Major Kalsow, before the beginning of major fights in Croatia, had pointed out that the Scrimage -- that is the name of the mountaineous area near Banja-Luka -- there was an attack from the Tito band forces to be anticipated. This view at the time did not please the Army. The view of Major Kalsow, however, turned out to be right and that was probably the reason for a certain friction between the Ic of the army and Major Kalsow.
Q That was this appraisal of the situation which the Army thought to be wrong?
A The Army did think it was wrong at the time but afterwards it turned out to be right.
Q Could it possibly be that other cases also occurred which might have come to your knowledge other cases of a false evaluation of the situation?
A I don't know anything about other cases.
DR. MENZEL: That is all I have to ask the witness.
DR. LATERNSER (Counsel for defendants List and von Weichs): If it please the Tribunal, I shall only put a very few questions on behalf of Field Marshal List, questions arising from the cross examination.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q Witness, you talked in the course of cross examination about the 12th Army. Did the 12th Army ever -- that is, in their own name -insist upon the enforcement of reprisal measures?
A I cannot recall such a case.
Q Is the view correct. That is, the views held by the 12th Army regarding reprisal measures -- did they agree with the view held by your Staff on the same topic?
A I did not quite clearly get the question.
Q In your official business with the 12th Army, could you ascertain that in the Staff of the 12th Army, as far as reprisals were concerned, they held the same view as held in your own staff, as you described it today on cross-examination?
A That is very difficult to tell.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Q In other words, was the staff of the 12th Army a trouble making staff?
A I did not get that impression.
Q You talked during cross examination of a Major Macher of the 12th Army. Can you recall when you met and talked to this Major Macher?
A That was in the Spring of 1942.
Q That was at a time when Fieldmarshall List was no longer in the Balkans?
A I think that was at the time after List had been transferred to Salonika.
Q To what period did your testimony refer in substance, the testimony you have given here?
A To the same period, Spring 1942.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you; I have no further questions.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH (Counsel for defendant Foertsch):
Q Witness, you have replied to a question by the Prosecution as to whether General Foertsch was the opponent or counterpart of General Geitner. You said "yes". What did you mean by that?
A I meant that with regard to his official capacity. The question, if I understood it rightly, was to the effect as to who was the corresponding officer holding the same position with the Army or Army Group, as General Geitner had it with the Commander Serbia.
Q You further stated that General Foertsch had been considered by you as the superior of General Geitner. In connection with that, I must ask you the following. Did you once read the manual for the General Staff?
A Yes, I have.
Q But you yourself have not been a general staff officer.
A For some time, I was supposed to go there, but because of political unreliability I was not taken.
Q On the basis of your training and education and experience Court No. V, Case No. VII.
as an officer in the staff, are you familiar with the authority and functions of a chief of staff?
A Yes, I am.
Q Do you know whether a chief of staff holds any authority to issue orders and whether he is a superior.
A He was the superior of the officer on his staff.
Q Is he also the superior of the subordinated troops?
A In the case of troops subordinated to an army corps, an army or an army group, never.
Q May I then ask you how you arrived at your statement that General Foertsch -- that is, the Chief of the General Staff of the 12th Army -- had been General Geitner's superior.
A The question was put in a different context -- that is, the question by the Prosecutor. It was asked if these two corresponded to each other as far as their positions were concerned. And in this respect, the Chief of Staff of an Army has a certain right to issue instructions to the Staff Officers of subordinate units.
Q And who was the superior of General Geitner?
A General Bader.
Q To what matters did the right to issue instructions you just mentioned refer -- that is the right of the superior chief of staff -to the chief of staff of the next subordinate agency?
AAbove all, it referred to dealing with and coordinating the work of the General Staff Officers of the subordinate agency.
Q And to what matters in the military sphere of the staff did this refer?
A. Operational Technical matters.
Q Would you please repeat your answer? It has not been entirely translated.
