That is "elimination after summary court martial."
MR. RAPP: One second, your Honors please. I believe that Dr. Laternser did not give the witness the right citation. He read, "standrechtliche Erledigung." The affidavit says "standgerichtliche Erledigung"; so would you please correct that, Dr. Laternser?
DR. LATERNSER: In our copy it says, "after summary proceedings."
MR. RAPP: Dr. Laternser talked about "standrechtlich."
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honors, I am quite right because the copy given to us, compiled by the Prosecution, contains the words, "standrechtliche Erledigung." That is, "according to martial law".
MR. RAPP: I submit it is immaterial whether Dr. Laternser is might or not. I have just referred to the original and I have asked him to please read from the original to the witness. That is all I asked.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you should base your question on the original and not on any errors or possible errors of translation or transcript.
DR. LATERNSER: Well, then, I now quote to Dr. Lattmann from the original.
Q During the war we in the OKH understood under the concept, "shot according to martial law", liquidating a person without any sort of proceedings. That is, therefore, something different from the concept, If you say, "we in the OKH, who do you mean by that?
A One could also state this in the passive form, that in the OKH that was understood.
Q Well, what does that mean? Who in the OKH were you talking about then?
A I was talking about the quartermaster general and the commanderin-chief of the army because this question, "shot according to martial law", played some part in an order which the commander-in-chief of the army had issued during the Polish campaign and I only saw this order when it was already completed and there the term "standrechtlich erschiessen," "shot according to martial law" appeared and there it can be seen from the whole order that what was meant was that summary court martials should convene, and when I was asked about it, that is, if it could go out like that I said, this couldn't be because there would be terrific confusion if it were done; and then the Chief of Staff, of the Quartermaster General Colonel Wagner who was there at that time and we had a long argument and finally he realized that he was wrong.
DR. LATERNSER: I won't be very much longer, your Honors. I think the Tribunal would like to take the recess now.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take our noon recess at this time.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 19 January 1948.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. RAPP: With your Honors permission, I would like to make a short statement. I endeavored to immediately follow the Court's ruling prior to the recess to procure for the defense the missing pages of the document Dr. Laternser has put in issue before this Tribunal. I used my lunch time and I have now these documents before me.
Before I turn these documents over to Dr. Laternser, I would like, with the permission of the Court, to read the heading of these documents into the record so that the Court can decide for themselves whether or not they are documents arbitrarily stapled together in Washington and forwarded to this office or whether or not in themselves they constitute one document in which case we would have violated the Court's order.
The first page of this document is called, "Der Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres, Adjudantur". It won't be necessary, your Honors, that I cover the text because from the heading and in non-existance of the mysterious letters "KTB" of the originals it is apparent to the Court themselves that this is not one continuous document.
Page 2 of this original is called the "Wehrmacht-Befehlshaber", Sued-Ost." Page 3 of this original is a telegram signed by the Chief of Staff, 12th Army.
The fourth page of this original is a latter of the Chief of the Personnel Office in Berlin addressed to Field Marshal List: also the fifth page.
The sixth page is a daily order of the Armed Forces Commander Southeast, signed by the defendant Foertsch on the seventh page.
The eight page is a daily report covering the period from 1st of October to the 31st of October, also the ninth page, the tenth page and the eleventh page.
The twelfth page is a daily report of the division IIA covering the period of 1 July to 31 December 1941. The same holds true for the thirteenth page, the fourteenth page and the fifteenth page.
The sixteenth and seventeenth page, unless I am very mistaken, is the one we have submitted into evidence. Is that correct, Dr. Laternser?
The seventeenth and eighteenth page is a letter from Foertsch addressed to the "Chiefs of Staffs of the following staffs" and then it gives all the members.
I will now read the document which have the initials "KTB" on it.
Page 6 -- I will, of course, give these documents to Dr. Laternser for his examination and any other statements he may wish to make in rebuttal to what I have said now. That is obvious.
Just for the record, I forgot my last sentence so, if you don't mind, I would like to repeat it.
The initial "KTB" docs only appear on the sixth and seventh pages of this document and on the eighteenth and nineteenth pages of this document. I submit, your Honors, that this is not a document in itself but that this is a sheath of documents together by our Washington people, forwarded to Nuernberg from which we extracted page 16-not 17 as I had said previously in error--and introduced it in its entirety as a document by itself.
If Washington had attached 80 additional documents to this document, probably I would go on reading for another hour. I now hand these documents to Dr. Laternser for his examination.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, may I suggest that you examine them at some later time and that we proceed with the further crossexamination of the witness now before the Tribunal? You will be given sufficient opportunity to examine them.
