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
Q. Until 1933, you were training for your legal career?
A. Yes.
Q. according to German concepts you were still in legal training then, that is correct, isn't it?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. And you were in training until 1933 and when did you come to the legal administration of the army?
A. On 1 March 1934.
Q. Until the date then when you were called into the legal office of the army, you were not a judge?
A. No, I wasn't.
Q. I see, and what was your rank as legal adviser of the Supreme Commander of the Army?
A. I was Judge advocate General, and since 1 May 1940 I was Military Judge, with the rank of a Colonel.
Q. As military judge, you held the rank of a Colonel then?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you be kind enough to look at your affidavit again, please?
A. Yes.
Q. I mean the affidavit which you executed on 11 December 1947. I believe that is the date. The first sentence reads: "During the war, we in the OKH understood by the term 'shot after summary court martial' to liquidate a person without any sort of proceedings."
Witness, I will have to ask you the following question again. Who do you mean by "we"? "We in the OKH ..."
A. They are those people who, due to their position, were entitled to comment officially on that question.
Q. Can you tell me who these people were, who these personalities were with whom you discussed the concept of "shot after summary court martial"?
A. That was the quartermaster General and the Supreme Commander of the Army.
Q. Who was the Quartermaster General?
A. That was at the time General Mueller.
Q. Quarter Master General Mueller, I see, and who was the Supreme Commander of the Army?
A. There was only one during the war and that was Fieldmarshal von Brauchitsch.
Q. You tell us, witness, that you never received reports from the troops which contained the fact that a certain number of people were shot after summary court martial.
A. No.
Q. You never received any such reports?
A. No.
Q. You can state that under oath?
A. Yes. I can do that because, according to paragraph 1, Section 4 of the German Military Penal Code, all matters had to be dealt with by court martial procedure. At that time, the intention was -- and that was during the time about which I can give an opinion -- that even where the usage of war permitted it, a man was not to be shot according to summary court martial without legal proceedings preceding that shooting. I recollect the case of the franc tireurs. In the actual code, there was a provision that franc tireurs are to be punished with a death sentence. According to the usages of war, it was not necessary but on the basis of the actual instructions, a court had to convene in order to sentence a franc tireur. According to the usages of war, it would have been admissible to shoot the franc tireur according summary court martial. That is paragraph 1, section 4 of the German Military Penal Code.
Q. There is that provided? Where can you find it, that according to the usages of war people can be summarily shot without a legal procedure? You just told us that according to the usages of war it would have been possible to shoot these people summarily without a legal proceeding.
A. I mean the franc tireurs.
Q. Well, the franc tireur is an example. Was there an agreement on that fact with the OKW and OKH?
A. I can't say anything about the OKW but in the OKH -- yes, there was an agreement. Only that in this war the special instruction excluded that fact. I myself reported orally to the Commander-in-Chief about this fact.
Q. What was the cause for you to discuss this question with Quartermaster General Mueller, and with the Commander-in-Chief of the Army Fieldmarshal von Brauchitsch?
A. During the first days of the war during the Polish campaign the Supreme Commander of the Army as holder of executive powers, issued an order according to which under certain conditions -- or shall we say better in the case of severe offenses of indigenous inhabitants-- summary court martials were to be convened which were to sentence these offenses. In this instruction, at the end, the term "summarily shot" or "shot according summary court martial," appeared. This instruction was composed without any previous knowledge on my part. That can be explained by the fast way in which events took place at the beginning of the war and the fact that the individual agencies were not quite adapted to their tasks yet. The Chief of Staff of the Quartermaster General, drew up that instruction and contrary to later usages he himself reported it orally to the Commander in Chief. He showed it to me and he asked me to co-sign the document after the then General von Brauchitsch had already signed the document. I refused to sign that instruction because I said that it was out of the question, that it could be issued with this version "shot according to summary court martial." Mainly, I said the instruction talked about court martials and about the appointment of courts martial and about the sentencing of severe offenses by courts martial. It would make a difference if after that one would use the term "shot according to summary court martial."
