Q. What designations did Kammerhofer have?
A. Kammerhofer was the representative of the Reichsfuehrer SS for Croatia with the Plenipotentiary German General in Croatia.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Q Are you of the opinion that Kammerhofer ought to know better what title he had while in Croatia? Yes or No?
A Kammerhofer ought to know better than I do.
Q Then in order to impeach the credibility of this witness, I submit from my document book VI, the affidavit -
MR. FULKERSON: Your Honor, I want to object before we go any further on this. I believe that I know what Dr. Gawlik is going to do. He proposes to use an affidavit of Kammerhofer that he has never put in evidence. Now if he does that, of course we are going to be deprived at this late date of having a chance of putting Kammerhofer up there on the witness stand and cross-examine him and I object to his using this for any purpose--impeachment or anything else. This is not a prior contradictory statement made by this witness; this is an excerpt taken from an affidavit of someone else, an affidavit which has never been put in evidence.
DR. GAWLIK: May I comment on this, if it please the Tribunal? I believe that as defense counsel, it ought to be left to me how I conduct my defense and at what time I submit my evidence. The prosecution is doing it in exactly the same way.
May I comment on this? This morning in order to impeach the credibility of Prince von Holstein, an affidavit was submitted which my colleague, Dr. Sauter had withdrawn.
MR. FULKERSON: Sure and this was made by the man who was on the witness stand too.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Just a moment, please. The objection will be overruled--sustained, I am sorry.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Witness, do you wish to maintain on oath that Kammerhofer did have the title you stated or is it correct that he had the following designation: Representative of the Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police.......
MR. FULKERSON: I object to this. He is merely doing indirectly Court No. V, Case No. VII.
what he was prevented from doing directly by the last ruling of the Court. He is reading the affidavit.
DR. GAWLIK: If it please the Tribunal, I did not submit this affidavit but I adhered to the rules of the Court.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Objection sustained.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Witness, what operations are known to you?
A Could you please re-state the question?
Q What operations in Croatia carried out in 1943 are known to you?
A Operations of the Wehrmacht, of the Police?
Q All operations. Do you know the Operation Cornflower?
A The Operation Cornflower is not known to me.
Q Do you know when this operation was carried out?
A Operation Cornflower is not known to me.
Q When was the Operation Ferdinand carried out?
A Operation Ferdinand began about the middle of September 1943. The final stage of Operation Ferdinand was witnessed by me.
Q Who carried out Operation Ferdinand?
A Operation Ferdinand was under the direction of the then Gruppenfuehrer Kammerhofer.
Q Do you know when Operation Arnim took place?
A Operation Arnim began about the middle of October 1943.
Q Do you know how long the Operation Arnim took?
A Operation Arnim finished towards the end of October 1943.
Q I shall now submit to you the War Diary of the LXIXth Army Corps. Will you please read the entry under the 14th of October 1943 and the 16th of October 1943?
A "Thursday, 14th of October, Operation Arnim started today and reached, this afternoon, without enemy contact the line it was intended to take. Fransujek was also bombed by airplanes in the afternoon and taken by the troops without a fight."
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Q Will you now please read the entry under the 16th of October?
MR. FULKERSON: I'd like Dr. Gawlik to let me know the Exhibit number of this. I presume it was introduced as a prosecution exhibit?
DR. GAWLIK: The War Diary was introduced by me as Document Dehner 16, Exhibit No. 10.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Witness, will you please read the entry under the 16th of October?
A "Saturday, 16th of October, 1943. Overall situation unchanged. Considerable activity..."
Q Please only read anything having reference to Operation Arnim.
A "Operation Arnim finished as of today."
Q Witness, stop. Witness, do you wish to correct your statements bearing on Operation Arnim?
A Sir-
Q Please answer my question yes or no.
A No.
Q Witness, you then talked about the relationship of subordination between the police and the Wehrmacht. Is it correct that the police in Croatia also carried out operations independently?
A Yes, that is correct, but everything in agreement with the competent agency of the Wehrmacht.
Q Who issued the order for the carrying-out of these operations?
