Q. Do you have any idea whether, when a successful sabotage act was committed on a railroad trestle or railroad bridge or culvert, or something of that sort, do you know who within the area of the 69th Corps was held primarily responsible for that among the German military personnel?
A. No, I can't tell you that.
Q. Do you know how the troops of the various divisions in the area of the 69th Corps divided their task of patrolling the railroad with the troops of the railroad security service?
A. No, I can't make any statements as to that.
Q. Do you know whether the various fortifications, towers, and so forth, which were built on the railroad, at vulnerable points such as at bridges and so forth - do you know whether these installations were built in the first instance, but the railroad security service or by the troops of the division in whose area this particular installation was located?
A. I can't tell you anything about that.
Q. Well, can you tell us after these various fortifications were built who manned them?
A. Well, I would assume -
Q. Now wait a minute -- let's not talk about assumptions. I want to ask you about what you actually know.
A. I don't know that.
MR. FULKERSON: I believe that's all.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions that defense counsel desire to present?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Witness, I'd like to clear up a misunderstanding which I believe arose through the interpretation. The prosecutor has asked you whether the Croatian State which existed when you were down there is still in existence today.
That is, the very same State which was established and existed at that time.
A. No, I don't believe that it can exist today. I must have misunderstood that.
Q. If I heard correctly, you answered that question in the affirmative.
A. Well, then, I misinterpreted the question.
Q. What did you understand by that question, Colonel?
A. Whether the Croatian State which was created by the German Reich still existed when I was down there.
Q. You were further asked whether the civilian agency was known to you which was competent for the regulation of labor commitments. In this connection, I would like to show you a document from Document Book 16, Page 143. Your Honors, that is Document NOKW 1418. It is Exhibit 394, contained in Document Book 16 of the Prosecution, on Page 143. In this document book, one agency is mentioned. Can you comment on the question, please, witness? Can you tell us whether that was the agency which alone was competent for the regulation of labor commitments?
A. Whether this agency was alone responsible -- that is, the Plenipotentiary General for the employment of labor -- the office for Croatian as in Zagreb -- I cannot tell you. I can merely state that this civilian agency undoubtedly had to deal with labor commitments at Croatia.
Q. Colonel, you further mentioned a Cossack Division which was stationed south of Zagreb. Can you give us a comment on the question whether the Cossack Division was under the 69th Reserve Corps?
A. No, I can't do that.
Q. In some detail on cross examination the railroad line ZagrebBelgrade was mentioned and discussed, and particularly the securing of that railroad line. In this connection, I'd like to show you an affidavit which you executed, particularly will you please look at the question on Roman numeral III, those are questions 11 to 17?
A. Yes.
Q. Are those statements under Nos. 11 to 17 correct?
A. Yes, to the best of my recollection they are.
DR. GAWLIK: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other defense counsel that wish to interrogate this witness? Any further cross examination by the prosecution?
MR. FULKERSEN: Just one question.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. FULKERSEN:
Q. Did I understand you to say in answer to one of Dr. Gawlik's questions that the Croatian State was created by Germany, according to your understanding?
A. Yes, the Croatian State was created by Germany.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Colonel, you said just now the Croatian State was created by Germany. On what do you base that statement? Were you there when the Croatian State was being created?
MR. FULKERSEN: I object. Dr. Gawlik is cross examining his own witness.
THE PRESIDENT: He may proceed briefly.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Repeat please, Colonel, on what you based the statement that the Croatian State was created by Germany.
A. In newspaper articles. I wasn't in Croatia at that time at all.
DR. GAWLIK: I have no further questions.
MR. FULKERSEN: I ask that the witness be excused.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused. You may be excused.
(Whereupon the witness left the courtroom.)