A Questions regarding the purely operational command of the troops.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Thank you. I have no further questions.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
BY DR. SAUTER (Counsel for defendant von Geitner):
Q Prince, I have only two questions to put to you to clarify something. The one question is in regards the effectiveness of the occupation of Serbia by the German occupation troops in Serbia was effective at that time.
A Yes, I did.
Q Now, in order to make this quite clear, I should like to re-phrase the question put to you and make it a little more precise by asking you: was it, for instance, in the second part of the year 1942 -- was it possible at any time in that period -- for the available German troops to get to any place in the occupied area; that is, could any area occupied by the insurgents be retaken and could it be held?
A Yes, it could.
Q Did you clearly understand the question? Would you answer it please with "yes" or "no".
A Yes, it was possible for the troops to each any place in the Serbian area.
Q And then a second question on a different topic.-- I return to the, let's call them fictitious reports of false reports in which you thought that it was open to dispute as to whether they were false or true reports. If I understood you rightly, then, you have told us -- please pay attention now and tell me whether it is correct so that afterwards you can answer yes or no -- in case of small sabotage incidents, the troops -- that is, your office -- lists dead who had fallen or lost their lives in some other connection in this area; you reported them in such a way as to convey the impression that they were people who had been killed within the scope of a reprisal measure, so that the superior agency, the OKW, was to get the impression that, for instance, ten people had been killed -- that is, the reprisal had been carried out but in reality the reprisal measure was carried out at all. That was done in order to convey the impression to the superior agency that the order had been complied with?
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
MR. RAPP: I object, your Honors. First of all the witness never said anything to that effect. I think if Dr. Sauter wants him to repeat that question and put the question to him and give his answer it would be much simpler; we could get to the point, rather than have Dr. Sauter stand here and tell something the witness didn't say in the first place.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Objection sustained.
DR. SAUTER: Of course. I cannot possibly agree to that. I cannot possibly agree to what the Prosecutor prescribed to the defense, that we ought to phrase our questions in exactly the same way as the Prosecution. The Prosecution may ask as they like but we question in the way we think is correct.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The objection has been ruled on, and there is no question that you can interrogate him about the matter, but let the witness do the testifying, Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: In that case, I waive my right to put further questions.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, you said that you couldn't recall any instance where the 12th Army put your headquarters under pressure as to whether or not reprisal measures had been carried out or were ordered. Did you make that statement?
A May I ask you to repeat the question?
Q To a question by Dr. Laternser, I understood you to say -and I would like you to verify that for me, whether or not I got it right -- that the 12th Army did not put your headquarters under pressure as to whether or not reprisal measures had been ordered or carried out.
A If I may comment on this as to existence of pressure or not, I have already stated to you, Mr. Prosecutor, that inquiries were made to us which, in effect, were a control and they were, therefore, very Court No. V, Case No. VII.
important to us.
Q And who checked that? What agency was it which supervised you?
AAll superior agencies, inclusive of the 12th Army, the Army Group and the OKW.
Q Witness, did I overhear you to say that you were not permitted to actually enter as a full-fledged member of the German General Staff Corps on account of your political unreliability?
A Yes.
Q Do you have to be politically reliable to be a member of the German General Staff Corps?
A In this connection I ought to define the matter a little more precisely. The main reason was my close relationship to the kings of Greece and Great Britain. As such I was considered unreliable by the counter intelligence agency.
Q I see. Do you have other relations in Germany who are closer related to the king of England and to the king of Greece, do you?
A Yes, I do.
Q Some of them were members of the Nazi Party. Isn't that right?
A I don't think that is true of persons related to the king of England.
JUDGE BURKE: There is probably a very large family, Mr. Prosecutor, and if you attempted to explore all the limbs of the family tree, we might be here a considerable period of time.
MR. RAPP: I propose to ask no further questions, Your Honor.
