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.
and we must adhere to the rules. I just want to say that change my former point of view.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The objection will be sustained. It is the view of the Tribunal that evidence of the character that was put in by the defendants can only go to show the fairness of the present trial insofar as it may bear upon that. We are not trying tho American Army or the French Army or any other army for any offenses they may have committed and to permit the offer of proof to be made we inject an issue which we think is outside of the scope of this trial and on that basis we sustain the objection to the offer of proof.
MR. FULKERSON: Very well, your Honor.
Before we continue with the cross examination, there is one matter still anding fire; that is this document NOKW-1045 which I introduced or attempted to introduce yesterday afternoon. Dr. Tipp said he wanted to look at the photostat and he has it now, I believe.
DR. FRITSCH(Counsel for General Rendulic): Your Honors, I am in a similar situation as I was yesterday afternoon during the submission of tho Document 673. I have no formal objections to the submission of this document, Exhibit No. 674, but the situation is like this.
This exhibit must be brought into connection with the defendant General Rendulic and, therefore it may formally happen now that a report or order or teletype may be one of these things to the 2nd Panzer Army but, since the knowledge of this teletype must be presupposed with General Leyser, I am able to prove with the aid of his pay book that during time in question until the end, the 11th of January 1944, General von Leyser was on leave. Therefore, I must request that to this extent my counter evidence is admitted.
PRESIDING JUDGE CERTER: This is being interpreted as applying to General von Leyser. Is that what you are saying -- General von Leyser or General Rendulic?
MR. FULKERSON: Both, your Honor.
DR. FRITSCH: The Prosecutor stated yesterday that he wished to submit tho evidence against both of the defendants, General Rendulic and General von Leyser Excuse me, I just heard, your Honor, that there was a mistake in translation, I talked here about General Rendulic and the fact that General Rendulic in the time in question was on leave.
Therefore, I would ask the Tribunal to allow counter evidence to be produced in this case and to show that General Rendulic at least knew nothing at all and could knew nothing at all about this matter.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I think probably that is a matter of subrebuttal that will have to be ruled upon at that time if you will show it at that time. I don't think it is proper for us to rule on it here.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I submitted this now because there was mention that counter rebuttal evidence would not be admissible but I gather from the statement of the Tribunal yesterday with regard to 673 and also from this ruling I assume that we may be allowed to introduce counter rebuttal evidence.
MR. FULKERSON: If your Honor please, if this document -- if the introduction or rejection of this document means the difference between sur-rebuttal and no sur-rebuttal, I withdraw it right now.
DR. FRITSCH: Of course, I agree with the Prosecutor then.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: It is the opinion of the Tribunal that if the exhibit is offered in rebuttal and raises a point such as has been raised with Dr. Fritsch, that it wasn't there at that particular time, if he deems in particular that on that one point alone, I don't think the Tribunal would deny sur-rebuttal to that extent.
MR. FULKERSON: Well, could I make this request of defense counsel now so as to follow up the last statement I made? Is there any other sur-rebuttal that they propose to put on because if this is the only one I withdraw this document right now, if this is the only one that is going to cause any sur-rebuttal.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I think that then both documents must be withdrawn: 673 and 674.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Whether or not sur-rebuttal is to be permitted is a little difficult to rule on in advance.
MR. FULKERSON: It was just a question of my asking them, if Your Honor please -- if they are going to request it, is all.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I understand that, but the Tribunal is not going to permit any sur-rebuttal of any great length.
DR. FRITSCH: Excuse me, your Honor; might I then ask that at the end of the rebuttal I can then bring sur-rebuttal evidence?
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: That is something we will have to rule on at that time.
DR. TIPP (Counsel for defendant von Leyser); Your Honors, I object to the introduction of the document, against my client first of all, for formal reasons. In the document against my client the Prosecution wishes to convince the Tribunal that from this teletype from the 2nd Panzer Army to the 5th SS Corps they only submitted one figure, namely, "6," but the document, as can be seen from the photostat copy, contains 7 paragraphs. 7 figures. If the document is accepted in this form as it is now submitted to the Tribunal, then the impression can be created as if it concerned some kind of reprisal measures and also that it was an order to the 15th Mountain Army Corps; but from the original of the photostat copy it can be seen that the document is an order to the 5th SS Corps which only sent this teletype to the 15th Army Corps as information only and from this escerpt which the Prosecution has submitted this cannot be seen at all but it can be seen from the whole document. If this exhibit is accepted as it is now submitted by the Prosecution to the Tribunal, then I must request that the Prosecution also submit the rest of the paragraphs in this exhibit.
In my opinion, one gets a completely wrong picture from just one figure and, in addition, in this case, I must also request that surrebuttal evidence be allowed in my case as in the case of my colleague Dr. Fritsch.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Does the original exhibit contain all the paragraphs?