A In the seven months of my presence in Croatia, only one major operation of the police was initiated. In this operation from the beginning to the end, the leadership was in the hands of the German regular police.
Q Witness, is it known to you that Col. Handl on the 13th of Court No. V, Case No. VII.
September 1943 carried out a police operation in Syrmia, an independent operation? Please answer yes or no.
A The question cannot be answered that way.
Q Witness, is this operation known to you?
A This can only refer to Operation Ferdinand which was under the direction of the then Gruppenfuehrer Kammerhofer.
Q Witness, did it happen in 1943, that the police without an agreement with the Wehrmacht--apart from that one operation you mentioned, that the police did carry out operations without agreement with the Wehrmacht?
MR. FULKERSON: I don't want to be obstreperous but the witness has been asked that question I think twice by me and once by Dr. Gawlik and he has answered that during the seven months he was there it only happened once.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Overruled.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
A Would you please put that question again?
Q Do you know that the police, apart from the two operations mentioned by you, that the police carried out other independent operations in Croatia in 1943? Yes or no?
A No.
Q Witness, in that case, I shall submit to you the entry of 21st of October, 1943, in the War Diary already mentioned, in order to refresh your recollection.
A "Thursday, 21st of October, 1943---"
MR. FULKERSON: Will you please wait until the interpreters find the English translation?
DR. GAWLIK: It is the 21st of October.
INTERPRETER WEBER: Will you please read that again.
A. I do not have it now. (Document handed to witness.) "Thursday 21 October 1943. Corps Headquarters, requests the representative of the Reichsfuehrer SS for Croatia, carry out all police operations in agreement with the Wehrmacht. 4 enclosures."
Q. Witness, will you now please read the entry of the 11th of November 1943?
A. "The police operation is to be considered as a failure since the bandits held their own in spite of their losses. It must be urged that the police should carry out major operations only in agreement with the Wehrmacht." Sir, now would you please tell me what operation is concerned here?
Q. How, Witness, will you read the entry under the 25th of November?
At the very bottom - last paragraph.
A. "Thursday, 25 November 1943. The Corps headquarters requests via Panzer Army II, -- that the delegate of the Reichsfuehrer SS for Croatia will be ordered that all police operation be executed only after contacting the local commanders of the Wehrmacht."
Q. Witness, do you still wish to maintain your statement that the police in Croatia only carried out two independent operations? Answer Yes or No.
A. The question cannot be answered Yes or No in the way it has been phrased.
Q. But, witness, you will be able to tell me whether you still maintain the statements previously made by you that the police in Croatia only carried out two independent operations? You can answer Yes or No.
A. I was talking about Major operations. By the term "major operations" I understand operations carried out by more than one regiment, one operational staff was responsible for such operations; but as far as any defensive operations which were locally restricted and which were in the charge of one police area commander were concerned, I an not informed on these matters.
But they were minor operations.
Q. Do you know, witness, that the police carried out minor operations independently?
A. As far as a police base was attacked, it was a matter of course that the police, defended their base.
Q. And who had the executive power in this case?
A. If a police base was attacked, the senior police leader had the task to do everything necessary for the defense.
Q. What do you understand by the term "operation"?
A. An operation is a planned -- that is, an operation planned over a period of time which aimed at a specific purpose.
Q. Witness, I do not understand you. Excuse me for interrupting you. "An operation is an operation"? That I don't understand.
A. Well, perhaps I didn't express myself properly.
Q. What do you understand by the term operation?
A. Perhaps I should repeat it, by an operation I understand an action an organization which pursuer a definite objective.
Q. The objective of attacking the bands?
A. I don't know.
Q. In order to attack the bands?
A. It need not concern an attack against the bands. It may also have another objective. For instance, securing the harvest, or protection of the resettlement of ethnic German minorities.
Q. But also raids against bands?
A. Attacks against bands; they were also included.
Q. Do I understand you rightly that operations carried out by units below regiment strength were carried out by the police independently, is that correct?