DP. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I have to admit that to some extent I seem to be in error. I will have to give a brief explanation thereon. The court will recall that the Prosecution, as Exhibit 423, has submitted Document NOKW 1471. On Page 2 of that document there is a table of contents to refer to that rather voluminous document. The prosecution themselves have distributed that document, and this was done before the document books were distributed to the defense. At the time I glanced through the document and found out that the table of contents does not correspond to the contents of the document. I then pointed that out and received actually the photostatic copy of the document, where we have the instrument which I in turn used as an exhibit. It is certain, therefore, that this photostatic copy is not one of the documents which came from Washington. Instead, it is a document which for some time has been in the hands of the prosecution. Thereupon, I am partially in error concerning the statement that I made previously. Here, then, is the photostatic copy which I am herewith handing over to the prosecution.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I think all of this can be resolved with somewhat less difficulties, if Your Honors please. As long as the document itself is in evidence, I ask then Your Honors tear out the four pages which are in Weichs Document Book 1, pages 65 through 68, and put them in Weichs' Document Book 2, after Page 126.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is not certain that it over received any Weich's book. It is somewhat in doubt, but it is of the opinion that it never received it. That statement cannot be correct.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: What we can do, then, between tonight and tomorrow morning is to type up copies which can be distributed to your Honors as additional translation of Exhibit 423, in Prosecution Document Book 17.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We have now exceeded the allotted time which the Tribunal had hoped to give to the case in its conclusion by one day. I take it that all parties concerned will make a sincere effort to see that we conclude this some time tomorrow morning. I am not making that an arbitrary ruling, but let's endeavor to do that, if possible.
The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 22 January 1948, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal 5 in the matter of the United States of America against Wilhelm List et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany on the 22nd day of January 1948, 0930. Judge Burke presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 5. Military Tribunal 5 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you will ascertain as to whether or not all defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Burke will preside at this day's session.
DR. SAUTER: If it please the tribunal, before we continue with the rebuttal procedure I would like to ask to be permitted to make a personal statement. At this point I am not speaking on behalf of Lanz or Geitner. I am talking about my own person. When a year and a half ago the International Tribunal concluded the big trial in Nurnberg, the president of the tribunal, Lord Lawrence in the final session expressed his thanks to the German defense counsel, one of whom I myself was and he promised them that the military tribunal would afford them protection and so would the army against any attack which might encroach upon their honor. Soon after that the medical trial started. At that time a member of the American tribunal advised us defense counsel in our offices and we were told we should feel ourselves to be guests of the American people, in the same way as if we were on an American island. When the medical trial drew to its close, the president of that tribunal, President Beal wrote to me on the last day that at all times I had shown such an attitude as was to be expected from a responsible defense counsel and from a gentleman. That was theory and now I would like to tell you something about the actual practice as it was exercised last night. Once again in some American office of this Palace of Justice allegedly a piece of jewelry was stolen. Thereupon the exits of the Palace of Justice were guarded by a detachment of American and Baltic soldiers. Every German lawyer also had to have his brief case thoroughly examined.
The guard felt the clothes and pockets and bags of German defense counsel from top to bottom. The members of American personnel of course were not being searched. We defense counsel are completely powerless against such a humiliation. We can't just stay away from the sessions in order to defend our honor, in that way. We are being told again and again we are members of the tribunal here and therefore we are obliged to carry out our duties. Certainly we have the duties of an official here but not the protection which should be accorded to any official against attacks against his honor and which has been solemnly promised to us defense counsel. We are here and in addition before a large number of spectators we have to suffer treatment as though we were honorless thieves who creep into other people's rooms in order to steal jewelry. We are being treated like people who are first of all asked to a house as visitors and guests and then when they leave the house have their pockets searched. I myself have for more than a year again and again fought against these undignified circumstances but without any success as was proved again yesterday. I know that I am unanimous in this with all my colleagues. I solemnly protest here in full public against the scandalous circumstances. I do this here in Nurnberg as well as across the ocean. This is necessary because in the end either that person becomes a scoundrel who submits to being treated as a scoundrel. We are convinced that all judges of the American tribunal are not in agreement with this reprehensible treatment of German defense counsel, who after all are collaborators in the finding of a just verdict. All they have to do is put themselves in a similar position when they themselves were leaving the Palace of Justice, only to suffer a reprehensible search. I have no doubt when the American people -- when they hear about the circumstances will be unanimous in not agreeing with the treatment here. That, your Honor is what I have to say in public in order to guard our honor because we have no other means to guard our honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I can only state, Dr. Sauter that the conduct you have just described is not the type of treatment the members of this tribunal feel that reputable counsel are to enjoy in this court.
