Q Does that same answer apply to the other points that become apparent from that paragraph, what I mean is were the requests from the division Brandenburg sent to you as an order by the 2nd Panzer Army?
A No.
DR. TIPP: Thank you. In that case I have no further questions.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Any questions by the prosecution counsel?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR FULKERSON:
Q General, who was this Captain Kirchner?
A I don't know him.
Q You never did hear the man's name before?
PRESIDENT: Pardon me, Dr Sauter indicated - it appears from the bench here perhaps he desires to question this witness. I was mistaken. Apparently he does not. You may proceed, and pardon me.
Q You never did hear of this fellow before - this Captain Kirchner?
A Not that I remember.
Q Can you think of any reason why the 5th SS Corps would be reporting to your corps that they were carrying out a reprisal measure about this man's death if the man concerned had no connection with the 15th Corps?
A I believe the Prosecution is talking about another document.
DR. TIPP: If your Honors please, I object to the question. I believe cross examination will have to refer to direct examination but in the direct examination a reprisal measure for Capt. Kirchner was not mentioned nor is it contained in the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you referring to Document 674?
MR. FULKERSON: Well, actually this unit "Kirchner" is mentioned in Document 673, and document 674 has to do with reprisal measures taken on account of Captain Kirchner's death. Yes, I was referring to that.
PRESIDENT: The objection will be overruled. The examination will be made as brief as possible.
DR. TIPP: May I add something in this connection of which I have just been informed, so there will be no misunderstanding.
Captain Kirchner who is here mentioned as the bearer of the Oak Leaves and of the Knight's Cross is a completely different person from the man of unit Kirchner mentioned in this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you can bring that out in other questioning.
MR. FULKERSON: After that testimony on Dr Tipp's part it is useless for me to question any further along this line.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions?
DR. TIPP: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
DR. SAUTER: (On behalf of General Von Geitner) If it please the tribunal, I believe the ruling concerning a certain affidavit is still pending which the prosecution submitted during rebuttal. It is an affidavit executed by Theodor Fischer, Exhibit 645. I have objected against this affidavit which was submitted on the 14th of January and I have asked for the affiant to be called for cross examination, this in reference to one particular sentence which is contained in the affidavit. This sentence reads, "So-called mock executions could not take place either." This sentence is contained on page 2 of the affidavit. At this point I don't know whether this affiant Theodor Fischer is going to appear for cross examination, or - -
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Perhaps Mr Fenstermacher can save us some time by giving us his views.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I am unable to bring the affiant here in time and I ask that your previous ruling with respect to motions to strike be held true in this case -- that is those parts of the affidavit should be stricken in that the material in the affidavit is not corroborated.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: That has been the course followed in other matters and that will be the course pursued by the Tribunal at this time. You may proceed.
DR. SAUTER: I have another point to clear up. During rebuttal there has been submitted against von Geitner Exhibit 651 and Exhibit 652.
Exhibit 651 is a communication from the chief of the security police and SD dated 15 June 1944 and addressed to the OKW, operational department. The document with commando operations. The second communication which precedes the first one chronologically is Exhibit 652. This is a communication of the chief of the security police of the SD Dept. II, dated 9 June 1944 and it is addressed to Department H in the same building. That is another department of the chief of the security police and SD. Concerning these two exhibits, I have studied them very thoroughly and repeatedly, and I have nowhere been able to find that in the two communications the defendant von Geitner is mentioned nor the agency with which he served in Belgrade. I would like to request that the prosecution. inform me why despite of this fact these two communications were submitted as incriminating General von Geitner who had nothing whatever to do with them, if the prosecution in actual fact intends to use them as incriminations.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Mr. Fenstermacher, perhaps you could throw some light on this subject.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I think I said, at the time the documents were offered, your Honor, they were offered to show the relationship between the SD and the German units operating within the vicinity with respect to execution of commandos. The two documents which Dr. Sauter specifically refers to indicate that certain commandos were turned over by the SD in Belgrade to an army unit and it is the Prosecution's contention that the defendant Geitner, who is the chief of staff of Felber's army unit in Belgrade, should have known about that. Dr. Sauter's remarks to the contrary are simply argumentation at this point.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Sauter, I think it is the feeling of the Tribunal that they may be received for such probative value as they may have and no more.