Colonel Wagner was very upset about that and said, after all, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army had signed it. However, I refused to sign it and said, why should I do that. It will just cause confusion. The troops won't know then what they are to do, if they find two concepts mixed up. These two concepts have to be kept strictly separate and according to the usages of the First World War, and I was a company battalion leader in the First World War, and as such know what it is to be understood by "shot according to summary court martial", from the conditions at the beginning of the first world war in Belgium.
At that time -- and I recall a decree by General von Alem -there was complete clarity as to what the term "shoot according to summary court martial" meant. This decree of General von Alem is published in some international law book, I believe in the one by Bauder-- though I don't quite know which one. General Mueller who was present in this discussion with Col. Wagner maintained the same point of view that I did and Col. Wagner in the end had to amend the instruction and it was issued in that amended form and then re-submitted to the Commander-inChief of the Army who had already signed it. He also gave his approval to the effect that the instruction would merely refer to a court martial procedure.
Q. What was contained in that last chapter of the decree which was issued in 1939? I mean the last chapter, the one that deals with shooting "according to summary court martial"? What was contained there? After all, you made certain objections to it, so you have to know what it said there.
A. I do know that it said there "summarily shot" or "shot according to summary court martial." What the actual wording was, I don't know any longer today. I am interested here in the main aspect, and the main aspect was that there was a mixup here between the two terms of convening summary court, a sentence, a verdict of the summary court, and then in the end in contradiction to that, they talked about shooting "according summary court martial".
Q. Witness, you still haven't told me what was actually said in that last chapter? After all, it couldn't have only contained the two words "shot according summary court martial." Obviously there must have been some sort of a regulation as to what and under what preconditions a shooting according to a summary court martial was admissible and that is what I am interested in now.
A. I'm sorry. I don't know that. I can't state that. The main aspect I have already anticipated. By no means, it should be said that it is admissible to shoot people summarily. Instead, the idea to liquidate by summary court martial was a lapsus linguae and used wrongly in this particular place I cannot give you the contents in detail.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
I believe that it would be asking too much after such a long time to ask anybody to give you the exact contents of that instruction.
Q Fieldmarshal von Brauchitsch then also maintained the point of view that it was only a lapsus linguae. If I understood you correctly up till now, your superiors at that time maintained a different point of view. They insisted that shootings according to summary courts martial were admissible and now you tell us that it is only a lapsus linguae? That isn't compatible, witness.
A I don't know what you mean. The instruction as such only talks about the convening of summary courts. And of dealing with offenses by such summary courts.
Q Well, again, if the instruction only uses that term, then it wouldn't contain anything about a summary shooting and now since half an hour you have been telling us that you objected to the fact that the last chapter talked about summary shootings.
A Yes, it did say that.
Q Then it did say so?
A Yes, but they meant in actual fact that a court procedure took place preceding the shooting?
Q Witness, you, as legal advisor of the Commander-in-Chief of the Army in 1943, received orders by the OKW. I believe it was in September 1943, when the shootings of Italians after the Italian capitulation was ordered?
A No, Counselor, at that time I was no longer in the OKH. I just told you that my position ended on 31 October 1942. Then it isn't very well possible that in 1943 I received reports from Italy in my position in the OKH.
Q Well, after you left that position in the OKH, what were you then in?
A Then I was with the Reich Military Court.
Q And in what position?
AAs a military judge in the Senate.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Q I see. Just before you discussed the usages of war, you said according to the usages of war it would have been admissible to shoot people summarily. Due to your position as legal adviser with the Supreme Commander of the Army, do you happen to know whether armies of other countries, that is foreign armies, also have that particular usage of war?
A First of all, I would like to clarify one circumstance. I have never said there is the usage of war or a usage of war to shoot summarily. If it is a usage of war, then I answer the question in the affirmative, that other armies also have the same usage of war.
Q You mean then that shootings without a court sentence preceding the shootings is also used in other armies?
A Where Franc-tireurs are concerned.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I object. He didn't say that at all. He is just putting words into the witness's mouth. It is a play with words. I object to that kind of interrogation by defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: I believe the witness can take care of himself.