A. No, that is not correct either.
Q. But, witness, you just told me that. Just a minute ago you stated that minor operations below regiment strength could be carried out independently by the police?
A. I said that I personally only witnessed one operation which was carried out by formations above the strength of a regiment. I further said that minor operations which had been ordered by one police area commanders constituting some kind of defensive measures are not personally known to me. I was not subordinate to the police area commanders but I was Chief of the Operational Staff, attached to Gruppenfuehrer Kammerhofer. I only know about major operations. Minor operations which were carried out by companies or battalions were not my concern. I don't know.
Q. Witness, you can't make any statements regarding them then?
A. No, I can't.
Q. Everything you said in the direct examination does then not refer to such minor operations?
A. That is correct. I can only make statements regarding major operations in which I participated. I am not referring to minor operations. Such I do not know.
Q. Perhaps you can answer my last question. Everything you stated here regarding the relationship between police and Wehrmacht does not refer to any minor, small scale operations of which you had no knowledge, is that correct? Please tell me first Yes or No.
A. Will you please put the question again?
Q. All your statements which you made here in direct examination regarding the relationship between police and Wehrmacht do not refer to the execution of small-scale, so-called minor operations of the police?
A. No.
Q. That is right, isn't it?
A. Yes, certainly.
Q. And, therefore, you have no comprehensive knowledge of all operations carried out in Croatia, is that correct?
A. I only know the police troops not the local police.
Q. Perhaps you will answer my question. Is it correct that you had no comprehensive knowledge of all operations carried out by the police in Croatia?
A. No.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And, therefore, you cannot evaluate in general the relationship between police and Wehrmacht in Croatia?
A. I can only talk about the police troops, but not about the local police.
Q. Thank you.
JUDGE CARTER: Any further cross examination? Any redirect?
MR. FULKERSON: I think not, your Honor.
JUDGE GARTER: Any questions by the Tribunal?
JUDGE BURKE: I have no questions.
JUDGE CARTER: The witness will be excused. (Witness excused).
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, may the Marshal be instructed to call the witness David Bernstein.
JUDGE CARTER: The Marshal will call the witness.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: The testimony of this witness, if your Honors please, refers to the affidavit in Geitner Book No. 6, on page 110. It is Exhibit 172 in evidence on behalf of Geitner. And also to the oral testimony of the witness Dr. Heinrich Bub. Particularly that portion of the English transcript which begins on page 4752. Dr. Bub was also a witness on behalf of the defendant Geitner.
DAVID B. BERNSTEIN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE CARTER: The witness will raise his hand and be sworn:
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give on trial will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I do.
JUDGE CARTER: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:Q. Will you state your full name, please?
A. My name is David B. Bernstein.
Q. You will have to give a short pause, Mr. Bernstein, between my question and your answer so that it can be translated into German.
A. All right.
Q. When were you born and where?
A. March 20, 1897, New York City, New York.
Q. What is your profession?
A. Lawyer.
Q. How many years did you practice law?
A. I practiced law at Los Angeles, California, for eighteen years prior to the time that I entered on active duty with the United States Army Air Corps.
Q. What is your present position?
A. I am that of the Senior Legal Officer, Senior Military Government Corps Judge at Frankfurt, Germany.
Q. When did you go into the army, Mr. Bernstein?
A. I went on active duty on June 4, 1942.
Q. What was your last rank in the United States Army?
A. Lieutenant-Colonel, United States Army Air Corps.
Q. Would you state very briefly the duties you had in the United States Army prior to April 1945?
A. Prior to that time when I reported for active duty I was the Assistant Post Judge Advocate of Lowery Field; Base Judge Advocate of Buckley Field at Denver, Colorado....
Q. Mr. Bernstein, please watch the lights and talk a little more slowly.
A. Very well. I performed the usual and customary duties of a Judge Advocate while in the Air Corps, including TJA before the Special and General Military Courts; defense counsel in the same courts; Post Judge Advocate; Base Judge Advocate; legal assistance officer; even Squadron Commander.
Q.- Did you at any time -- were you at any time connected with Military Government in the United States Army?