It is indefensible, such a conduct. It is difficult to understand. It is as stupid as it is absurd that respectable members of a decent profession should be subjected to such an indignity. Personally I apologize to you and your colleagues for such an incident. You may proceed.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Yesterday afternoon I said that this morning I would have English translations of additional portions of Prosecution Exhibit 423 to distribute to your Honors. I have them now and will pass them up to you. These additional five pages should be inserted in Prosecution Document Book 17 after page 126 and for convenience purposes should be under page 126a, 126b, and so on to 126e.
DR. WEISSGERBER: (For General Speidel) If the Tribunal please, I object to this document being introduced as an exhibit. My reasons for this are the following. One, this document is to go with documents of the Prosecution Exhibit 423 Page 190 of the English version and as such has been already submitted, at least it is contained in the list of contents on Page 190 of the English text. At that time, therefore the prosecution was in possession of the document, at the time when document book 17 was being submitted. I can see no reason why this document could not be submitted at that time together with the balance of the documents. The document therefore is being admitted too late -- it cannot be submitted now during rebuttal and that is the second portion of my argument. What the prosecution wants to prove by this document is long since known to the Tribunal. the witness Felber who was a prosecution witness had on direct examination by the prosecution on 11 August 1947 commented on all questions of the subordination of the higher SS and police leaders in great detail. It is therefore nothing new that the prosecution is intending to submit now and it is therefore at this stage of the trial immaterial and incompetent. My third point is that I would like to stress the fact this document is already in evidence before this tribunal -- it has been submitted by my colleague Dr. Sauter in Document book Geitner 5 as Exhibit 105.
I can therefore see no reason why this document should be submitted a second time.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: It has been called to my attention that the document has already been presented and this is my interpretation. Am I correct in assuming that?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: That is correct, your Honor ruled that it be admitted as a whole document and I think it perfectly proper to submit an additional document at any time.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection is overruled. You may proceed.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Mr Rapp has a few matters to conclude in rebuttal.
MR. RAPP: If your Honor pleases, I would like to now announce that I have before me a letter from the chief of the Defense Procurement Branch, Charles M Pace, First Lieutenant in answer to an inquiry as to how many of the requested affiants have arrived in Nurnberg for cross examination by the prosecution and he said fourteen witnesses were approved for cross examination in open court, on 12 January 1948.
The following action is given for your information. Three witnesses in the Justice jail, nine volunteer witnesses reported to Nurnberg, one witness was cancelled by the prosecution and one witness, Dr. Karl Heinz Rothfuchs, has not answered the telegram sent nor has he reported it to the Defense Center. It was assumed the telegram was delivered, as no answer was received from the telegraph office. Now the people in jail and the nine volunteer witnesses did appear in court and were cross examined. That is a total of twelve. One man we cancelled because he was a defense witness who was in German custody. There would have been some difficulty in getting him here so we withdrew the request in order not to waste the court's time. The last witness, Rothfuchs, did not arrive, I therefore motion that the affidavit which Rothfuchs has given on behalf of defendant Lanz -- I will give you the various exhibits and documents numbers -- be stricken because we are about to rest in our rebuttal and the man has not been produced. Document 59, Exhibit 169 in Lanz Document Book 3, Document 63, Exhibit 15 in Lanz document book 3, Document 65, Exhibit 18 in Lanz document book 3, Document 68, Exhibit 53 in Lanz Document book 3. Document 83, Exhibit 84 in Lanz document book 3, Document 85, Exhibit 86 in Lanz Document book 3, Document 88, Exhibit 170 in Lanz Document book 3, Document 96, Exhibit 21 in Lanz Document book 3, a total of eight affidavits which Rothfuchs has given on behalf of the defendant Lanz and I hereby make the motion since he has not been produced for cross examination, that the rules of the Tribunal be applied and the affidavits be stricken.
DR. SAUTER: On behalf of General Lanz I oppose the motion by the prosecution and move that it be not granted. I request that these affidavits executed by the affiant Dr. Rothfuchs be admitted into evidence.
