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.
Q. You said that this operation was being carried out by the police troops. Were any other troops engaged in it?
A. There were not only police troops. There were also troops of the infantry divisions stationed in Ruma in these detachments.
Q. The same infantry division that was commanded by this General von Behr that you mentioned a while ago?
A. Yes, the same commander.
Q. Now you say this operation ended. Why did it end? Why was it stopped?
A. The operation suddenly came to an end because Cossack units suddenly appeared in the area.
Q. Well, what was the next commitment of the police troops, after the end of this Operation Ferdinand?
A. When the Cossacks arrived, the entire forces stationed around Ruma, that is Wehrmacht and police, were subordinated to the Cossack Division.
Q. Did you say subordinated?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the next operation that the police troops engaged in?
A. This operation was followed by the Operation Arnim.
Q. And would you repeat again what units took part in this Operation Arnim?
A. Troops taking part in Operation Arnim were forces from the police at regimental strength.
Q. And what other troops, if any?
A. Well, the Cossacks, and then units of the division which was stationed in Ruma.
Q. Who was in command of the operation?
A. The operation was commanded by Brigadier General von Pannwitz.
Q. How, and from whom, did the police troops get their assignment to this Operation?
A. General von Panwitz gave the assignment to the police troops.
Q. Now, how were these various units that you have described, that is to say, the Cossack Division and this reserve infantry division and this police regiment--how were they deployed? How were they situated with reference to each other as the operation progressed?
A. The aim of the Operation Arnim was, the mopping up of the Fruska-Gora, as well as the terrain north and south of this mountain range. North and south of the mountain range the Cossacks went into action, and over and away from the mountain range the police regiment advanced.
Q. Now, during this operation, what was the chain of command, so far as the police troops were concerned?
A. The assembly order was given through the Divisional Headquarters. During the course of the operation the police regiment was subordinate to one Cossack Brigade and received assignment orders from this Cossack Brigade.
Q What role -- do you happen to know what corps area this took place in?
A I don't know the number of the corps but the corps staff was stationed as far as I know, in Vukovar.
Q Were you ever there at the corps staff?
A Yes, I was. I was ordered to the corps staff, and this was before the Operation "Arnim" started.
Q What was the purpose of your being ordered to the corps staff?
A I was ordered to the staff with the Ia of the division in Ruma and with the Ia of the Cossack Division in order to regulate the authorizations for command and subordination.
JUDGE BURKE: Can you give us the volume and page number of the exhibit to which reference is made by the witness? Can you give us the page and volume number of the exhibit referred to by the witness?
MR. FULKERSON: You mean the document describing this operation "Arnim."
JUDGE BURKE: Well, whatever the subject matter for which this is cross examination.
MR. FULKERSON: If your Honor please, this witness did not make an affidavit for the defendants. This is strictly a rebuttal witness brought here by the Prosecution.
JUDGE BURKE: Thank you.
Q Who met you when you arrived at the corps staff?
A The Chief of Staff gave us the necessary directions.
Q Did you happen to meet the Commanding General of the corps?
A We reported to a General.
Q Do you remember who he was?
A The meeting was a very fleeting one. After four years I really can't remember the name.
Q Now, after you returned to Ruma, after your meeting at the corps staff, how were you informed as to the whereabouts of the police troops in the course of this operation?
A The divisional headquarters of the Cossack Division informed us of that by sending us the orders of the Cossack Division.
Q Who furnished the ammunition to the police troops during this operation?
A The ammunition was furnished from a munitions depot in Belgrade.
Q Well, was that a police ammunition depot or what?
A That was a Wehrmacht depot.
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for defendant Dehner): Your Honor, I object because the whole examination so far has been concerned with the Operation "Arnim." I would like the Prosecution to tell me which assertion of the defense with regard to the Operation "Arnim" is to be refuted by the testimony of this witness?
MR. FULKERSON: I hope to show by this witness, as I attempted to show by General Bach-Zelewski, how close and harmoniously the Wehrmacht and the police troops worked together. For that purpose I am asking the witness questions about this specific Operation "Arnim" but I further intend to try to show that this was by no means an unusual situation, but that the close liaison which existed between the police troops and the Wehrmacht during this particular operation was not unique or unusual but that it existed the whole time he was down there, and that what was unusual, was when the police troops themselves, without the cooperation of the army, carried out an operation.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honors, then I object to this examination because the statements are cumulative. The Prosecution has submitted this himself, and he just wants to prove again what the witness Bach-Zelewski has previously proved - presumably proved and this is cumulative and for this reason I object to the examination of this witness.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The objection will be overruled.
DR. FRITSCH (Counsel for defendant Rendulic): Your Honors, I object for another additional reason. Mr. Fulkerson has just stated that he wants to prove a close cooperation between the police and the troops. As far as this concerns anything which might have to do with joint operations, this has never been disputed.
I would like to be shown where my client, General Rendulic, maintained dis-harmony in this direction?
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Overruled.
Q Who furnished the transport for the police during this operation for the police troops.
A Transport came through Wehrmacht the transport headquarters in Belgrade.
Q Where did you get your food and other supplies -- the police troops, I mean?
A Food was placed at our disposal by the division in Ruma.
Q Which division?
A Through that division which was stationed in Ruma, I don't know the number of this division.
Q You mean this reserve infantry division?
A Yes. The same division which was stationed in Ruma and which also placed troops at our disposal during the Operation "Ferdinand."
Q How long did you stay in Croatia.
AAltogether I was seven months in Croatia.
Q Did you have this same job as Chief of Staff the whole time?
A Yes, I was Chief of the Operational Staff from October 1943 until April 1944.
Q Now, during that time how often would you say the police troops were subordinated to army units in similar operations?