DR. SAUTER: Then I don't have to call the defendant von Geitner to the witness stand but with these statements I can dispense with that.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I think you are entirely within your rights in dispensing with it.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, your Honor; then I have one final point to deal with which actually has nothing to do with rebuttal but it is merely a clarification for the secretary general.
Through an error I have assigned exhibit No. 173 to two documents in the case of general Geitner; namely, to Document Geitner No. 80 in Geitner Document Book III on page 92 and also to Document No. 205 contained in Document Book VII. When looking through the exhibit numbers I discovered this error. I believe it would be expedient if this error be corrected so that the list of exhibit numbers contains no mistakes.
I would suggest that Exhibit No. 173 remain with Document 205 but that Document No. 80 in Geitner Document Book III, page 92, receives the next exhibit number which is open -- that is, Geitner Exhibit 179. If we did that the exhibit numbers for Geitner documents would be in order and there would be no misunderstanding anywhere.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Is there any reason, Mr. Fenstermacher, why that may not be done?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: We have no objection to that, your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: It is accordingly ordered that it may be done. You may proceed.
DR. SAUTER: I have nothing to add. My evidence in the case of Geitner is complete.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Mueller-Torgow, you are completing the part of your regular case, I take it, Dr. Torgow?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW (counsel for defendant Felmy): I am completing my case now, your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: If it please the Tribunal, I am not in a position to judge what probative value the Court will give the testimony of the witness heard by the Prosecution yesterday, a man by the name of Finger. Since this witness has asserted completely now facts which up until now have not yet been produced by the Prosecution, I shall have to ask to be permitted to examine my client very briefly, to call him on the witness stand, and to put to him a few questions. I ask the permission of the Court to do this.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If your Honors please, I object to this procedure. The two points to which Mr. Finger testified yesterday were with respect to whether or not the defendant Felmy ever himself issued any reprisal orders which had to do with a hostage quota; especially to rebut the testimony of the defendant Felmy with respect to the execution of 100 hostages in reprisal for the death of General Krech on the Peloponese.
The defendant Felmy testified that the hostages were rounded up and shot by Greek authorities under the command of a Colonel Popodongonos. The witness, Finger, gave testimony in rebuttal of that. The two matters were clarified and gone over in great detail, both on direct and cross examination of the defendant himself.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I think that is perhaps true but, following the precedent we have on the other matters, we will permit the defendant within reasonable limits to answer such brief questions as may be put to him touching these matters and these matters alone.
You may proceed.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: Your Honor, might I observe at this point that the witness Finger has not dealt with the incident Krech with one single word. If he had done that, I would be correct in stating that it was no rebuttal topic, because the case Krech has long since been presented by the Prosecution. I may now put the defendant Felmy --
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Mueller-Torgow, you may call the general your witness and interrogate him about such matters as may be pertinent to the present inquiry.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Perhaps we could be stipulation, if your Honors please -- I am willing to stipulate to that to Dr. Mueller-Torgow now, that when the witness Finger testified yesterday, with respect to the execution of 100 hostages in reprisal for a high ranking German officer, he was talking about General Krech. He did himself not know the name at the time. He told me he heard later that the officer he had in mind was General Krech and when we discussed it in an interrogation before he took the witness stand he told me he could not remember at the time the name of the officer and he dispensed with bringing out that part.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Would a stipulation to that effect satisfy the requirements of your matter, Dr. Mueller-Torgow?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: I don't think I quite understood what Mr. Fenstermacher was saying but I believe it will be all right, your Honor, if I call my client now to the stand and ask him these few questions which I have to put to him.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well, call him.
HELMUTH FELMY - Resumed REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. MUELLER-TORGOW:
Q General, is it known to you that you are still bound to the oath under which you testified before?
A Yes, I know that.
Q General, do you recollect the three alleged announcements of January and February 1944 of which the witness Finger talked yesterday? Do you recollect having initiated these announcements in any manner whatsoever?