If the Tribunal please, at the time the total of these eight affidavits was split up in order to classify the statements of the affiant on the various problems on which he had to comment. From the large number of affidavits executed you can gather that the testimony of Dr. Rothfuchs is of great importance for the case of General Lanz. The situation is the following: These affidavits were at the time, many months ago, submitted also to the prosecution so that the prosecution has had knowledge of these affidavits for a number of months, they were offered to this Tribunal and accepted by this Tribunal. They were aware of it during those days when we presented evidence for the defendant Lanz. That was in the second half of the month of November 1947. At that time the prosecution had not shown by a single word that they wished to call the affiant Rothfuchs to the witness stand and they wanted to cross examine him. Only a short while ago, however, did the prosecution demand that the affiant Dr. Rothfuchs be called here for cross examination. Thereupon I immediately got in touch with the Defense Information Center and asked this office to call the affiant Rothfuchs here because I myself as defense counsel do not have the facilities to do that. However, I went one step further and on the same day when the affiant Rothfuchs was asked for, I believe on the 12th of January, I sent an express letter to Dr. Rothfuchs on the 14th of January. Dr. Rothfuchs wife informed me that her husband was still in internment camp in Darmstadt and on the 19th of January he would be called before a Spruchammer there, that is, a De-Nazification proceedings. It is now apparent why the affiant Rothfuchs was not in a position to appear here. Otherwise Rothfuchs would certainly have come.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Sauter, I will interrupt you. The Tribunal is of the opinion that the motion will be overruled and the statements not corroborated by other evidence will not be considered. This may be a bit technical but in the interest of justice we believe it is proper and right therefore the motion, with that limitation will be overruled.
DR. SAUTER: If it please the Tribunal at the moment I don't quite get your statement. Which part if I may ask is to be stricken?
PRESIDING JUDGE SAUTER: The only part to be stricken is that part not corroborated by other evidence.
DR. SAUTER: In that case I have to make no further statement. Thank you very much.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE. You may proceed.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, the Prosecution is ready, as far as its rebuttal is concerned, subject to any questioning which may develop in connection with the examination of the Witness Felber which we are ready to produce any time the Court wishes.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well. The sur-rebuttal?
DR. LATERNSER (Counsel for defendant LIST): If it please the Tribunal, to give information to the Court, the time that I shall need, will be about 15 to 20 minutes.
First of all, I would like to inform the Tribunal that the statements of the French Commanders, the submission of which I reserved before resting the case of Field Marshal List, have not so far arrived.
With the permission of the Tribunal, I would like to call Field Marshal List to the stand for a few questions as sur-rebuttal for the fact that he was not active again after the 15th of October. The Prosecution, as the Court will recall, had submitted Exhibit 664 with the topic which allegedly arose from Exhibit 664; namely, that Field Marshal List was active in service after the 15th of October. With a few questions that I would like to ask of Field Marshal List, I think I would like to prove this was not the case but that the proclamation concerned is merely a kind of farewell message to Colonel Kuebler. Field Marshal List merely signed Exhibit 664.
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, we respectfully object to this kind of sur-rebuttal Defendant List was on the stand. He had an opportunity to state his case. Dr. Laternser has a document which we believe, speaks for itself and the Court will be in a position to decide. I don't think it will be necessary to put the defendant List on the stand at this time.
DR. LATERNSER: Concerning the facts, Field Marshal List has so far had no opportunity to comment on it because he could not expect that such a document with such a purpose would be submitted by the Prosecution.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well. With the limitation you have placed upon it.
Field Marshal List may take the stand.
DR. LATERNSER: I shall be very brief, your Honor.
WILHEIMN LIST - Resumed REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q Field Marshal, just a very few questions -- when did you fall sick?
A On the 15th of October 1941.
Q When were you operated on?
A On the 17th of October 1941.
Q Of what nature was your sickness?
A I had a septic appendicitis.
Q How long did you stay in the hospital?
A Until the 6th of December 1941.
Q How long did you have to stay in bed?
A Until about the end of November. For the first time I got up for half an hour and sat in a chair on the 8th of November 1941.
Q You know that the Prosecution has submitted Exhibit 664. What I wanted to ask you is: how did it come about that you signed this document?
A The document was submitted to me for signature by the adjutant of the High Command of the Army, Colonel Serini.
Q Why were you to sign this document?
A The document shows that Colonel Kuebler was transferred from the High Command of the Army. Colonel Kuebler was, from Fall 1939 until he left, the Ia, on the Staff of the High Command of the Army and he participated in preparing and waging the campaign against France and against Jugoslavia and Greece. The adjutant for this reason asked me to express my gratitude to Colonel Kuebler as his immediate collaborator of long standing and this gratitude -- that is, the gratitude of the Army -- was to be added in this document.