A During the seven months I was in Croatia I only know of one single operation, a larger police operation in which the command from the very beginning until the end was in the hands of the police. As a rule, it was like this: because of the relatively small number of forces which the police had, weaker police units at the time were subordinated to the stronger Wehrmacht units.
Q What was this one operation which you say the police troops carried out independently?
A That was an operation in February 1944 in the Drau Plain which was to protect the migration of ethnic German minorities.
Q Now, could the police troops in Croatia act on their own or was it necessary for them first to obtain the approval of the army in order to carry out an independent operation?
A The German regular police on its own initiative -
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for defendant Dehner): Your Honors, I object to this question because it is a leading question. The Prosecution should have asked, "How could the police troops act?" but if he puts the question as he did, then it is quite clear what the witness will answer. The witness could recognize quite clearly what answer the prosecutor required.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Overruled.
Q Would you answer the question?
A The German regular police on its own initiative could not undertake any operation independently, as regards the planning orders and execution. All the operations planned by the police or which were to be carried out by the police had first of all to obtain the approval of the competent Wehrmacht agency. This could also be seen from the subordination relationship of Gruppenfuehrer Kammerhofer.
Q To whom was he subordinate?
A Gruppenfuehrer Kammerhofer was the representative with the Plenipotentiary German general in Zagreb.
Q Are you a prisoner now?
A No, I am not a prisoner.
MR. FULKERSON: I will ask this question again because I don't believe the witness understood it.
Q Are you a free man now or are you a prisoner?
A I am a civilian internee.
Q How did you happen to be here in Nurnberg?
A On the 9th of May 1945 I became an American prisoner of war. On the 1st of July 1946 I became a civilian internee of the Regensburg camp. In November last year my release proceedings were started under the OMGUS regulations, since I was not a member of the organizations pronounced criminal by the IMT in Nurnberg, and I am no longer politically incriminated through my nominal membership of the former NSDAP since the beginning of May 1933.
According to the actual facts, my release as a political internee should have taken place Christmas 1947, but instead on the 16th of December I was brought here to the prison and, therefore, I am enjoying some disadvantages although innocent and these disadvantages also extend to my family which is in great distress.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom please be seated.
The Tribunal is again in session.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You may proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION Witness-Korn BY MR. FULKERSON:
Q. You say you came here to Nurnberg on the 15th of December-from where?
THE INTERPRETER: Will you please repeat?
Q. You say you came here from where on the 15th of December to Nurnberg?
A. I came from the Regensburg internment camp.
Q. And you say that at the time you were transferred to Nurnberg you were scheduled to be released in four days?
A. No. I did say that the OMGUS release procedure, as far as I was concerned, had been introduced since November of last year.
Q. After you got here to Nurnberg on the 15th of December who talked to you?
A. Nobody. I was interrogated for the first time in January.
Q. Who first--what were you--were you interviewed by any lawyer before I talked to you?
A. Yes. The Counsel for General Dehner questioned me in January.
Q. Did he take an affidavit from you or anything?
A. I have executed no affidavits.
Q. Were you asked to execute one?
A. I was unable to comment on the questions I was required to answer.
Q. And then you were interviewed afterwards by nobody until I talked to you?
A. No.
Q. Did you know who requested you to be transferred here?
A. No, I was not told that.
MR. FULKERSON: That is all.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Re-direct examination?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Gawlik, counsel for General Dehner. Witness, when did the prosecution first interview you?
A. August 1947-
Q. I am not interested in that--the first time in this year?
A. It was on the 13th of January.
Q. Were documents submitted to you on that occasion?
A. Documents were available. I refused to inspect these documents.
Q. Why did you refuse to look at the documents?
A. I didn't wish to be confused.
Q. At these interviews, were names of operations communicated to you, operations which were brought up in this case?
A. No, no.
Q. At these interviews, were the names of operations mentioned to you?
A. No.
Q. Did you hear them here for the first time since your assignment and commitment in Croatia?
A. These operations Ferdinand and Arnim were personally known to me.
Q. I mean were they discussed in the interviews?
A. Already in August? Yes.
Q. In January?
A. Yes, again.
Q. Were these names mentioned to you?
A. Yes, Ferdinand and Arnim were discussed.
Q. Who mentioned these names for the first time--did you or were these names first mentioned to you by your interrogator?
A. I believe that I mentioned them for the first time. I touched upon the designations. It was me.
Q. Do you recall today the dates? Upon what knowledge do your statements referring to the dates today rest?
A. I cannot give the dates of days, but I can recall the dates of months. When in October-
Q. Thank you, I don't want to know any more just now. At the interview of the prosecution,--how many interviews did you have?
A. You mean in this year? One interview.
Q. How long did this interview last?
A. I no longer have a watch so I don't know.
Q. One hour? Two hours?
A. At least one hour. That much is certain.
Q. Could it have been longer?
A. It may have been an hour-and-a-half or an hour and forty-five minutes.
Q. Were dates mentioned to you in these interviews?
A. I myself mentioned the dates. I stated when I came to Croatia, what I was doing in October in Syrmia, and that my activity in Croatia finished in April.
Q. I mean were the dates of the individual operations mentioned named to you?
A. No.
Q. You then referred to Kammerhofer. You were on Kammerhofer's staff. Is that correct?
A. I belonged to the staff of the Commander of the Regular Police, as Chief of the Operational Staff, and as such I was detailed to the then Gruppenfuehrer Kammerhofer.
Q. What activity did you have in the staff of Kammerhofer?
A. I myself did not belong to the staff of Gruppenfuehrer Kemmerhofer. I was assigned by the Commander of the Regular Police, as chief of the operational staff with Kammerhofer for the issuance of orders for operations concerning the combatting of bands.
Q. How long were you detailed on that assignment?
A. I was assigned from October 1943 till April 1944.