Q Would you say that somebody would have had to take the time to shoot these people?
DR. FRITSCH: May I make a request? I have, of course, not got this exhibit handy at this moment and the whole thing is a little mysterious. I do not know what the witness is being questioned about and of course I cannot drag all the documents down which might possibly be resubmitted now. Perhaps it would be possible for the prosecutor to let me have this photostatic copy for a moment.
MR. RAPP: I don't know, your Honor, why it should be mysterious to Dr. Fritsch. It has been in evidence and I have given him the reference number; but I will be glad to give it to him.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q Can you comment on that, witness?
A No, I really can not.
Q You never heard about these things as regimental commander within the division?
A No. I would like to point out that the regiments were quite far apart from each other, due to the vast space in the East. Of the commanders of the other two regiments -- there was Colonel Hanner--I saw him twice; and the other one Col. Peschel who is no longer alive. I cannot remember having seen at all while I participated in mobile warfare with the division.
MR. RAPP: I have no further questions of the witness.
DR. FRITSCH: If it please the Tribunal. I believe I shall have only a very few questions to put, so that we can finish this examination before the recess.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q General, you still have the document that was last under discussion?
A Yes. It is.....
Q I beg your pardon - you dealt with page 83?
A Yes, I did - 83.
Q The date is 6 September 1941?
A That is correct.
Q Will you please very carefully read the first paragraph?
A Yes.
Q What is the main substance? Can you tell us, quite briefly, what battles are involved? Is it an open frontal warfare, or what is it?
A That is difficult to glean from this report. It appears that it is not an open frontal warfare.
Q What is it instead?
A Instead it seems to be a clash with a band of 39 men - 1 functionary, 2 commissars and 36 partisans. How this clash actually took place is not apparent from the report.
Q General, I beg your pardon. All that is correct. I would like you to show us the difference. You say it is not frontal warfare?
A Yes.
Q Now you read us what persons are involved. You were speaking of a band.
A Yes.
Q I see. So what kind of a battle was it then?
A It must have been a battle in a wood or somewhere in a lerality. It was a surprise attack.
Q General, was it a battle against regular soldiers?
A No.
Q What was it, instead?
A It was a battle against people who were unlawfully in possession of arms and who had congregated.
Q How were they called?
A Partisans or bandits.
Q And the people who are mentioned here were such partisans?
A Yes.
Q Is such a partisan battle something which took place within the area of your regiment?
A No. Not then, nor later. I an my regiment never had anything to do with partisans.
Q General, another question concerning the commissar order. You talked about dates before?
A Yes.
Q When do you believe you heard of the commissar order for the first time?
A To the best of my recollection it was briefly before the movements in Russia started. I would like to point out the following. I and my regiment, before the Russian warfare, were stationed in Paris, as guard regiment; that is, apart from the division I was put on a train in Paris and it was only in Russia that I came back to the Division. Therefore, before the Russian campaign, for about three weeks I had nothing to do with the Division proper.
Q General, what you mean is that if you mentioned the date of April before....
A Yes.
Q That is the alleged publishing date?
A Yes.
Q We do not have to discuss the fact that it does not actually apply. Thank you. I have no further questions.
MR. RAPP: I have no re-cross, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there other defense counsel who wish to interrogate this witness? Do any members of the Tribunal wish to interrogate the witness?
JUDGE BURKE: I have no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will be excused.
*********
MR. FULKERSON: There is a mixup about the exhibit numbers, if your Honors please.
That is an unusual circumstance but we will straighten it out in a moment.
THE PRESIDENT: If it will be of any assistance to you, my record shows the last one was Prosecution Rebuttal Exhibit 672.
MR. FULKERSON: Yes sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not saying it is correct but I am giving you what I have.
JUDGE BURKE: I have 673.
MR. FULKERSON: Last Friday, I believe it was, I attempted to introduce Document NOKW-069. I think it has already been distributed to defense counsel. It is this cloak and dagger story about the attempted assassination of Tito. Dr. Fritsch objected to it at that time and said that it was not responsive to General Rendulic's testimony and the Court asked me to quote chapter and verse. I was not able to recite so I would like to make a second effort to put it in. The...