ERICH LATTMANN - Resumed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION - (Continued.)
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q Dr. Lattmann, what position did you hold in the OKH?
A I was Chief of Group III; that is the Quartermaster General. That was at the beginning of the war. After the French campaign this group was taken out of the closer circle of the Quartermaster General and was subordinated to the up to then Quartermaster general. The new general for special projects with the OKH. That did not change my activities as such. I remained the legal advisor of the Quartermaster General and at the same time legal advisor of the commander in chief of the army for the sphere of work of the armies at the front.
Q I believe you will have to talk a little slower so that the interpretation can follow.
How long did you remain in the OKH?
A From the end of August 1939 I was in the OKH.
Q Until?
A Until 31 October 1942.
Q During this war were you actually with the troops?
A No.
Q Now, if the troops passed on a report to higher agencies to the effect that on a certain date shooting after summary court martial had taken place, can you in such a case exclude that there wasn't a court martial procedure after all?
AAs a rule that fact should be excluded but there is no rule without exception.
Q You say you weren't actually with the troops. Did you know then that the distinction which you make between a summary court martial and a court martial procedure was known to the troops. Can you make that statement since, after all, you said you weren't with the troops?
A In this war I wasn't with the troops.
Q We are only discussing this war now. I ask you: can you state under oath that with the troops was the difference between summary court martial and court martial procedure, was well known? Yes or no?
A That is quite a question on which I can give no opinion whatsoever because it depends upon the composition of the troops.
Q Just a minute, witness, we will approach it from a different angle. You said that during this war you weren't actually with the troops. That is correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, if a troop commander made a report concerning a shooting which took place after a court martial procedure and if he makes this report and states" so and so many persons have been shot according to summary court martial," then you can say -- since as you said you weren't with the troops -- that with the troops there was the difference of conception between a court martial procedure and a summary court martial and that this distinction was completely clear.
A I have never asserted any such thing.
Q You mean to say, then, that you don't know whether the difference between a court martial procedure and a summary court martial was actually sufficiently known with the troops?
A I don't know that.
Q Are you still, then, excluding the possibility, Dr. Lattmann, that if the troop report reads, "shot according to summary court martial," that a court martial trial didn't take place before that?
A I will have to ask you a counter question.
Q You will have to answer, my question Dr. Lattmann; we can't both ask questions. I ask you, can you exclude the possibility that, if a report reads, shot according to summary court martial," that a court martial procedure took place prior to the shooting?
A There is a possibility but not a likelihood.
Q. I asked you about the possibility, and you cannot exclude that?
A. No.
Q. You can't exclude that possibility?
A. No, I can't.
Q. Thank you, I have no further questions.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RAPP:
Q. Witness, quite briefly I would like to ask a few questions. Generally speaking, did the left hand in the OKH know what the right hand was doing?
DR. LATERNSER: I object to that question. That question is in no connection whatsoever with the cross-examination.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I think the connection will be quite obvious when I have asked the next question; I am not bound to phrase every question that Dr. Laternser immediately knows what I am driving at.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be overruled. However, may I suggest that we endeavor to limit it to matters contained in this document? You may proceed, though.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q. Witness, I shall withdraw that particular question and I ask you now if you in the OKH, where you carried out your work, received reports from the troops which dealt with such matters, as shooting according to summary court martials or shooting after summary court martial, were you personally ever in any doubt of what these things meant?
A. No, principally, I had no doubts.
Q. The explanation which you gave us here or rather the statement which you made on 11 December 1947 -- do you maintain that statement today?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. In every respect?
A. Yes.
MR. RAPP: I have no further questions.
FURTHER RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. Dr. Lattmann, you said just now that if you in the OKH received a report from the troops concerning a shooting after summary court martial you weren't in any doubt whatsoever that shooting took place without a court martial procedure. That was the answer which you gave Mr. Rapp, wasn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. If you didn't have any doubts in that respect, what did you do in such matters as legal adviser of the Quartermaster General in the OKH?
A. I never received any such reports.
Q. You are a legal man, aren't you?
A. Yes.
Q. You know that a witness is to testify as to facts?
A. Yes.
Q. Then why do you answer the question of the prosecutor where he asks you if you received a report in the OKH concerning shootings after summary court martials you never had any doubt what that actually meant?
A. If I had received it.
Q. I have no further questions to put to that witness.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Dr. Sauter (for the defendants Lanz and von Geitner): Witness, what were you before you came to the OKH; up to the year 1939, what was your civilian profession?
A. Since 1934, I am a member of the legal administration of the army.
Q. And what were you before 1934?
A. From 1927 to 1930 I studied law and from 1930 to 1933 I had legal training