MR. FULKERSON: The original exhibit, as far as I can tell, your Honor, seems to be an entire message -- that is if the pages arc numbered consecutively that is in German handwriting here.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The Exhibit will be received and the defense counsel may read into the record such other portions of the exhibit as they see fit.
DR. TIPP: Then, Your Honor, might I ask if the Tribunal desires that I do this reading now or should I do it during the sur-rebuttal?
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: After Mr. Fulkerson has finished such parts as ho cares to read you may read such parts as you care to put into the record.
MR. FULKERSON: The paragraph in question here merely roads:
"It is planned that the murder of the Oak Leaf wearer, Captain Kirchner, by the Reds is to be retaliated through the liquidation of as great a number of prisoners as possible which are" -- and here there is a translation error there in the document; it should be, "which are from the 29th Division" stated "in Herzegovina.
"For this purpose the 5th SS Corps is to carry out an operation as soon as possible where over there is a sufficient number of prisoners, about 200, whereby a sufficient number of prisoners, about 200 from the 29th Division on a Montenegro-Croatian-Southeast border are brought in. Intentions and time table are to be reported."
THE PRESIDENT: I am wondering if the defense counsel agree to the change of translation.
MR. FULKERSON: I made two changes, if you will notice. I used -- I changed the word "wherever" on the second page to "whereby."
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Is that agreeable, Dr. Tipp?
DR. TIPP: Yes, your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Dr. Tipp, having consented to the change, it will be made. Are there any parts of this exhibit you care to read into the record, Dr. Tipp?
DR. TIPP: Your Honor, perhaps we could shorten the matter a little. Mr. Fulkerson only read Figure 6, and here it states that through the SS Corps an operation is to be carried out. If Mr. Fulkerson states as the opinion of the Prosecution that the 5th SS Corps was not subordinate to General Leyser, then in my opinion that would be sufficient and therefore I need not read the rest of the paragraphs, which are rather long.
MR. FULKERSON: Well, I will agree that the 5th SS Corps was not subordinate to General von Leyser.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Very well. You may proceed.
MR. RAPP: If, your Honor please, I would like to continue with the cross examination of the witness.
CROSS EXAMINATION (continued) BY MR. RAPP:
Q. When this Court recessed last night, did you have any contact with Defense Counsel or their representatives?
A. I was merely in the office of Dr. Sauter and fetched my coat and my things, but I didn't talk to him at all.
Q. By the way, I want to remind you that you are still under oath.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is quite apparent to a gentleman of his intelligence.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, we have had that occasionally to come through by the Defense Counsel, and I think it is perfectly proper to remind the witness of the fact that he is under oath, because I am going to ask him a few very definite statements, I want to remind him -
THE PRESIDENT: When there is an indication that it becomes apparent that he is not telling the truth, possibly that might be the appropriate time.
MR. RAPP: Very well, I withdraw the statement and the record may show so.
Q. Did you receive any communication from Defense Counsel last night, in writing?
A. No.
Q. You are sure of that point?
A. Yes.
Q. And not from any individual working with Defense Counsel either?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall, witness, the last answer you gave yesterday prior to the recess?
A. As far as I remember, at the end we were talking about the attitude of General von Geitner to reprisal measures, whether he was in agreement with them or whether he rejected them. I think that was the last thing.
Q. Well, do you recall yesterday, just shortly before we recessed, you made the statement that General Bader considered it to be his own prerogative to order reprisal measures?
A. Yes.
Q. And in connection with a subsequent question, the name of General Kuntze and General List, and General Boehme, and Field Marshall Keitel were mentioned by you?
A. Yes, I remember that.
Q. Witness, what was the purpose of reprisal measures? You recall having gone very much on record on the purpose of reprisal measures in these affidavits?
A. Yes, I remember that.
Q. Then tell us that once again.
A. The reprisal measures, according to your questioning, Mr. Prosecutor had no actual purpose but they were caused by the attitude of the population and became a punishment on various parts of the peculation in order to prevent and in order to avoid further acts of sabotage and murders being carried out by the Partisans on German soldiers.
Q. Was this purpose accomplished?
A. Yes, partly.
Q. Why was General Geitner opposed to reprisal measures?
A. As I mentioned, yesterday, he was against reprisal measures all together because this form of warfare for us soldiers was quite apart from our feelings.
Q. Well, let's go right down to the point, witness. You claim now that the purpose of reprisal measures, as far as its deterrent nature is concerned, was accomplished?
A. Yes.
Q. And that every individual, in particular General Geitner, was opposed to it because they didn't like that kind of action -- that is to say, reprisal measures?
A. As far an they were absolutely necessary, General Geitner realized that they were necessary and that is also what I expressed in my affidavit, they were a necessary evil.