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat the exhibit number and the NOKW number again?
MR. FULKERSON: The document number is NOKW-069 and it will be Prosecution Exhibit No. 673; and the citation in the record is page 5429 of the English transcript, during the cross examination of General Rohdulic. Mr. Rapp was cross examining. He said: "Witness, was it ever suggested to you, and subsequently approved by you, to disguise dead hostages in British uniforms, fully identified with British papers, and drop them around Marshal Tito's Headquarters, to give the impression that these men had been genuine British parachutists who suffered a misfortune when they landed, and they were full of explosives. They carried a letter to Tito and if that letter had been opened it would have blasted the headquarters apart and for this reason two killed hostages were used and they were disguised in British uniforms. Now I would like to ask you two questions. First, have you ever heard of this plan? And, second, if so, would you consider it a permissible use of land warfare? Please answer these two questions."
DR. FRITSCH: If it please the Tribunal, perhaps I may interpolate here. I assume that the Court will recall that at that very point I requested that the record be corrected; at least I pointed out that the interpretation of the question was not a correct one. At this moment I cannot decide whether this correction has actually been applied, nor can I decide whether Mr. Fulkerson gave the correct translation now, or the erroneous one. I would therefore like to ask to be permitted to clarify this question.
THE PRESIDENT: Tie will take our afternoon recess at this time and you can check into that matter during that period.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, if you please, before Mr. Fulkerson continues with his document presentation, I would like to make a very short announcement. Firstly, we would like to inform the Court that there are a number of witnesses which we have asked for as rebuttal witnesses who will not be produced for various reasons and I would like to give these names now so defense counsel won't have to work burning midnight oil as they won't appear here in Court. This, first, General Gullmann and General Keiper. They will not appear, despite the fact that they have been announced.
Finally, I was informed this morning in error that General Felkenhorst had arrived. It was a man by the name of Falkenhausen. The British made a mistake but, in view of the fact we want to get through the rebuttal, I also withdraws the name of General Falkenhausen.
I would, however, in lieu of these, try to announce one more witness whom we would like to have tomorrow -- 24 hours -- and we won't fall behind in time because we are taking three out and putting one in, a net gain of two.
I am having reference to defense document book, Geitner No. VI. There was a document introduced which was called Geitner Document No. 200 in Geitner Document Book No. VI. Unfortunately, I don't have my exhibit today. Maybe Dr. Sauter can tell us what is the exhibit numbers for the information of the Court.
T here is an affidavit of the affiant Hans Joachim Hamling. In this affidavit the affiant accuses the American authorities of having put up a poster threatening the execution of 200 to 1 in the event certain rules were not being complied with and the very name of Major David B. Bernatein was mentioned in this affidavit. We feel that we like to clear the name of Major Bernstein and, since he came here from the States, we would like to afford him to tell the Court just what this is all about, so we would like to put Major Bernstein on sometime tomorrow afternoon in rebuttal to this particular affidavit.
It is Exhibit 172, your Honor, Geitner Exhibit 172.
Finally, a very minor change on the transcript of the 27th of October: it appears in the English transcript, the date of the 22nd of October.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the page?
MR. RAPP: I do not have the page here, your Honor, but I will find it out in a very short while. It is the 22nd of October which is dated the 27th of October but it appears correctly in the upper left hand corner as being the 27th of October. I thought your Honors would like to know this to avoid possible confusion. I will supply you the page number very shortly.
MR. FULKERSON: Well, I got this correction Dr. Fritsch made in the transcript here if he would like to comment on that. Anyway, the answer to that was that "I certainly can't remember any case of this kind", and then on the next page when the discussion continued the witness said: "I know of no provision in the rules of warfare in which such an action is prohibited" the plain inference of that being that -- the plain implication, rather, being -- that the plan contained nothing in it that was inherently offensive to the rules and customs of war, and this document is offered to contradict both assertions.
DR. FRITSCH (Counsel for defendant Rendulic): Your Honors, in the meantime, I have looked for my correction motion and I have found out that the Prosecution has this correction motion among their documents. It is the motion dated the 20th of November 1947 and in which I set down again the German question and found out that the answer given by the defendant, of course, was directed to the question as it was put in German. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not proper that conclusions are being drawn from the answer to the English question which Mr. Fulkerson read because the answer wasn't given in answer to this question.
