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not subordinate to him had adopted measures which in his opinion were too severe, he made personal efforts to have them rescinded."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?
A.- Well, I could certainly make myself understood with the French people, but I couldn't actually speak perfect French.
Q.- How did it happen that you made two affidavits dated the same day? You have executed two affidavits on the same day and I just wondered why.
A.- Yes, because the two were submitted to me on the same day.
Q.- Did you know of any examples in Croatia where General Dehner prevented somebody from being shipped off to Germany for labor?
A.- No, I don't know anything about that in Croatia.
Q.- Was he ever asked by the population to prevent such a thing?
A.- No.
Q.- What was General Dehner's connection with the forcible recruiting -- the involuntary worker recruiting program in France?
A.- I can't allow myself to make any judgment on that question.
Q.- All you know is that these particular people asked that their relatives not be shipped to Germany and General Dehner was able to keep them from being shipped to Germany?
A.- Yes.
Q.- That is all.
JUDGE CARTER: Any further questions? Any questions by the Tribunal?
JUDGE BURKE: I have just one. Where were you born, Mr. Zorn?
A.- In Zorn.
JUDGE BURKE: That settles an important question for the Tribunal. Thank you.
JUDGE CARTER: The witness will be excused.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honors, yesterday I reserved the right to make comments on the photostat copy, given me which I certainly must make at this time. I will be as brief as possible and present my point of view quite calmly. This document represents the answer from Washington to an inquiry on the part of the prosecution about documents proving the absence of Field Marshal List from the Balkans.
This document has been compiled from documents from various agencies. I have examined it very carefully indeed. First of all, if the Tribunal will examine this photostatic copy, it will see two kinds of pagination. The first pagination on the front which was obviously made before the completed document was photostated, and the second pagination which Your Honors will find on the back. The latter pagination seems to have been made in Nurnberg, and in my opinion it was necessary because the front page of this document is missing, because it only begins with page 2, and for that reason the pages are one number out of place. From this document, - and I am now going on the pagination which is contained on the back of the pages, - you will see that page 16 has been taken out. This page 16 became Exhibit 664, and I would like to recall to the Tribunal that yesterday two members of the Prosecution, in answer to the question of Your Honor as to whether the rest of the pages were available, replied that they did not know. For me, Your Honor, it will always be a puzzle as to how, from a document of this kind, one page can be taken which proves exactly the contrary of that which is proved by the remainder of the document. I also can not understand how proceedings can be conducted in this way by the prosecution. I, as defense counsel, do not know whether this is an isolated case during these proceedings, or whether such cases have occurred several times. That is my preliminary comment. Now, if one looks at the document, one finds that the documents come from two different agencies. The first five pages are taken from the files of the OKH; that is the highest office of the Army. All the other pages, and I can prove this, come from the war diary of the Twelfth Army. And now, with regard to the document from the OKH. It is obvious that there, too, some pages are missing. Later I will prove this from the contents. The remaining pages from page 6 onwards originate from the war diary. These page numbers I give are always the numbers which are contained on the back of the page. Pages 6 and 7 originate from the the war diary.
At the top, as Mr. Rapp has already said, there are the letters "KTB", that is the abbreviation for Kriegstagebuch -- war diary, The next pages, contained on pages 8 to 11, comprise an activity report. At the top it does not give the abbreviation "KTB". But I will now prove that this portion, too, has been taken from the war diary. If you will look at the text you will see noted at the top of page 4, on the left; "Enclosure 93". Enclosure 93 is there, these are the two pages 17 and 18, and this is the order dated the 18th of October, and here on the right at the top there is the number 93, and next to this number 93, there are again the letters "KTB", abbreviation for war diary. The enclosure is a part of the war diary, and also, therefore, of this activity report, because a report does not refer to an enclosure which is somewhere else. An enclosure is the part of a document which is kept together, Now I will continue. The pages 12 to 15 carry no notation of from where they came. At the top it has "Activity Report of Department 2-A". There is no addresses on this activity report, but as I will prove, such activity reports were effected within larger staffs and, therefore, it is also a part of the war diary, and quite obviously the pages 17 and 18 are part of this war diary because they bear this note. Page 16, which is missing here, became Exhibit 664, and it comes also in the same way from the war diary. If one looks even more closely at this document then one will see that even more pages are missing. The activity report which is contained in pages 8 to 11 is again numbered for itself, - the first page and then follows immediately page 4. The most important thing here is that in this activity report the missing pages 2 and 3 refer to that period which for me would be very important.