A.- Yes, Sir. Yes, Sir. In 1943 I entered the School of Military Government at Charlottesville, Virginia. I went through that course and from then on became a Civil Affairs Officer in liberated countries and a Military Government Officer in Germany.
Q.- Do you recall where you were during the month of April, 1945?
A.- Yes, Sir. In April, 1945 -- especially April 16, 1945, I was a Military Government Officer commanding the Military Government Detachment at Mansfeld Gebirgskreis.
Q.- Are you familiar with the town or village named Gorensen?
A.- Yes, Sir. I know that that is one of the towns of approximately seventy-five within that Land-Kreis.
Q.- Now, Will you tell what you did when you first entered the town of Mansfeld, Germany in April, 1945?
A.- I entered that town with my team, comprised of altogether five officers and ten enlisted men. It was known as an H team in Military Government. I came in at approximately 1630 hours on April, 16, 1945. We ordered the posting of proclamations immediately in that particular town; and then came the usual duties of posting proclamations in the various other towns through my officers, and doing the necessary work of appointing burgermasters in the various town, Gemeindes and Stadts; also the appointment of the landrats, police officials, and attending to -- I will say, literally hundreds upon hundreds of problems in Military Government in the early phases of occupation.
Q.- How long were you in the town of Mansfeld?
A.- I was there from April 16, 1945, until June 9, 1945, when my team was relieved by another Military Government team.
Q.- Do you recall what kinds of proclamations you put up in the town of Mansfeld and in the surrounding towns?
A.- Those were mainly the basic proclamations. For instance, the proclamations creating curfew; the restriction of circulation; the notice to parents or guardians; the turning in of weapons to the burgermaster; those were principally the basic proclamations that were issued. In addition, of course, we have proclamation I, which is the one concerning laws and crimes and punishment; Ordinance I, Law 161, which is the border crossing, and those under which prosecutions could be had if circulation was beyond the number of kilometers usually established in the early phases. For instance, it was six kilometers outside of the town areas in the early phases, and later on by Corps and Army regulations it would be extended to twenty-five kilometers, that is, without passes. I mention this because the question of controlling circulation in the towns needed a Military Government pass and authorization, which my Public Safety Officer would handle at that particular time and place.
Q.- Who on your staff, Mr. Bernstein, was charged with the task of putting up posters or placards?
A.- The Public Safety Officer was Lieutenant Love, one of my officers of the detachment.
Q.- Do you recall whether any posters were placed in any town within the Mansfeld district which threatened the taking of human life in case there were attacks upon American Troops?
A.- No, sir, there were no such posters posted in Lands -- in the Mansfeld Gebirgskreis to that effect. I will state, if I may, that there was a proclamation that was posted, and that was the one which stated that in the event there was any sniping on American troops from certain houses, the tanks would be ordered to demolish that house; or in case there was any organized uprising by a town or a Stadt or a Gemeinde, the tanks would be also directed towards that town and raze it, if necessary.
Q.- During the time that you were in the Mansfeld district, did you ever have occasion to order a house or a village burned down in accordance with the proclamation you just spoke about?
A.- No, sir, none was done at all.
Q.- Did you instruct your Public Safety Officer, Lieutenant Love, at any time to put up posters in the town of Gorensen?
A.- Yes, sir. I did.
Q.- And which posters did you tell him to put upon that town?
A.- The Necessary basic proclamations of Military Government, which we had in our possession at that time. I will state that we did not have at all times complete sets; the basic sets, however, were with us at all times.
Q.- Did you ever instruct Lieutenant Love to put up a poster threatening the taking of human life in the event there was sniping on American troops in the town of Gorensen?
A.- No, sir. No, Sir.
Q.- Do you know of your own knowledge whether any such posters were put up in the town of Gorensen by Lieutenant Love?
A.- I do know of my own knowledge that no such poster has ever been posted.
Q.- Now, you are familiar, are you not, Mr. Bernstein, with the various proclamations issued by Military Government to the various Military Government teams?
A.- Yes, sir.