On the basis of this mistake, the Prosecution is submitting new documents in rebuttal.
I cannot decide, your Honors, whether this motion, dated the 20th of November 1947, was sustained. I only know that the Prosecution received it in their documents. In any case, the question as it was read here by Mr. Fulkerson in English before the recess is not exactly the same as the German question and that seems to be the most decisive point because the answer was given in reply to the German translation.
MR. FULKERSON: If he can do one of two things, your Honors -- here is the German text; I am certainly not going to attempt to read it in German but if Dr. Fritsch wants to read it in German and let the translators tell you what it is, it is perfectly all right. I think you will find there is not a twopence difference between Dr. Fritsch's version and the version I read -- or we can put the defendant back on the stand and have the question put to him.
THE PRESIDENT: I believe it would perhaps be better for the record and save time if Dr. Fritsch would read the statement into the record from the German and have the interpreters then translate it. Then it will be into the record and the Court will then give consideration to the question as answered in the German by the defendant.
DR. FRITSCH: Yes. "Witness was it ever suggested to you and did you not also approve this, that German hostages should be put into British uniform" -
MR. FULKERSON: Wait! Not "German hostages."
DR. FRITSCH: "Shot hostages, killed hostages, should be put into British uniforms and be equipped with British papers and then to be placed in the neighborhood of Tito's headquarters in order to create the impression as if the people were killed British parachutists who had had an accident when they landed and that they had explosives on them and that they had a letter, that they should bring a letter to Tito, according to which the headquarters was supposed to be blown up, and that for this purpose two killed hostages were used who were dressed in British uniform; and now I would like to put two questions to you."
And now, Your Honors, I gave the two questions In my motion:
"Firstly, did you hear about this plan? Secondly, if 'yes' would you regard that as an action which was in accordance with the Hague Land Warfare Convention?"
Your Honors, then during the further course of this motion I gave again the most important part of the English text. I think it would be expedient if this part would be read; only I couldn't do that myself. Perhaps, I might do one thing -- first of all, continue with my German text again, then ask Mr. Fulkerson to give the English version. In the English original, which only became known to the defendant after he had received the report of the session -- it is contained on page 5429 -- it says:
MR. FULKERSON: And it reads: "And they were full of explosives. They carried a letter to Tito and if that letter would have been opened it would have blasted the headquarters apart."
DR. FRITSCH: This incorrect translation, your Honor, in our opinion, had a decisive influence, on the answer so that I must suggest that either this questioning should be corrected -- if necessary, the defendant could be called back again into the witness stand -- or on the basis of this incorrect passage a rebuttal document which is directed against this answer should not be admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant has answered the question as he understood it from the German and that answer is now in the record and the record has been made as to the circumstances. There is no apparent dispute, then, between the Prosecution and the Defense as to this particular matter.
In order that the Tribunal may have the actual situation, the exhibit win be admitted and the Tribunal will evaluate the whole situation in the light of the record that is made.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, but I have other objections to this document which concern the document itself. Might I just get the document? I object to the submission of this exhibit 673 because there is no connection at all and there is no subordination between this Division Brandenburg, which is set down as the sender of this document here, and the 2nd Panzer Army.
If the defendant was asked about behavior contrary to International Law, then of course he was only thinking of his own troops. The Brandenburg Division, however, did not belong to his troups, and, at least, for this the Prosecution has produced no evidence at all.
THE PRESIDENT: This Brandenburg Regiment has been subject of discussion and some evidentiary matter before and the Tribunal is fully advised as to the fact that there is some controversy as to whether or not it was part of some military unit. The document will be received for such probative value as the Tribunal deems it merits under the light of all the record that is made.
MR. FULKERSON: And then also I would like to put it in evidence -and I think it is only fair for us to call attention to which particular defendant, we are using this document to rebut, if one of them is to rebut the testimony of more than one defendant -- we are also putting in rebuttal the testimony of General von Leyser. General von Leyser was asked if he knew what the Brandenburg Regiment was.