A I have initiated the issuance of none of these three announcements., neither the one at the beginning of January 1944 nor the second one which was issued about one week later in which the reprisal measure carried out was made known, nor the third public announcement which he states was issued at the end of January or at the beginning of February 1944.
Q Did you know about these so-called announcements?
A No, I knew nothing of those announcements whatsoever.
Q Under whose jurisdiction was the Peloponese at the end of 1943 and the beginning of 1944?
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: That was covered quite extensively on your direct case. Isn't that correct?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: Yes, that was just to be a very brief foundation to another question.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
Q General, where were you personally in January and at the beginning of February 1944?
A On direct examination I testified to the fact that in the afternoon of the 13th of January 1944 I landed in Tatoi when I returned from Christmas leave.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The answer of defendant General Felmy clearly proves the point that I sought to make a moment ago. The matter was entirely covered on direct examination.
It would appear unnecessary to proceed any further.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: Your Honor, we are concerned with two cases here. The first case, as the General stated here, has already been discussed in direct examination but the second case hasn't yet; but, to make it complete, I wanted to have these two points discussed together.
Q Would you please continue, General?
A On the 22nd of January in the morning I left Athens again by plane for a conference in Posen where I had been ordered to go. On the 3rd of February 1944 in the afternoon of that day I landed again in Tatoi. I do not only recall these dates; they are also contained in my small pocket diary.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: The fact that the defendant was away from headquarters is certainly part of his direct case.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I am inclined to think so, Dr. Mueller Torgow, that unless you have some other reason for presenting it de novo we are prepared to retain our original recollection of his testimony on the same subject.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: If it Please the Tribunal, this absence of General Felmy from Athens and his trip to Posen which he mentioned just now was not the subject of direct examination.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If not, it should have been, your Honor. I submit it is untimely.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Proceed, Dr. Mueller-Torgow.
Q Will you continue, please, General?
A In January I was active in Athens for one week only and, therefore, it is hardly possible that I knew of three posters at three different times and that I initiated them to be made public.
Q You mentioned a pocket diary just now, General. What were you going to say about that?
A I in that pocket diary have the entries. I have an entry concerning my flight from Athens and my return flight.
Q When did you enter those notes?
A I did that at the time when the events took place.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If there is any reference to the diary for the dates, the Prosecution is obviously going to have to examine it and make use of it for such purposes as it sees fit. That is certainly going to delay matters.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection is going to be sustained.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: I put it at the disposal of the Prosecution. May I then put the pocket diary of General Felmy at the disposal of the Court?
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: For what purpose?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: In order to check with it, whether General Felmy's statements just now are correct.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, we just want to dispense with the whole matter.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You are objecting to it for what reason?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I can't speak German, if your Honor please, and I wouldn't be able to examine it in any -
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: What is your specific objection, Mr. Fenstermacher?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: My specific objection, your Honor, is that this whole matter was gone into on direct examination and, if not, it should have been.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection will be sustained.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: Your Honor, I had no cause to discuss this matter on direct examination.
Q General, do you remember that around the end of 1943 or at the beginning of 1944 -- that is, either at the end of December or at the beginning of January -- a high ranking German officer or a general, as was later announced, was murdered and that subsequently some German agency ordered reprisal measures and carried them out?
A During the period of time in question which is being discussed just now -- that is, the end of December 1943 and the beginning of January 1944 -- no high ranking German officer was murdered.
After my return from furlough I would have been informed of that. I would have learned of it during the eight days that I spent in Athens or I would have heard to it when I returned to Athens at the beginning of February if that incident had taken place during the last days of January. At the very least, it would have been contained in one of the many documents or daily reports and that is not the case.
Q General, what designations did the so-called 999th Battalions have, a member of one of which the witness Finger was?
A They had Roman numerals, the VII battalion of the 999th Division was staioned on Xantos and the IV in the Elis area.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: To be proper sur-rebuttal it has got to be stated whether or not posters were in fact issued signed by General Felmy, as the witness testified to, or whether the hostages which were executed in reprisal were in fact rounded up by Germans and not Greeks. Only those two things were put in issue by the rebuttal testimony yesterday. I submit that counsel is limited to those two questions on sur-rebuttal.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection will be sustained.