Q Did you choose that form of a staff order?
A No, I did not. Colonel Serini came to me with this communication. He visited me in the hospital. On that day I was still in bed.
Q What official activity did you carry out after your operation? By this I mean specifically in your capacity as armed forces commander Southeast and commander in chief of the 12th army.
A I did not carry out any activity whatsoever. This document, in my opinion, does not represent any official. It does not constitute any exercise of any authority asked in the commander. It is really nothing but a personal farewell message. It doesn't mean any more than an ornamental gesture.
DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Any questions on the part of the Prosecution?
MR. RAPP: Yes, your Honor, just a few. Who got this letter in question? Who has this document?
BY MR. RAPP:
Q Field Marshal, on the 15th of October you went to the hospital?
A I fell ill on the 15th; towards noon I had to go to bed; and on the 16th I came to the hospital.
Q And on the 17th you were operated on?
A Yes.
Q You can take off your car phones.
When did you know, General List, that you were no longer Commander in Chief of the 13th Army and Armed Forces commander Southeast. When were you informed of that fact?
A That I was no longer commander in chief of the 12th Army and Armed forces commander Southeast, that it was final, that I no longer held those positions, was known to me in the summer of 1942 when I was transferred to Army Group A.
I have to add, however, that from the 17th when my official deputy, General Kuntze, was appointed, by the OKW that from that day I had no longer any right to carry out any official functions. The date was the 17th of October; this, apart from the fact that from the 15th of October on I was physically unfit to carry out any official activity during the next few weeks.
I was, therefore, until Summer 1942, still commander in chief of the 12th army and armed forces commander Southeast on paper, that is. In actual fact, however, the acting commander in chief was General Kuntze. He was not what could be called a personal deputy such as a deputy prime minister. He was the man who held the position in actual fact.
I have testified during my first examination that Hitler quite frequently handled things in the way of leaving those matters pending and not making any decisions which reference to further assignment or any statements as to the facts. The fact as such, however, is undoubtedly very clear.
Q Field Marshal, if I understood you correctly, you were completely authorized on a piece of paper as the armed forces commander in the Southeast and commander in chief of the 12th army to sign "List, General Field Marshal, 30 October," in this way because, seen from the legal point of view, you were still the commander in chief.
A Mr. Rapp, you wanted to do everything you could to commit me to this fact during my first examination on the 14th of January of last year. I didn't know why at that time. Today I know why. At that time for general reasons I refuted that fact and today I have to do that to do that very emphatically. I don't know what you mean with the term "De Jure" from the legal point of view. All I can say is that I did not carry out any official duties whatsoever.
Furthermore, if you want to call this an order -- it is called staff order -- I was as a matter of fact not entitled to issue an order in that form. I could only do that with the consent and agreement of my deputy and that the approval existed is evidenced by the fact that Colonel Serini came to me with the finished product and informed me at the same time that Colonel Suebler was transferred. I believe it is purely a gesture of courtesy; General Kuntze was probably quite grateful that I unburdened him of the task of this farewell message because he didn't know Colonel Kuebler and felt when he left he would have to express a few words to him.
Q Field Marshal, you know quite well that the question is not whether this is a gesture or not. That is a question which we don't want to discuss here. The focal point is whether on the 30th of October 1941 you still held the command over the 12th army and whether you were still the armed forces commander of the Southeast on that date. You understand what I mean, don't you?
A I believe I already testified to that but I did not hold those offices. I was not the acting commander in chief.
Q I see.
AAnd in all communications which I wrote, with the exception of that one, I have never used a letter with an official heading. I have signed: "List, General Field Marshal."
Q In this particular case, Field Marshal you have a communication where you did use that letter heading.
A I just said that.
Q Well, it is a strange situation, isn't it, in which a position is held by a commander in chief who was hospitalized and who was told us that his deputy was completely authorized to act. You yourself have used the word "De Facto" for the first time in this courtroom.
A If I may interrupt, Mr. Rapp, this expression "De Facto" is contained in the record of the 14th of January 1948.