"You knew it was under your command, wasn't it?
And the answer was:
"The Brandenburg Regiment was for a time subordinate to me for tactical purposes but I do not know anything about any special assignments of the Brandenburg Regiment. The Brandenburg Regiment was directly subordinate to the OKW and received, if and when they had special orders, the orders from there and I was never informed about these things nor did anyone inform me about them."
That is a quotation from 6132 of the English transcript.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, in this connection I would like to make a request. I was prepared for the fact that an attempt would be made to produce some kind of evidence against the defendant Rendulic with regard to the Brandenburg affair and, therefore, I secured a corresponding document about the Division Brandenburg, about the actual subordination.
This document is contained in Rendulic Book No. I, Document No. 31, and I gave it an identification exhibit number. During the presentation of the case by the Prosecution nothing was submitted against my client with regard to the Brandenburg Regiment so that, therefore, I had no cause, to present this document as an exhibit; and, therefore, I would ask the Tribunal for permission to introduce this identified document in evidence. It is Rendulic No. 31 and this would become Exhibit No. 32-A.
This is an affidavit by Horst von Treisch von Buttlar-Brandenfels.
THE PRESIDENT: This matter which is here offered might properly be considered sub-rebuttal but there is no objection on the part of the Prosecution that it be received here. What is the attitude of the Prosecution?
MR. FULKERSON: We, of course, have no objection if we can get this man here to examine him, if it is not too late to get the affiant here.
DR. FRITSCH: Of course, I have no misgivings about the affiant being cross examined but I have only just heard from the Prosecution that they were to finish tomorrow evening and I don't know whether I could get the affiant here by tomorrow evening, before tomorrow evening.
THE PRESIDENT: Where does he reside?
DR. FRITSCH: He is in the Neustadt Camp.
THE PRESIDENT: How far away is that camp?
DR. FRITSCH: It is near Kassel or Marburg. It is about 350 kilometers.
THE PRESIDENT: If the Prosecution wishes to have him cross examined, there is 24 hours here between now and the time we probably adjourn, so make an effort to get him here.
DR. FRITSCH: Of course, I will try to get him, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You will probably need some assistance from some governmental authority so, if he is in some prison camp -
MR. RAPP: He is not in a prison camp. I think he is rather comfortable, but I will do everything I can. I think, however, from my past experience it is going to be rather futile to get him down in 24 hours. The roads are terrible. I don't think it can be done. I certainly will pledge my support as far as I am concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this being offered at this time?
MR. FULKERSON: Just on that one condition -- no other objection, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Subject to a motion to strike, it will be received.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honors, might I make a suggestion? I think I can make the matter rather shorterand will not take up the time of the Tribunal today. I will see tomorrow if the witness can come and at this moment will submit the document.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I had in mind, the submission of the document at this time. You may proceed.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, then might I read the most essential part of this document which I would now like to introduce as Exhibit No. 32?
It is Rendulic Document No. I, Nr. 31.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me, if it is to be considered in the nature of surrebuttal, perhaps the other prosecution document should be introduced first. It is a little irregular but if we keep in mind what we are trying to do here I think the record will show up all right.
DR. FRITSCH: Yes.
MR. FULKERSON: Before I read this in evidence, I think I have one other hurdle to go over.
DR. TIPP: Your Honor, if I have understood Mr. Fulkerson correctly, he has submitted Document 673 against General Leyser and this is supposed to refute the testimony of my client in the witness stand. I cannot check what General Leyser said in the witness stand but as far as I remember, what Mr. Fulkerson has stated here is correct. According to this, General Leyser stated that units of the Brandenburg Regiment was occasionally subordinated to him for tactical operations but he did not know about the special assignments of this regiment. From the exhibit 673, which has been submitted, I cannot see anything at all which is supposed to refute the testimony of my client. It is a letter from the Division Brandenburg to the Panzer Army, and obviously the contents of it concerns a special operation of this division, but from the whole document one cannot see anything at all about the fact that General von Leyser was informed about this special assignment. I don't know from what the prosecution wishes to conclude and to prove that the testimony of my client in the witness stand was incorrect.