Q. Did Geitner have any influence over Bader?
A. Yes, in general, since he was Chief of the General Staff and they had discussions daily and they discussed the general situation and in addition they met each other outside their official work, and as his first collaborator and advisor, of course, he always had a certain influence on his Commander in Chief.
Q. To what extent?
A. Well, I can't limit it, sir, exactly, because in conversations which General Geitner had with General Bader I was not always present.
Q. But you made it quite clear in your affidavit you gave, for instance, that you had been down there a long time and that you know a lot of things that General Geitner was not and you said that you derived that knowledge from your intimate acquaintance with General Geitner and his activities in his Staff. Do you recall having made words to that effect?
A. As far as I can remember, yes.
Q. Did Geitner at any time condemn the senseless spreading of the war?
A. Yes.
Q. Those were your own words?
A. Yes. He expressed that to me personally in conversations.
Q. For what reasons? Why did he condemn it? Why did he consider it senseless?
A. Because he saw the danger that in this kind of spreading of the war in the Southeast our fronts would become so long that a victory in the war would depend on this and this would be quite unlikely.
Q. Now, you also made the statement that Geitner went on record to say that the way in which this war was conducted would ultimately lead to a "katastrophe", or catastrophe; is that true?
A. Yes, that is what I said.
Q. Will you expound on this statement for a minute, please, and tell us what General Geitner meant?
A. As I understood it, General von Geitner foresaw the catastrophe which from 1945 onwards finally appeared. And for us juniors officers the thought, the idea of this came in the Summer of 1942, since one realized then -- that it would only be very difficult to take action against the insurgence in the Balkans and to overcome them and that our flanks in the south against the Mediterranean was becoming too long, and therefore we were not in a position to supply the Main front in Russia properly and to maintain it.
Q. In other words, Witness, the statement by General Geitner made sometime in Summer of 1942 to the effect that the war would be lost ultimately by Germany was solely based on the fact that Germany over extended its flanks in the Southeast and the Mediterranean; is that correct?
A. I assume that. I had some kind of idea in this direction as a parallel to the first World War.
Q. Thus the word that you used, the way this was was conducted would ultimately lead to a catastrophe, is confined merely to the tactical application and does not, as you understand it, offer any criticism of any political conduct, does it?
A. But yes, it does at the same time as well, since during the course of the war it led more and more to the fact that the SS tried to bring us to their -- to bring us away from the ideology of waging war as we as soldiers had always had.
Q. Now, remember we are talking about the Summer of 1942. Are you going to confirm your statement as far as the Summer of 1942 is concerned also?
A. I did not quite get your question? Will you please put the question in a different way? It isn't quite clear in the form in which you put it.
Q. You said that the political criticism was directed toward the SS because you realized that they were doing things with which you generally -- that is, you and your staff and officers -- did not agree, and I asked you whether or not you are already speaking of the period of 1942 or whether or not you are speaking of a later period.
A. No. I am already talking from the time since 1942 onwards.
Q. Now just what has the SS done up to that time, up to 1942, that drew your criticism?
A. In the course cf 1942 in the Balkans -- I am talking in this connection only about the Balkans -- more and more SS agencies were formed in the Balkans which had not formerly existed, and, first of all, they worked independently, and secondly, they were severe on the Wehrmacht agencies and made things difficult for them.
Q. Witness, tell us the incident you referred to in your affidavit regarding Major Kalsow. Do you remember having given some statement regarding this gentleman?
A. Yes, I remember very well.
Q. In a few words, please.
A. The officer for dealing with enemy matters in this Staff was Major of the Reserve Kalsow. Kalsow was a learned legal man and he thought very much in a legal way and he was a very straightforward man and who was against this method of warfare for his own person and he always tried to look after the Balkans peoples and therefore he was regarded as a pro-Serb. And from the Ic, the superior office tried at that time certainly to get rid of him. General von Geitner, who thought especially well of this, man because of his fine and upright attitude to this question, tried everything possible to keep Major Kalsow in his Staff and he was successful in this.
Q. Who was at that time the Ic of the 12th Army?
A. I think at that time it was still a Colonel Pfafferoth.
Q. And who was the Chief of Staff?
A. General Foertsch.
Q. And who commanded it?
A. At that time it was I believe General Kuntze already.
Q You say that this Ic officer wanted to recall this Major Kalsow on account of his pro-Serbophile attitude, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. By that I mean, wanted to suggest that he be replaced. He had no power physically to recall him but he wanted to suggest that he be replaced on account of his pro-serbian attitude; is that right?
A. Well, I can't say it as definitely as that, because I was not in the Staff of the superior offices, but I only know that he was to be relieved and that General, von Geitner prevented this.