DR. SAUTER: I was just going to object to this question, -but even if Mr. Rapp does not want to put any further questions, I still have to object. I think such a method of questioning is entirely inadmissible.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The situation seems to have solved itself.
DR. LATERNSER: I have one more substantive question.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q Witness, did you regret the fact that at that time you could not be admitted to the General Staff Corps for those reasons?
A Yes, I did at that time.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you. No further questions.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Any further cross-examination
MR. RAPP: No, your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Any further re-direct, or questions by the Tribunal?
JUDGE BURKE: I have no questions.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The witness will be excused.
MR. FULKERSON: The prosecution is ready to cross-examine the affiant Willy Zorn who made two affidavits for the defendant Dehner, both of which are to be found in Dehner Book VI.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The Marshal will call the witness.
WILLY ZORN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q 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.
JUDGE BURKE: Mr. Fulkerson, did you say this is Dehner Book VI?
MR. FULKERSON: Yes, sir. The affidavits are documents numbered 33 and 34, respectively, introduced as Dehner Exhibits 32 and 33.
JUDGE BURKE: We don't seem to have the book. We don't seem to have the copy.
MR. FULKERSON: Will you tell the witness that we are just waiting until the judges got their books?
(The interpreter gave the information to the witness.)
MR. RAPP: While we are waiting, may I ask defense counsel to return to us please the photostatic copies of NOKW-2679, 1231, and 1791 Prosecution Exhibit 653, 650, but the same photostat that I have given tho NOKW number right now. Sometime, Dr. Laternser, before tonight, possibly? Thank you.
MR. FULKERSON: While we are waiting, I may mention now to prevent this from happening again than there are two other affiants who also made affidavits which were introduced in behalf of the defendant Dehner and their affidavits are to be found in Dehner Books V and VII, so if the Tribunal will procure those books for this afternoon's session, we can expedite matters, and also Rendulic Document Book I.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You may proceed with this witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION of the witness Willi Zorn.
BY MR. FULKERSON:
Q Your name is Willy Zorn?
A Yes.
Q And what is your business or profession?
A Barber.
Q And you made two affidavits for the defendant General Dehner here on November 28 of last year, I believe?
A Yes.
Q What was your relationship to General Dehner during the war?
A I was the personal driver of General Dehner.
Q You were his chauffeur? You drove his personal car?
A Yes.
Q And you state here-well first, you were with General Dehner how long in Croatia?
A I was with him in Croatia from July 1943 to March. 1944.
Q That was the whole time that General Dehner was down there? You were there as long as he was?
A Yes.
Q When General Dehner travelled around, did he generally go by car or did he generally go by train?
A Well, mostly by car, but he didn't make any faily long trips by car.
Q Now, I suppose that in this relationship that existed between you and General Dehner, you got to be personally friendly toward each other? I mean that is only natural?
A Yes. For the long time I spend with him, we wre well acquainted and I did know him fairly well.
Q And I suppose that as you took these trips in a car together, you would discuss things with each other? You would converse with each other?
A Yes.
Q And when General Dehner had something on his mind, for example some tactical problem that was bothering why he would from time to time discuss these, things with you?
A Yes. - Well directly tactical matters he did not discuss with me.
Q Well, when there was then, say, some question of general policy in the corps that was on his mind, would he discuss these things with you?
A No, not really.
Q Were you generally present when General Dehner had conferences with his various divisional commanders?
A No, I was not, I did not attend them.
Q Well, would you overhear conversations sometimes between General Dehner and his subordinate officers as they drove along in the automobile together?
A Well, they did talk in the car but, being the chaufeeur, I wouldn't pay such particular attention to it.
Q Well, when was it that you received your information about General Dehner's attitude toward disciplinary measures and his general policy within the corps area?
DR. GAWLIK: If it please the Tribunal, I object to the question. In the first place, it is much too general formed. I do not know, I don't understand the question myself. I don't know what is meant by methods one could discuss this topic for hours; and in the second place the question does not refer to the affidavit. I request the prosecution to state the question more precisely and to tell us exactly what he means.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Overruled.