No evidence has been submitted to show that this report or this order ever went to General Leyser. Perhaps I am making a mistake but in any case I can't see anything of this kind in this document.
THE PRESIDENT: If there is nothing there which affects your client, then there is no harm, despite what the prosecution may say. Their mere assertion doesn't prove it. The Tribunal will give consideration as to the necessary proof. So far, Mr. Fulkerson, I don't believe the Tribunal has been furnished Exhibit 673, have we?
MR. FULKERSON: I think that was done the other day, if Your Honor please. I will give you another copy.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's see.
MR. FULKERSON: We only seem to have three left. Can you get by on two for the moment?
THE PRESIDENT: I have some that I took to my office. I don't know where they are now.
MR. FULKERSON: This document is rather long so I will just give a brief summary of it. It is addressed by the Brandenburg Division to the Second Panzer Army. It discusses an operation which has as its aim killing Tito, partisan leader. It shows in the very first few sentences that not only was the operation contemplated but that it had passed the theoretical state and was already in the phase of preparation on the 12th of November when this message was sent. It further shows that it was the intention to use the 15th Mountain Corps as a clearing-house for all reports, orders, etc. which were made by the various authorities involved. The English uniforms, drugs, cigarettes, supplies, etc. which were to be planted on the bodies of these persons that would be dropped from an airplane so as to make it appear that these were English parachutists, all these various bits of English equipment were to be forwarded to this special outfit called Unit Kirchner of the Brandenburg Division through the 15th Mountain Corps.
Further, the 15th Mountain Corps was requested to assign a certain Sonderfuehrer Martin to help train the people who w;ere to carry out this operation and also to serve as an expert on the habits of the country and on camouflage.
So far as the connection between this document and General Leyser is concerned, you will find the 15th Mountain Corps mentioned on almost every page of the document because, as I say, according to this outline or plan, it was to be used as the clearing-house for everything connected with the operation.
Now, the Court may be interested to know that one of the possible ways of doing away with Tito which is proposed here is by poision. Another is this fantastic idea of putting a sealed gift package on the bodies of these persons who were disguised as British parachutists on the theory that if the gift package was addressed to Tito, then when he opened it, it would explode.
Now, in connection with this -
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Fulkerson, perhaps it might be well to refer to the document rather than explain it. It speaks for itself and -
Mr. FULKERSON: Well, that is the end of my summary, if your Honor please, I was trying to give a fair summary of what the contents were and just save time by not reading it. I don't think I have included in the -
THE PRESIDENT: I thought maybe you were going to read it further.
MR. FULKERSON: No.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
MR. FULKERSON: In connection with this document, we would like to offer as our next Exhibit, which will be 674, I believe, NOKW-1045, which again is a rather lengthy document but from which only one short excerpt has been translated, thus call it to the Court's attention.
Unfortunately, the photostat seems to be missing. We have sent for it right this minute and if Dr. Fritsch has no objection to using the mimeographed one for the moment, I will go on with it. If he does, we will just have to wait until they get it up here.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, of course I don't want to hold up the proceedings at all, but I really can't do anything at all with this excerpt here.
Since the whole thing is according to Mr. Fulkerson a very voluminous document, I would very much like to have the photostat copy so that I can look at it before comment on the documents.
Perhaps, first of all, I might ask the prosecutor to state against whom this document is to be submitted.
MR. FULKERSON: This again is being submitted against the same two defendants -- Rendulic and von Lanz; but if Dr. Fritsch doesn't want to go on without having the whole document, then we'd better proceed to the next matter.
This is another affiant, whom we are now ready to cross-examine. Aside from the fact that he is a prince, I am afraid I don't know German geography well enough to tell you his name. Mr. Rapp will now inform you.
If Dr. Fritsch and Dr. Tipp want to keep the document for a while, we don't want to keep royalty waiting so perhaps we'd better go on.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it your remarks were facteiously made?
MR. FULKERSON: Yes, your Honor.
DR. FRITSCH: Well, I agree to this. I felt that Mr. Fulkerson wanted to bring the witness first of all.
MR. FULKERSON: We will go on with the witness, if your Honor please. We are ready for it.
THE PRESIDENT: The record may show then that in connection with these exhibits 673 and 674, we will give them further consideration after the examination of this witness.
