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.
Q Witness, I would like to go over these affidavits with you somewhat in detail. Will you first tell us what your position was down there at that headquarters of the Military Commander of Serbia.
At the end of August, 1941, I came to the staff at that time of the commander in Serbia as ADC of the Chief of the General Staff. In winter, in addition I was allocated the office of the Airforce Liaison officer and held this position until the new establishment of the staff of the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia. In the newly established staff, I was in Dept. 1-A, the officer for organizational questions. I was......
Q Just one second. Do you read from notes?
A No.
Q You don't have any notes in front of you to these answers to you?
A I have no notes in front of me. I only have the copies of my affidavits, I brought these with me.
Q Very well. Please continue.
A In the newly-established staff of the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia, I remained in this position until the end of the year. Then I left the staff and was sent after for a short time to Croatia and then in February, 1943, I went to the Eastern front.
Q What was your rank when you cane to General Bader?
A I was a Captain of the Cavalry, when in August in 1943, I came to Belgrade to General Dankelmann, then as I have stated in the new establishment I was again taken over as a Cavalry Captain.
Q That is the same as a captain of cavalry.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it necessary to go into those things which don't have any particular bearing upon the affidavits, do they? Can't we get into the question of the affidavits themselves?
Q Very well, Your Honor. I just thought the witness made some very broad judgments. He engaged in appraising his officers and all this and that, and I just wanted to know who he was himself, but that suffices completely.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't want to restrict you. If you think it is important, I will permit you to go ahead, but I was endeavoring to bring the thing to a head.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't want to restrict you, though, but let's try to keep it to the matter in hand.
Q Witness, in your affidavit that you have now before you, you stated that --.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have the number? We have no reference to these.
Q I am very sorry, Your Honor. That is Geitner Document Book I, Document 11, Exhibit 10. It says in the index "page 23", but there is no pagination in the book. Witness, you stated you had known General Geitner intimately. Is that right?
A Yes.
Q And you characterized him as an upright and straight-thinking nan who refused and did not tolerate in his staff any irregularities, uncleanness, and encroachments. Is that right?
A Yes.
Q Now, what was General Geitner's attitude toward reprisal measures? You have given a great number of statements pertaining to that particular subject and I would like you to recapitulate that very shortly for us.
A General Geitner had personally nothing to do with the reprisal measures, and moreover, he refused them also in the form in which they were carried out.
Q Now, toward whom did he indicate the fact that he resented the way they were carried out?
A He expressed this to mo many times personally.
Q Why did he resent these measures the way they were carried out?
A I believe he was not the only one, but all of us were no friends of reprisal measures, because for us as front soldiers -- I came to Belgrade from the Front -- this was completely new, and unusual.
Q What was the particular reason General Geitner didn't agree with it, and let's confine your answer just to him and do not inject your or other officers' viewpoints.
A In my opinion ho had the same opinion as I, personally, the one which I have just stated, and this was probably the foremost reason why he rejected them.
Q Did he ever tell you that personally?
A Yes, he discussed them many, many times with me.
Q Were you present when he told that particular issue to General Bader?
A I didn't understand the question. (Repeated by interpreter) Occasionally from conversations which took place between the Commanding General and the Chief, I, myself, heard these kind of statements.
Q Was General Geitner possibly opposed to these reprisal measures because he considered them --.
A Yes.
Q You said "Yes", but you haven't gotten my question yet. Was General Geitner possibly opposed to these reprisal measures because he considered them inhumane?
A Yes, that is what I assume.
Q Did you consider them inhumane?
A That question is very difficult to answer in that form. I have previously said that we all rejected them because as Front soldiers they were something completely new for us and we as fighters were not used to carrying out these kind of things.
Q Did General Geitner indicate to you at any time any legal consideration which he had for opposing these measures?
A He didn't talk to me in this way. He only talked to me about them in reference to another matter, that he was very sorry if valuable parts of the Serbian population were killed through these measures for punishable acts which had been committed by partisans and similar people.
Q You mean for deeds they were guilty of? That is to say, those that were killed were actually guilty of the act, or were they merely under suspicion of having committed it?
AAs far as I know, and as far as I can remember the matter now, those people were taken for reprisal measures who either participated in the deed or had supported the partisans concerned by giving them shelter or accommodation or by rendering them similar aid.
Q Then I understand you to say that when an order came out for the execution of fifty hostages in reprisal for the murder of one German soldier, these fifty hostages were all guilty of those acts which you have just cited, is that right?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever know, Witness, that a fifty to one ratio was applied down there?
A Yes.
Q Did General von Geitner talk to you about that?
A I knew that, and he probably also talked to me about it, too.
Q Was General Geitner possibly opposed to these reprisal measures because they were based on a fixed ratio?
A He was against reprisal measures altogether.
Q Then why were they carried out?
A Because General Geitnes had no influence on it. He was not responsible for them.
Q Now who was the person who was responsible for it?
A The Commanding General and Commander personally, as holder of executive power.
Q And nobody else in the entire German army?
AAnd his superior officers.
Q And who were they?
A They were the commanders of the superior offices of the Army or the Amy Groups, the OKW and Hitler, personally.