Q General, who was the man Buschenhagen mentioned by the witness Finger, the president of the so-called summary court martial, as he called it, which sentenced him for fifteen years in the penitentiary.
A That was Judge Advocate General Buschenhagen and he was the corps judge. The court in Question here is a military court and when we organized the 999th Battalions we had several such cases. Concerning the indictment against the soldier Finger, I signed same at the time and after the military court had pronounced a sentence I submitted the verdict to the army group for confirmation since the sentence as such exceeded my sphere of competency.
Q Did you give an expert opinion on it when you requested the confirmation?
A Well, I suppose that I made a comment to the effect that I was in favor of it.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: I have no further questions, Mr. Fenstermacher.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q General Felmy, how many of these sentences have you signed in your capacity as commander of the 68th Corps?
A What sentences? What kind of sentences do you mean?
Q Sentences such as the one you signed with respect to Mr. Finger, Mr. Finger's indictment.
A I can't tell you that with any amount of certainty. I only know that in June 1944, in the IV. Battalion of the 999th Division, which was also stationed in the Elis area, six death sentences were carried out. There again was a military court procedure preceding the verdict. I passed it on to the army group and the army group confirmed it. Those are the two more severe cases which I recall but I cannot tell you by memory whether there were more such verdicts pronounced. It is quite possible that there were.
Q How much time did you spend going over these various indictments and results before you signed them?
A The judge advocate reported the incident to me orally and if I was in agreement, and after I had looked through the files and made inquiries of him, I passed on the verdict to the army group with the request of a confirmation -- or I suggested an amendment.
Q How long would all that work take: your conferences with your Oberkriegsgerichtsrat, and your looking over the files?
A That would depend on the severity of the case, if it was quite clearly proved by testimony or not. I can't really tell you now. It might have been an hour; it might have been more or less.
Q Suppose you give us the names of some of the other sentences you approved of. You seem to recall Mr. Finger's name. Suppose you give us some of the others.
A No, I recall neither Mr. Finger's name -- I only heard of that yesterday through his testimony -- nor could I from memory give you the names of other subjects of indictments.
The 995th units were not the only ones involved here. There were other units involved here, there was the Corps Signal Departments, for instance, and there was also one death sentence requested and executed.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Mr. Fenstermacher, I think we have spent enough time on this subject.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Just one more question, your Honor.
Q General Felmy, isn't it true that there were prison sentences against any member of the 999th Division those sentences were served by remaining in the division?
A No, that was different in different instances. There could be a period of probation and I am surprised that in this particular case with fifteen years penitentiary there was a suspension of the sentence in actual fact because that was usually only done when a small prison sentence was pronounced; but, as I say, you are asking me too much because I haven't got the files here and I can't give you any details. Suspension of sentence occurred frequently, whether in all cases, I cannot tell you.
Q It could not have been a suspension but the service of the fifteen years was considered being served as long as he was a member of the division, You don't think the latter could be true?
A No, no I don't think so.
Q That is all.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Any further questions on the part of defense counsel: If not, the witness will stand and be excused.
Dr. Mueller-Torgow, you may proceed.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: If it please the Tribunal, in order to conclude my case, I would like to observe in this connection that I have already concluded my presentation of documents and I do not intend to present any Greek documents.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: That, therefore, indicates that you have rested your case on behalf of General Felmy.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: Yes, your Honor.
MR. RAPP: I would just like to inquire whether or not the defense counsel had made this decision at the time that the Language Division was to be asked to translate that portion which the Court permitted him to have translated and when he notified the Language Division that he would not present these documents in Court.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Was there some request on the part of defense counsel to make a response to the suggestion of Mr. Rapp, Dr. Mueller-Torgow?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: If it please the Tribunal, I repeat that at the time I concluded the presentation of my documents and I specifically said so and that I passed no further documents on to the Translation Division, especially none of the Greek documents.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: That is what I understood you to say. What are you referring to, Mr. Rapp?
MR. RAPP: I was under the impression, your Honor, that at that time -- I am obviously mistaken -
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: That can happen to anyone.
MR. RAPP: The defense counsel said that he was going to go ahead with these newspapers as far as they pertained to that part which the Court would permit.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: That was only with reference to the properly authenticated orders.