It finishes on the 7th of October and continues on the 18th of October. Two pages are missing here. If you continue, then page 5 is there and the next page is page 8, so that here again two pages, pages 6 and 7, are missing. From this it can be seen that the prosecution in many cases has used material from the War Diary of the 12th Army. I only say this for the sake of completeness for the record, that this concerns Exhibit 42 and Exhibit 664, and this Daily Order No. 77, dated the 18th of October 1941, the Activity Report dated the 31st of October, and the order dated the 18th of October, which is also here. This material, your Honor, would not have reached me at all if I had not, with the help of the Tribunal, made the prosecution hand this over to me. The page which has been taken out proves exactly the opposite of what arises from this document. I must say that this discovery considerably prejudiced my lawyer's conscience, because I now have the feeling that such a method of procedure, perhaps - I don't know might have occurred several times during the trial. I would like to make the rest of the pages here into an exhibit for Field Marshal List, and it becomes No... I am sorry, I cannot give the number at the moment. And now from this document I would like to read various passages into the record because from this document shows exactly the opposite of what the prosecution has tried to prove with one page.
MR. RAPP: I object, your Honor. I object because it materially effects the ruling of the Court and if Dr. Laternser is being permitted to put this into evidence, on the basis that it is part of an excerpt which we did not furnish him, then he may just as well ask for all the other documents in Eashington, in Berlin, in Stuttgart, and in any other place in the world where German Army documents are. So, first of all, I think we have to define what the Court meant by the word "excerpt." Now I have sat here and listened to Dr. Laternser and I almost became..had somewhat of an inferiority complex listening to what a big bad boy the prosecution was. If every research analyst of ours in Washington would have to screen a document on the basis that Dr. Laternser suggested, saying that that is an excerpt, if each document had to be produced only by the prosecution, if all the so-called "anlagen" were present, I think these men could not be paid the statute limit in the United States - they would be worth much more than $10,000.
00 to the United States Government. I think this is all argumentation, your Honor. It lacks the simple facts and it lacks the logic of the Tribunal's ruling which we understood--and I want to emphasize that again--to be interpreted the following way. Any piece of paper that the prosecution withdraws from any coherent document, not made up in Washington, or anywhere else, but by the German Army, and if we have that missing part then we are bound to turn it over to defense counsel. And I say again that to the best of my knowledge that has been done. I am not going to engage now here in a mud-slinging campaign. We are trying a case and we are not getting anywhere if one accuses the other. Now, Dr. Laternser conceded that these documents do not represent one document in itself. He has already told us that at best they are two or three and now, out of these two or three, he said various pages are missing. Now, before we produced this document, at the direction of the Court, because we felt we were not bound to give it to defense counsel, we did not introduce an excerpt. Dr. Laternser now convinced himself that this is not a document in itself. Two days ago--I remember distinctly, or last Friday that he said because one or two pages bore the mark "KTB" we must have the rest of the War Diary, we are deliberately withholding it from him, we are defying the Court Order. Well, I think that is just that much argumentation. We cannot ask our people in Washington to look at it with the eyes of Field Marshal List, who may know all the intricacies of the German Army. After all, none of us has served in it. And, just parenthetically, I may mention this, your Honor. I have put at some time ago, a document entitled 1058-NOKW, which became Prosecution Exhibit 606, to the defendant Rendulic during cross examination, when we were talking about commissars. I just happen to have this document in front of me. This document is full from A to Z to references which were to be attached to this particular document. Every time it talks about executed commissars it says "See Reference 68", "See Reference 87."
It seems to me that it is logical that I would have been delighted to put these references to the defendant Rendulic had I had them. I did not. So I just had to put this document. Which proves, as far as I am concerned, that every often documents were just simply not captured. Now the defendants have made all kinds of statements before this Court. I may add-- it is not in the nature of a facetious remark, I am quite sincere about it-- had these defendants known that they would have taken better care of the fact in letting us capture more of the missing documents. But if we don't have them we can't produce them. This is not a coherent document, and of course it is for the Court to decide what it means by "excerpt." It is not for Dr. Laternser to decide. The Court, I think, used very plain language and that is the way we understood it.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, might I just make a brief reply to this? The prosecution says that, of course, the documents in Washington could not be searched for with the eyes of Field Marshal List. None of the defense counsel ever expected this from the prosecution, but what they did expect was that the prosecution would look at the documents which they received with the eyes of justic and that, as in this case here, they do not take one page from a document in order to prove the absolute contrary of what is shown by the entire document. I would like very much to know who searched out these documents, although I know very well that I have no right to do this. I repeat again that the prosecution has used the War Diary of of the 12th Army in various cases, and I say that the prosecution was obliged to present it. This War Diary was mentioned literally in the announcement of the Tribunal on the 14th of August, at the beginning of the afternoon session. This War Diary was asked for and it has not arrived. Although it has not arrived, the prosecution currently takes documents from it in a few cases. This leads me to the conclusion that the prosecution does not take any more documents out because it is not favorable for them, but is favorable for the defense counsel. I regret that we are now finally faced with the result that the Tribunal is only presented parts of the material which is available, and in all seriousness I must point out this situation, As the Tribunal knows, during the whole proceedings the defense has tried its best, the whole time, to get an insight into this material.