Q I am talking of today, Field Marshal. I am not talking of the 14th of January, we that there was in actual fact a commander in chief who "de Facto" did not hold any command over the army, who only learned in June 1943 or even later that he was no longer charged 100% with the supreme command of the army; his deputy then held more power than the actual commander in chief.
Let us even assume that all this does correspond with the facts. Why, then -- I don't know what the usages are in the German army -but why didn't you sign your letter, "The Former Commander in Chief," or "Your Leave-taking" or "Retired" or anything to the effect that in actual fact you were no longer the commander in chief?
I have to assume that at that time at least you thought that you were the commander in chief. Is that correct, Field Marshal?
A It is not correct. I have many times made numerous statements during my preliminary examinations and here in this court room on paper I still was the commander in chief, but I had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual command of the army.
Mr. Rapp, in military life the situation is the following: if I had been transferred to another army and Colonel Kuebler had been two weeks later, if I had been well -- Colonel Kuebler was also transferred two weeks later -- and I were somewhere, I am quite sure General Kuntze would have invited me for a farewell party and he would have asked me to make the farewell speech for Colonel Kuebler and I would have expressed my gratitude to him, the same as I did on paper in this particular instance.
To construe from this fact that I was commander in chief and acting commander in chief does not hit the true facts at all.
Q It was just on paper; that is what you mean?
A Of course it was.
Q From what date on, Field Marshal, according to your statements, was General Kuntze to be held responsible for the 12th Army and for the office of the armed forces commander Southeast? What is the date from which you no longer carried any responsibility for that unit?
A I no longer carried responsibility since noon of the 15th of October because from that time on I was physically not in a position to do anything whatsoever. General Kuntze could only take over the responsibility after he had arrived physically in Athens and that was only after the 27th of October.
After all, if he rides a train and is en route to Athens he can't be held responsible for anything.
Q I thought that was to be my last question but since you have made the statement you did I have to ask you another one or two questions.
Are you trying to say, then, Field Marshal List, that between the 15th of October 1941 and the 27th of October 1941, which later is the date when General Kuntze arrive in Athens, the 12th Army and the office of the armed forces commander Southeast was an anarchy?
A Not an anarchy.
Q Well, who was responsible?
A The commanders were directly responsible. At that time they were directly subordinated to the OKW Mr. Rapp, may I give an explanation? In 1941, as commander in chief of Army Group A. I was sent home by Hitler. This Army Group A, from the 10th of September 1942 until Christmas -- roughly, about Christmas -- had no leader, not even a deputy because Hitler just left matters pending and from his headquarters he directly issued orders to the armies via Army Group A which in this particular instance was just a letter box for many orders; that is a parallel to my case and in even more conspicuous instance, than my case.
Q Field Marshal, during the last days of this trial we will have to be as brief as possible and only discuss those matters which are to the point.
A Yes.
Q General Foertsch was down there as chief of staff. That is correct, isn't it?
A Yes.
Q There was also a ranking corps commander or at least a ranking officer below him at that time. Who was that?
A Well, that exists always, of course. Who it was I cannot tell you with certainty. I can't tell you who was the senior officer. I should imagine it was General Boehme.
Q Isn't it customar, and wasn't it repeatedly stated during this trial, that during the absence, which is the same thing as when a person is in the hospital, during the absence of the commander, the senior ranking troop commander takes over the command authority, only if just one or two days are involved under special circumstances, with which we do not want to deal now, the chief of staff could take over the leadership?
A In current matters.
Q. Well, yes, in current matters. Why didn't you at that time, on the 14th of 15th or as soon as possible, when you again found yourself able to think clearly -- after all, you signed the letter?
A I signed that on the 30th. At that time General Kuntz had been down there already for three days.
Q How come -- how did it happen that you did not appoint a deputy?
A I have already stated that from the 15th onward I was physically not in a position to do that. It was a very severe appendicitis and a very serious operation and for quite some time I was between life and death and in such a position I cannot appoint a deputy for my own person. That is a matter of course.
Q Field Marshal, you have been a soldier for about forty years, haven't you?
A Forty-five years.
Q Forty-five years? I see, and that was war time. Is it something unusual then to order the chief of staff or the adjutant or the ADC and tell them: "If anything happens to me "such and such a person' will hold power of authority"?