Q.- Was there any poster or placard threatening the taking of human life in the event that American troops were sniped at?
A.- None that I know of, sir, and, in fact, various detachments within a Regierungsbezirk - angle of approximately twenty to thirty teams would occasionally get together to discuss our common problems. I have never heard mention of such a proclamation.
Q.- The only proclamation you are familiar with along the reprisal line, Mr. Bernstein, is the one you mentioned earlier, namely; that in the event American troops were sniped at, or there was sabotage of any kind against American Occupation Forces, a house or a village might be be burned down?
A.- Yes, Sir.
Q.- You never heard of a proclamation threatening the shooting of 200 Germans in the event that one American soldier was killed?
A.- No, Sir. I never heard of that.
Q.- Could any such posters have been put up in the town of Gorensen in the Mansfeld District of which you were in charge, without your knowledge?
A.- No, Sir. It would not have been possible.
Q.- Your witness, Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: No questions.
JUDGE CARTER: Any cross examination? The witness may be excused. Just a moment -
DR. LATERNSER: Witness -
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Are you asking questions of the witness?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honor please, I don't see what right Dr. Laternser has to ask questions of this witness. His testimony is in rebuttal of a witness who testified in person, a witness on behalf of Dr. Sauter for the defendant Geitner, and it is also in rebuttal of an affidavit which was put in by Dr. Sauter on behalf of Defendant Geitner.
JUDGE CARTER: I think that Dr. Laternser, as representing an over-all position in regard to these defendants, has a right to cross-examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. LATERNSER:Q.- I should like to put only one question.
Witness, I should be interested in knowing the following. What possibilities for the combatting of insurrections were available to you? I should like to give the follow ing example.
American troops had been shot at frequently in the towns. What possibility of reprisal measures were available to you, in the light of your regulations, in order to quell these insurrections?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I object to that question. It is not covered by the direct examination, which related entirely to whether there were posters put up in the district of Mansfeld or in the town of Gorensen. Dr. Laternser is attempting to make the witness out to be a military expert on how to combat security problems.
JUDGE CARTER: The witness may answer if he knows.
A.- If I understand the question. The question is what would I do in the event an American or a few Americans were shot at by German civilians? Is that correct, counsel?
Q.- Yes.
A.- My orders and instructions in that event would be to report that to the tactical unit or organization in my capital city or town at Mansfeld. That usually would be a tank destroyer outfit, an ack-ack battalion, or another infantry regiment. Report that incident, and they in turn would follow whatever measures would be given them, or instructions given them by their commanding officer.
Q.- Thank you, I have no further questions.
JUDGE CARTER: Any further cross-examination? Any indirect? Questions by the Tribunal? The witness will be excused. (Witness excused.)
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honor please, can the Marshal summon the witness, Will Finger?
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The Marshal will call the witness.
WILLY FINGER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The witness will raise his right hand and be sworn: "I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing."
(The witness repeated the oath.)
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You may be seated. Mr. Fenstermacher, will you advise the Tribunal if this is cross-examination or a rebuttal witness?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: This is a rebuttal witness, against the defendant Felmy, Your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Very well.
DR. LATERNSER: Only against the defendant General Felmy?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Well, that is a little difficult to answer, Dr. Laternser. Insofar as General Felmy was subordinate to Army Group F, and the defendant Foertsch was also ....was chief of staff of Army Group F during the time these events transpired, this witness is also against the defendant Foertsch.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:Q.- Will you state your name, please?
A.- My name is Willy Finger.
Q.- When and where were you born?
A.- I was born on the 28th of June, 1912, in Hanover.
Q.- Where do you live now?
A.- I am now resident in Hanover.
Q.- How much schooling have you had, Mr. Finger?
A.- In the beginning I attended the elementary school in Hanover, later high school, and subsequently, a technical college in Freiburg/Breisgau.
Q.- When did you leave school?
A.- I left school in 1933.
Q.- For what reason?
A.- In 1933 I was expelled from the technical college because Hitler's advent to power, I was considered to be politically unreliable.
Q.- To what political party did you belong at that time?