BY MR. FULKERSON:
Q Would you answer the question, please?
A Well, I can't quite understand what you mean.
Q Well, now, you have made some statements herein your affidavit about General Dehner's attitude toward disciplinary measures. I was just wondering where it was that you acquired your knowledge of his attitude?
DR. GAWLIK: If it please the Tribunal, I object again but I think that the translation did not come through properly. The translation referred to "disciplinary questions", which words are not contained in the affidavit. I don't know whether there was a mistake in translation or whether the Prosecutor actually said it.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The objection will be overruled, but the question may be asked again.
BY MR. FULKERSON:
Q Now, you say that General Dehner did not discuss his problems, either his tactical problems or his questions of general policy with you as you drove in the car. Where did he discuss them with you?
A Well, what questions do you mean?
Q You have made a statement here in your second affidavit that the French used to say of General Dehner that he was one of the most humane of the various German generals who had been quartered in this town of touches. Then you say here in the third paragraph or the paragraph numbered three, "General Dehner also adopted the same attitude in Croatia. Whenever he learned that offices which were not subordinate to him had adopted measures which in his opinion were too severe, he made personal efforts to have them rescinded."
Now, all I want to know is where did you find out about this?
A Well, this confirmation regarding louches and the billets the French themselves told me that. That is, the billeting people.
Q All right then, let's move into Croatia. Where did you find it out down there?
A In Croatia, where theyre wasn't too much driving to be done, I often sat in the anti-room of the General and did orderly duty there and I can recall that General Dehner once paid a visit to the Grossgespann in Ruka and one morning I found a note on his desk in which General Dehner had written down points regarding that conference, and among other things there was also the point, "Treatment of Captured Partisans."
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The Tribunal will be in recess until one-thirty.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please take their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You may proceed.
CROSS - EXAMINATION (Continued) WITNESS - Zorn BY MR. FULKERSON:
Q. Do you remember where we were when the recess came? We were talking about paragraph 3 in this affidavit of yours that mostly has to do with France. Do you have the affidavit there?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you said that -- I asked you first whether -- or when it was that you discovered that General Dehner adopted measures or excuse me, -- I asked you how you learned that General Dehner had made efforts to stop disciplinary measures which in his opinion were too severe, and you told me that you were waiting in the anteroom and that one day you went in the General's office and found this piece of paper on his desk? Is that true? Is that where we were?
A. Yes.
Q. What were you doing in there? What were you doing in the office?
A. In the morning's before General Dehner went into the room, I had to put the desk in order. I had to sharpen the pencils and brush off the dust and see that everything was in order.
Q. And you noticed this document there as you were straightening up the papers on the desk?
A. Yes.
Q. What was this paper?
A. Well, it was just an ordinary piece of paper.
Q. I know but what was on it? Was it a report? Was it minutes of a meeting or what?
A. It was just sort of notes for a conference.
Q. Who had made them?
A. I don't know who wrote it; whether General Dehner wrote it himself or whether somebody else wrote it, I don't know.
Q. Where had this conference taken place?
A. As far as I know with the Grossgespan. (That is a kind of governor: By the Interpreter.)
Q. Well, is that just an assumption on your part or do you know that?
A. Well, I assume that these points were for the discussion with the Grossgespan.
Q. And what was on this paper that causes you to make the statements that you made here in your affidavit?
A. Dr. Gawlik's assistant asked me about this matter, whether I knew anything about it.
Q. But I am asking you now, since you give this incident of your finding the piece of paper on General Dehner's desk as one of the bases for this statement here in your affidavit, what was on the paper that would justify or substantiate what you said here in your affidavit?
Do you understand?
A. Yes. It is difficult to say.
Q. Well, can you name any other incidents, any other incidents which might be used as a basis for this statement? Now, you found this paper on the General's desk -- we will leave that for the moment. What else makes you think that General Dehner took steps to ameliorate or mitigate the disciplinary measures which were being taken by various units?