DR. SAUTER: Furthermore, the witness himself has said what I just repeated. All I wanted to do in consideration of the importance of this fact, is to clarify the aspect so that the witness can't later say we misunderstood him here.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, my ruling in substance was favorable to you, and I think we can proceed with the examination without further comment. However, Mr. Rapp, the Court will entertain any comments from you.
MR. RAPP: It has no reference as to the Court's ruling; that is already passed. But I wonder if the Court finds it necessary that Dr. Sauter has to repeat the witnesses answer in each instance. I think the Court understands in rebuttal we would gain time if we just let the witness talk for himself, instead of getting it twice or three times in the record through the benefit of the defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed with the examination, Dr. Sauter.
Court No, V, Case No. VII.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q I have one last question to put to you, witness. During your activity as legal advisor, did you receive orders by the OKW which ordered shootings according to summary courts martial? Will you thoroughly consider your answer?
A I don't know of any.
Q I see. In that case, I have no further questions, witness. I thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there further questions to be asked by other defense counsel?
Any questions by members of the Tribunal?
JUDGE BURKE: I have none.
MR. RAPP: We have no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will be excused.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, in view of the fact that the affiant of NOKW-2679, Exhibit 653, has been produced by the prosecution for crossexamination, I would like now to have this affidavit be admitted into evidence without further strings attached to it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit will be admitted.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, if you please, I would like to call the affiant Helmuth Reymann for cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be called.
HELMUTH REYMANN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
The witness will rise and be sworn, please. Will you raise your 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.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, you are Helmuth Reymann?
A Yes.
Q When were you born?
A 24 November 1892.
Q Where?
A In Neustadt in Upper Silesia.
Q Do you remember that before this Court you executed an affidavit on behalf of the defendant Rendulic?
A I made this statement via Counselor Dr. Fritsch.
Q And do you remember the contents of that affidavit?
A Yes, I do.
MR. RAPP: If your Honors please, I have referent to Rendulic Document Book I, Document 20, Exhibit 19, on page 27, of the document book.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, what was your last rank?
A I was last a General, a full General.
Q What was your last unit?
A I was in charge of Army Group Spree.
Q Will you quite briefly in a few words state your assignments after you left the 52nd Division?
AAfter I left the 52nd Division, because I fell sick, I was at home and I stayed there until September 1942. Then for about six weeks, I was in charge of the 254th Division as deputy.
Q Please a little slower so that the interpretation can follow.
A Yes, and on the 1st of October, 1942, I took over the 212th Division. I led this division for exactly one year and then the 13th Luftwaffe Field Division.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
MR. RAPP: I forgot to tell you, Witness, that you can take your earphones off now.
A Then I took over the 213th Luftwaffe Field Division, of which I was in charge until April, 1943. In April, 1943, I took over the 11th Infantry Division; that lasted until November, 1944. After that, from November 1944 until March, 1945, I was at home and took part in a training course for commanding generals. Subsequently, I was in the Fuehrer Reserve, and from 7 March until 24 April 1945, I was District Commandant of Berlin. On 24 April I took over the so-called Army Group SPREE, and with the remnants of that Army Group, either on the 15th, 16th, or 17th of May, I am not quite sure of the date, I was taken prisoner. I was taken prisoner north of Angermuende, and these were, quite briefly, my assignments.
Q And whose prisoner of war were you?
A I was an American prisoner of war, and four weeks later I was handed over to the British.
Q You alone?
A No, together with a number of other officers in Schaumuell, or Esselweiler.
Q Witness, what I have shown you now is a copy in German of the affidavit which you executed. Read it through again, if you like. You can keep it. Witness, how did it come about that you executed that affidavit?
A I received a communication from defense counsel of General Rendulic, with the question whether I could give an answer and comment on his various questions.
Q What questions?
A The questions which I answered in that communication, in which manner the order was transmitted to me and all the other questions which I answered. These are questions put to me in writing by defense counsel.
Q You are now talking about the commissar order, are you?