Some parts of it we have received. It is only in the last phase of these proceedings that I have found out that obviously - I cannot say with intention-- material has not arrived here, which the defense expected.
I would like to read the contents of this document into the record because it is part of Exhibit No. 664. The copy which has been placed at out disposal contains, at the top, the words "Page 16 of the original." Therefore it is a part of the exhibit and I must read from it because from this part one can see exactly the opposite of that which the prosecution intends to show with the one page which they have wrongly removed namely, that Field Marshal List served in office after the 15th.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I firmly object to the reading of this document in so far as it pertains to the overall accusations and arguments of Dr. Laternser. If this case is to rest by itself, without having any reference to any other documents, and aside from the ruling of the Tribunal, which we felt we adhered to, we have no objection. But if this is to be used as a way to come in through the back door and open up all the rest of the documents, saying that this is a document altogether, from which we withdrew excerpts, then I protest and object.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The Tribunal is necessarily obliged to accept the word of counsel, wither defense or prosecution, in regard to inquiries asked about the evidence. We have asked the prosecution directly if there is a War Diary of the 12th Army, and they say they do not have it and don't know of one. Necessarily, we must accept that statement. The exhibit in question has been offered, only one page. It is in evidence. We are not holding that this sheaf of papers about which Dr. Laternser has been talking is one instrument. Whether it is or not, it makes no difference. If some of those documents place a different light upon the exhibit that was offered and they having lately come into his possession, I think he is entitled to use such part of that in his surrebuttal as he may care to use.
It certainly would not be fair to let one instrument come in if there were others that came into his possession at the same time that bears upon the same point. So the general objection will be overruled but the opportunity will be granted Dr. Laternser to read into the record, or offer in evidence, such parts of these others that bear upon the meaning to be given to the exhibit that has been received.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, just one question with regard to the carrying out of this procedure.-Unfortunately I have no copies of this document which I could submit to the Tribunal, because it has not been translated.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I think, under the circumstances, you ought to be entitled to road into the record such portions as you want. If tho...Whether it should be done now or later is another question. If there is no objection, Why I don't suppose the Tribunal would complain if you read them now.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, perhaps I might do that later on so that I need only read the really most important passages and thereby save time.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I think it would be entirely proper for you to read it as surrebuttal, after the rebuttal evidence is in.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, sir.
MR. FULKERSON: Your Honor, may I ask the Marshal to bring in the witness, Ernst Korn?
ERNST KORN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You will 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.)
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FULKERSON:
Q. Give us your name and your birth place and the date of your birth, please.
A. My name is ERNST KORN. I was born on 11 June 1899 in Freiburg in Baden.
Q. What is your profession?
A. Since the 1st of September 1921, without interruption, I have been a police officer of the uniformed police.
Q. And you remained in the police, did you, throughout the entire war?
A. Yes, I remained with the police during the whole war.
Q. Where were you stationed in the course of your duties, during the fall of 1943?
A. Around the turn of the month, September-October 1943, I was sent to the commander of the German Regular Police in Croatia; and from there I was transferred to Gruppenfuehrer Kammerhofer, as chief of an Operational Staff which was to be set up.
Q. What troops was this staff supposed to serve?
A. Police troops.
Q. Were these troops engaged in on operation when you got there?
A. Yes. When I got to Croatia, the Operation Ferdinand was in progress. This operation was for the most part finished.
Q. Oh, incidentally, where was this staff located?
A. The staff of Gruppenfuehrer Kommerhofer was stationed in Ruma in Syrmia.
Q. What other headquarters were located in Ruma?
A. In Ruma there was the divisional staff of a German Division.
Q. Do you know which one?
A. No, I cannot remember the number of the division.
Q. Was it a Wehrmacht Division, or was it SS, or what?
A. It was a Wehrmacht Division. I think the commander was a Major General Behr.
Q. Was it an infantry division, or armored, or what?
A. It was a reserve infantry division.
Q. Now, when did this Operation Ferdinand that you mentioned a while ago, end?
A. The Operation Ferdinand ended in the first days of October 1943.
Q. What was the purpose of this operation?
A. The purpose of the Operation Ferdinand was to pacify the territory around Ruma. The bringing in of the harvest was to be secured, but above all the transporting of the harvest was to be done by the Croatian authorities.