A. As far as I can judge General Dehner he was very humane, and er -
Q. Well, I know, but let's be a little more specific. Give me another incident if there is another one, which could have served as a source of information on your part for actions which General Dehner actually took?
A. I actually can't say anything about that because I -- er -didn't know anything about it.
Q. Well, why is this statement in the affidavit then?
A. Because of the piece of paper which I read on the desk.
Q. But you don't remember what was on the paper?
A. No, I can't remember exactly any more because I only looked at it very fleetingly, and I didn't have much time to read it through properly in detail.
Q. Well, do you think that justifies you for making this statement that whenever he learned that offices which were not subordinate to him had adopted measures which in his opinion were too severe, he made personal efforts to have then rescinded? Is that your language or is that somebody else's language?
A. No
Q. No, what? I mean, is it your language?
A. No, I didn't write it myself. Dr. Gawlik's assistant wrote it and then he submitted it to me for my signature.
Q. Well, was this incident that you just told us about your going in and noticing a piece of paper that said something that you don't now remember -- was that the only basis for this sentence here in this affidavit?
A. Yes. He asked me about it and then I told him as much as I could remember.
Q. All right now, let's take your other affidavit. Look at paragraph two, (not paragraph arabic "2"). Have you found it?
A. Do you mean the second affidavit?
Q. Well, I don't know which was executed first in time because they both have the same date, but I am now talking about the affidavit which confines itself to Croatia.
A. Yes, in Croatia.
Q. Did you find it?
A. Yes, second paragraph.
Q. Now, you say here: "Moreover, I very often had a chance to look at reports and messages from subordinate units." In what capacity did you do that?
A. Because I did orderly duties for the Generel, and I in the anteroom of General Dehner, and when in the mornings I tidied up the desk, all the incoming mail was on the desk, and now and again I looked at it.
Q. Now, you mentioned a while ago that Dr. Gawlik's assistant prepared this affidavit, that we discussed a minute ago. What was his name? What was Dr. Gawlik's assistant's name?
A. Mr. Dehner.
Q. Is he any relation to the defendant?
A. Yes, it is General Dehner's son.
Q. Now what was the procedure for making these affidavits? How was it actually done?
A. Dehner came to me beforehand and talked over the matters with me, and then he made notes and later on he came with the statement which was written down, and then he gave it to me to sign.
Q In other words, Dr. Gawlik's assistant, General Dehner's son, came to you with an affidavit already prepared and typed out for your signature. Now, I notice here on this first affidavit -- well, I won't call it the first affidavit, but on one of them; that is, the affidavit that has to do with Croatia, there is a sentence marked out. How did that come about? I will show you the original so that you will know what I am talking about.
A Yes. (Document handed to witness.)
Q If Your Honorsplease, the sentence that is stricken out, appears in Dehner Document No. 33, on page 89, immediately after the first sentence in Paragraph C, and it reads: "I know of no case in which German soldiers were captured by the partisans and remained alive. To the contrary." All that is stricken out. How did that happen?
A I read it through and I got to this statement, and I could not say that they had captured soldiers and killed them. I couldn't say that. I wouldn't maintain that.
Q Well, were there any other assertions that are made in this affidavit that you raised the question about?
A No; everything else was quite clear to me.
Q You thought all the other statements were perfectly justified?
A Yes.
Q Including that statement that we have just discussed which was based on your having glanced at a paper on General Dehner's desk? You thought that was justified, too? You didn't think that was stretching facts?
A No, that is correct.
Q I notice here that your birth date and the town where you were born is also filled in in ink in both these affidavits. Didn't you furnish this information at the time that Dr. Gawlik's assistant took his notes?
A No, I wasn't asked about them.
Q How many trips did Dr. Gawlik's assistant make to your home town, or did you come to Nurnberg?