Q Now, just for the benefit of the Court, would you now go ahead and mention those people by name. Who were these superior officers of General Bader?
A I must ask a question. Which period does this concern? I was there for one year.
Q You can only testify, to your own knowledge, when you were there. That is all.
AAt my time the first superior of General Bader was General Boehme, as Plenipotentiary Commanding General in Serbia, with this he had the jurisdiction in Serbia and Croatia. His superior was the Commander in Chief of the Twelfth Army, first of all, General Field Marshal List and later on General Kuntze; then in the position of the Twelfth Army there was General Oehr; then it was the O.K.W. under General Field Marshal Keitel; and, at the very top, Hitler as Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor and Supreme Commander of the German Armed Forces.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until tomorrow morning at 0930.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 20 January 1948 at 0930 hours.)
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal V in the matter of the United States of America against Wilhelm List, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 20 January 1948, 0930, the Honorable Judge Wennerstrum presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal V. Military Tribunal V is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you will ascertain if all the defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom. '
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Carter will preside at this day's session.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Before you proceed, Mr. Fulkerson, the Tribunal would like to rule on a motion that has been pending, a motion filed by Dr. Laternser in behalf of the defendant List, to strike certain exhibits that have been offered in evidence.
It is the ruling of the Tribunal that the motion be overruled. At the time these exhibits were admitted, it was done with the understanding that they be considered only to the extent that they had probative value and we are overruling this motion on the basis of that statement, and that the Tribunal in considering the exhibits will take cognizance of the objections made to them by defense counsel and give them only such probative value as they are entitled to under the rules of evidence and the method of proof that we have in a case of this kind.
You may proceed.
MR. FULKERSON: In connection with the testimony of several of the defendants as to treatment that they received at the hands of the American army authorities while they were prisoners of war, the other day the Prosecution attempted to introduce in evidence an order issued from General Eisenhower's headquarters which laid down the policy which was to be followed by all the responsible American military Court No. V, Case No. VII.
authorities in the handling of prisoners of war and the Court rejected that, refused to admit it in evidence, on the grounds that it did not rebut the specific testimony of those defendants.
I assume, therefore, any oral testimony or any additional documentary evidence which would tend to establish generally what the policy of the Army was would be equally inadmissible in the eyes of the Court; so, just for the record, the Prosecution would like to make an offer of proof to show that the general policy of the U.S. Army was that prisoners of war were to be treated in accordance with the rules, with the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention, and that was not only the policy announced by the supreme allied commander but it was also the aim of the officers who were charged with the general administration of the prisoner of war compounds and camps and that if there were individual infractions, individual offenses, cases of individual mistreatment, that they were certainly not condoned or authorized by the responsible American authorities. Further than that, I am afraid we are unable to go on our proof.
I think next -
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Just a moment, please; I assume the rule is that, unless objection is made by the defense to your offer of proof that the evidence is to be produced; I think the defense should have their opportunity to make objection to your offer of proof.
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for defendants Lanz and von Geitner): The statement of the prosecutor was loud enough but I really didn't understand. I am really not quite clear what he was trying to say. In particular, I am not clear about what the documents are or what other kind of evidence he wants to submit. I must leave it to him to explain to us what evidence he is thinking of and then I will be able to form my conclusions as to whether I shall object to the intended evidence but, of course, I really can't object into the blue.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Dr. Sauter, the Prosecution in their statement, in view of the state of the record and the rulings previously Court No. V, Case No. VII.
made, are offering to prove certain facts which they mentioned in their statement. How they expect to prove them, I don't know. The question is, are they material and competent and proper to be made in this case? Unless the defense agree that they are, well, of course, they are entitled to show them. If the defense disagrees, they should so state and give the Court an opportunity to rule.
DR. SAUTER: I don't agree with this evidence especially if just a piece of paper is going to be submitted. I must ask first of all that the Prosecution does exactly the same as we have to do, namely, that this document is to be identified in a sufficient manner and I, therefore, must protest against this evidence.
MR. FULKERSON: Your Honor, I remind defense counsel of an incident which I alluded to a moment ago. Dr. Laternser will remember that I offered this document in evidence. It was an order issued, or purportedly issued, from General Eisenhower's headquarters and Dr. Laternser objected to it and I said at that time that I would withdraw the document if he would stipulate certain things and he said he was unable to do that.
Now, to save time I simply make this offer of proof. I am simply offering to prove the same thing that I offered to stipulate the other day.
DR. LATERNSER (Counsel for defendants List and von Weichs): Your Honor, unfortunately, I must adhere to my former standpoint. are now in the process of rebuttal and we must adhere to the evidential subjects which concern rebuttal; otherwise, the proceedings will be even more prolonged; but if we adhere to the rules of rebuttal then this evidence which the Prosecution has just offered is not admissible.
In this connection, I don't want to go to another case but where does all this lead to if we don't adhere to the rules? For instance, today on the day when we are supposed to hand in our final briefs we could not be finished with these final pleas. The Prosecution keeps on prolonging the proceedings. They keep on bringing new evidence Court No. V, Case No. VII.