A.- At that time I belonged to the Social Students' League, which was a student organization of the Social Democrat Party of Germany.
Q.- What did you do after you left school?
A.- Upon leaving school I associated with acquaintances who shared my political views, in order to use my knowledge, and also by virtue of the education I had received from my parents, to take up the struggle against the dictatorship -- against the Third Reich. Thus, I remained in Germany, living illegally, working together with a resistance group until my arrest.
Q.- When were you arrested?
A.- I was arrested in the year 1935, in Hanover.
Q.- Who arrested you?
A.- I was arrested by the Secret State Police (the Gestapo), in Hanover.
Q.- Were you interrogated by the Gestapo?
A.- Yes, I was interrogated by the Gestapo. I was in their hands for about four weeks.
Q.- And then what happened to you?
A.- After my interrogation by the Gestapo I was transferred to the Examining Magistrate in Hanover and remanded to the Court Jail. As a result of uncertain conditions, the procedure was delayed and deferred, so that I remained in custody for 10 months, without trial. After this term of custody I was remanded to the Oberlandesgericht in Hamm/Westphalia, before the Second Penal Chamber, and sentenced to a jail term of 3 years.
The reason for the sentence was given as preparation of high treason.
Q.- When were you released from jail?
A.- I was released from the jail in 1938.
Q.- What did you do then?
A.- In 1938, upon leaving the jail, I tried to get a job as a technician. My endeavors along this line were in vain. Neither the Labor Exchange nor any firm wanted to take me as I was a former political prisoner. I made attempts to find a job myself but was unable to do that because of my previous conviction. As I was married and had two children I was forced to work as a digger.
Q.- Did you at any time work in a dynamite factory?
A.- Yes, I did. Towards the end of 1939, I was requested by the Labor Office in Hanover to report immediately to Christianstadt in Oberlausitz. Upon my arrival there I found that it was a dynamite factory, having the name of Dynamite A.G. (Dynamite, Inc.) Oberlausitz. I had to work there in the subterranean plant, and because of the conditions prevailing there it was really equivalent to custody, because we were in a camp, and a large number of the people working there had been transferred there under the same conditions as myself.
Q.- How long did you stay there?
A.- I remained there until 1941, April or May. In the camp arrests were effected and the arrestees were transferred to the Buchenwald Concentration camp. That was in May or June or July. I myself was among the persons arrested and was transferred to Buchenwald Concentration camp.
Q.- How long were you in Buchenwald?
A.- I was in Buchenwald for a year and a half, until the end of 1942.
Q.- Then what happened to you?
A.- At the end of 1942 I was discharged from the concentration camp and went home; but I was not able to enjoy my liberty for any length of time because upon my discharge I had also been given the blue dismissal form, which meant it was the so-called W.U. certificate, which meant that I was unworthy of doing military duty.
In February 1943 I received instructions to report immediately and to be prepared to go by train to training camp.
Q.- Did you go to the camp?
A.- Yes, I did. I had to be at the station at night, at Hanover, and there a large transport of fellow-sufferers who had been requested to report under the same conditions as myself, were there. The shipment went to Hemberg in Southern Germany in Baden. It was a former concentration camp which had then been transformed to a large troop training center.
Q.- What kind of a unit did you join there?
A.- We were transferred there and there were certain recruitment staffs there which were called african rifle Division 962. At the time I was there were about 12,000 of such enlisted men who, in part had previous convictions as political offenders, and had come directly from concentration camps and had been transferred directly to that troop training center. Another part consisted of criminal elements. There also the rule prevailed -- divide et impera -- as was customary in the concentration camps.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH (Counsel for defendant Foertsch): I object to further interrogation of the witness along this line. I have already listened with some patience to the long and unfortunate story of the witness, but I do not see where it all leads to. He is a rebuttal witness and the prosecution ought to state what documents submitted by me, on behalf of General Foertsch, or what statements made by General Foertsch in the witness stand, are to be refuted by this witness. I see no connection and also as a basis and preparation for further questions this seems to me very extensive. 9380