A No, he visited me twice.
Q The first time he took notes, and the second time he appeared with this typewritten affidavit?
A Yes.
Q You filled in the blanks?
A Yes.
Q And struck out that one sentence?
A Yes.
Q I notice here that there is a blank for the town of Louches in France, where you say General Dehner was commended so highly for his humane conduct. Didn't you explain -- didn't you tell Dr. Gawlik's assistant where that place was, since it seems to take up about four paragraphs of the affidavit? Or was it a question of your having picked one of several towns and he just left it blank for your own choice?
A No, he explained to me that he did not remember the name of the place any more. It is here where this incident about the procession is.
Q Take the witness.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Dr. Gawlik for General Dehner. Does the written affidavit submitted to you correspond with the statements which you made to my assistant?
A Yes.
Q Did you also mention to him the first time the name of Louches?
A Well, I can't remember about that. I can't remember whether I said it or not.
Q But you mentioned the name of a place to him?
A Yes, I mentioned the name of a place.
Q Well, when the affidavit was submitted to you for signature, did you have sufficient time to read through the affidavit?
A Yes, I had sufficient time.
Q Did you have the possibility of making alterations?
A Yes, I had that, too.
Q Please make a short pause. -- Then with regard to the sentence which was mentioned here, this sentence in the affidavit -- please take affidavit No. 34. Please look at it. This is the affidavit which concerns France. Please look at Figure 3. I understood you to say that you could no longer tell us the text which was contained on this piece of paper.
A Which piece of paper?
Q The piece of paper mentioned in Figure 3 on the basis of which you made your statements?
A No. I really can't remember the exact words any more.
Q Can you remember the sense of it? What the purpose of this note was?
A I can only say that this piece of paper was points for discussion with the Grossgepan,
INTERPRETER: That is, the Governor of the District.
Q What was supposed to be the purpose of this conference?
A Well, it was on, the occasion of a visit which General Dehner made to the Grossegespan.
Q And what was to be discussed there?
A Well, I can't give any more details about it. I can only say that on the piece of paper there were points for the discuss on the treatment of captured partisans.
Q Were you at that time, when you read the piece of paper, convinced on the basis of these notes, that General Dehner was intervening for the improvement of the conditions of the prisoners in the prisons?
A That was my conviction.
Q You also knew General Dehner during his activity in France? Is that correct?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you find out there in France that General Dehner did everything to improve the living conditions of the population?
A Yes, I can certainly say that.
Q On the basis of your own knowledge of General Dehner during his service in France, together with the notes which you found on the piece of paper, are you convinced that the sentence under Figure 3 is correct? Please read it through again.
A Perhaps you would ask your question again?
Q I asked whether you are of the opinion that this sentence which you wrote under Figure 3 is correct?
A Yes.
Q And what is the basis for your conviction?
A Well, I can say that General Dehner helped the French population whenever he could. He never turned a civilian away. He received every single one.
Q What was the reputation of General Dehner in France?
AAccording to statements of the billeting people, General Dehner was very much liked.
Q Did you talk with other people about General Dehner? Other parts of the population?
A Well, not so much.
Q Can you give examples of what General Dehner did for the population of France?
A When we were in Aire several people came to General Dehner whose sons were to be sent to Germany to work. One case concerned the son of the gardener at the castle at Aire where General Dehner lived, and there General Dehner arranged for the son to stay in France. The one who was supposed to be sent for work in Germany.
Q Do you know any other cases in which General Dehner intervened on behalf of the population?
A I can't say exactly in detail because the visits to General Dehner were handled by another orderly.
Q I have no further questions.
JUDGE CARTER: Any further cross-examination by the defense? This should really be redirect examination. Any further cross-examination?
MR. FULKERSON: Just a little, Your Honor.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. FULKERSON:
Q Do you speak French?
A No.
Q Well, you were kinda handicapped in finding out what the reputation of General Dehner among the French was, weren't you?