MR. FULKERSON: Well, I think there is just one document, if your Honor please.
THE PRESIDENT: 674?
MR. PRESIDENT: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
You may call the next witness.
MR. RAPP: I request that the Marshal cell Friedrich Ferdinand Prinz von Schleswig-Holstein-Glueckberg.
FRIEDRICH FERDINAND PRINZ VON SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN-GLUECKBERG, a witness, took the stank and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
The witness will raise his right hand and be sworn.
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
This witness is being called for cross-examination, is that correct?
MR. RAPP: That is right, your Honor. This, your Honor, pertains to Geitner Document Book I, Geitner Document Book II, Geitner Document Book II, Geitner Document Book V, and Kuntze Document Book I.
THE PRESIDENT: If you will give the pages as you come to them, I would appreciate it.
MR. RAPP: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RAPP:
Q. Witness, you are Friedrich Ferdinand Prinz von SchleswigHolstein-Glueckberg?
A. Yes.
Q. Prince, do you recall having given a number of affidavits on behalf of the defendant Geitner?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know how many?
A. I think five, but I can look it up.
Q. Just a minute, witness; nor can you recall how many you have given out of your own memory?
A. I assume there are about six.
Q. Let's straighten the point out now. Once you said you thought five and now you said you assume it to be six. Now which one is it?
A. I can't tell you definitely.
Q. Did you give any other affidavit besides for thedefendant Geitner?
A. I gave one for General Kuntze.
Q. One?
A. Yes, one.
Q. Witness, inasmuch as you have given so numerous affidavits, can you generally summarize the contents of what these affidavits dealt with just in broad outline?
A. I didn't hear the question properly.
(The question was repeated by the interpreter)
A. Yes, I can do that.
Q. Very well, then tell us.
A. The affidavits which I gave refer to the period in which I served under General Geitner in Serbia. That is the period from July 1942 until December and January 1942-43. In my affidavits, I first of all gave one about the personality of General von Geitner. In this I described that I regarded General von Geitner as a straightforward man and a decent officer.
Q. Witness, maybe I can shorten this a little bit. If you just give the topics -- in other words when you come to a point like this, you characterize the defendant Geitner. Now did you cover any other subject matter? That is what I am really interested in.
A. In addition to my affidavit about the character of General von Geitner, I talked about the handling concerning the reprisal measures and I reported about atrocities of which I gained knowledge through reports and I talked about the sabotage acts which took place in Serbia and Croatia, and I talked about the collection camp for reprisal prisoners in Semlin, and conditions there.
Q. That is basicly enough.
A. Yes, that is in general what I stated. Then in the affidavit about General Kuntze, I gave a brief summery of what I learned to know about General Kuntze from my meetings with him.
Q. All right witness. I would like to give you now this affidavit that you gave for General Kuntze. This, your Honor, is Kuntze Exhibit 28, Document Book XIV.
THE PRESIDENT: Perdon me, you mean Kuntze Document Book XIV?
MR. RAPP: Kuntze Document Book I, Document 14, Exhibit 28, page 19.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q. Now, witness, in the third paragraph of this affidavit, you said the following and I quote -- does the translator want the German document book, if that will be helpful?
(Handed him the book)
Q. I quote now, witness. "He was said by my superiors to be a sincere, fair-minded and brilliant officer. I had this confirmed when I became personally acquainted with him."
Then you continue to give two paragraphs dealing with the particular medical cordon General Kuntze was responsible for. Are these two paragraphs the only example that you have of General Kuntze's sincere, fair-mindedness and brilliancy or do you have others?
A. I can't give any further examples. The command carried out by General Kuntze as I described in the first paragraph, coincided with my opinion of General Kuntze.
Q. You mean he typified, he was the type of General that you liked to serve under, is that right?
A. On the visits which he made in Belgrade, one always had the impression of a straight-forward, clear and decently thinking officer, as could also be seen from the orders which I saw.
Q. Now, I gather, witness, this is not in answer to my question. I asked you whether or not General Kuntze typified the officer that you yourself would always like to have served under?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Witness, we come to the affidavits you have given on behalf of the defendant Geitner.