MR. RAPP: That is right. That is right. Then I wondered whether he had done anything after that time so that the Translation Division didn't do the thing in vain. That was my question. I wanted to find out.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: In any event, the answer then is closed.
MR. RAPP: Very well.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well. Dr. Weissgerber?
DR. WEISSGERBER (Counsel for defendant Speidel): If it please the Tribunal, in conclusion of my evidence on behalf of General Speidel, I intend to present as last document for General Speidel a number of brief excerpts such as were contained in Greek newspapers during the period of occupation.
I have adhered to the ruling of the Court and and have altogether submitted six official announcements of German authorities and these were translated. I now intend to introduce these official announcements as the last document on behalf of General Speidel.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Do you have the copies?
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed, Dr. Weissgerber.
DR. WEISSGERBER: I offer document Speidel Number 84 as Speidel Exhibit Number 67.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: 67?
DR. WEISSGERBER: Yes, 67. I may anticipate that in the translation there appears before every individual announcement a brief summary of the contents. That was no intention on my part. It was done without my instruction by the Translation Division because of the following facts: --
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I think that the Tribunal will understand that and you may proceed with the offering -- with the introduction of the Exhibit.
DR. WEISSGERBER: The first announcement is one made by the Military Commander for Greece concerning the result of the investigation of the prisoners in the Italian military prison. These men were later dismissed by order of General Speidel.
The second announcement has the same contents and refers to another dismissal of prisoners.
MR. FULKERSON: Before we go any further, I would like to point out to the Tribunal that as far as it appears from the English copy that we have here it is impossible for anyone to tell where these things were published, what -- or anything else about them. There is -- there seems to be no certificate on them.
DR. WEISSBERGER: In this connection, I would like to state that my colleague, Dr. Mueller Torgow, some time ago made a motion to the Tribunal for permission of obtaining Greek newspapers.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: We are familiar with the motion as made by Dr. Mueller-Torgow and of He ruling of the Tribunal. The date and place of issue apparently are, Mr. Fulkerson, will be found on the lower lefthand corner of each of the documents. The first one is, Athens, 21 September 1943, and the others correspondingly so.
MR. FULKERSON: That is true, your Honor. I see the reference you make here, but it still doesn't show, as far as I can tell, what it came from ----
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Do you wish --- It is then your wish to have Dr. Weissgerber to go into the details of the original of the instruments?
MR. FULKERSON: Well, it is only this, if your Honor please: I think there should be a little more identification about what these various excerpts came from and especially since we never saw this until now.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well, Dr. Weissgerber, could you give a brief historical outline of the documents to be presented?
DR. WEISSGERBER: According to the ruling of the Court, the obtaining of the Greek Newspapers by the Defense Information Center was possible. From these Greek newspapers I have, according to the order of the Court, had a part on the official announcements of German authorities extracted and I passed these excerpts on to the Translation Division. The announcements appeared in Greek newspapers in Athens at the time of the German occupation. I don't suppose the Prosecution will assure that these announcements such as I present their here have been particularly manufactured for the use before this Tribunal. The announcements all originate in the newspaper which at that time appeared in Athens, Eleftron Vina. Therefore, we always have the abbreviation "EV" before the date.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Proceed.
MR. FULKERSON: I know that the Tribunal is anxious to finish this afternoon, but I think that the -- we at least should be entitled to as much as the Defense would be entitled to, and it is all too clear to me what would happen to us if we had attempted to put in a document with no more identification than this on it, if your Honor please.
Here are a series of what purport to be clippings from newspapers. "EV" is marked on some of them; nothing is marked on some of the others. Here are various references to "page 58 of the Greek original." I don't know what original he is talking about.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Would you care to peruse the original documents?
MR. FULKERSON: Yes, sir.
DR. WEISSGERBER: If your Honor please, I can in this case submit no more than those excerpts from the Greek newspapers.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Mr. Fulkerson has a right to identify -- to examine the originals from which you made the copies.
MR. FULKERSON: If your Honor please, you can't tell from this what they come from. "From the original excerpts." This is simply a newspaper clipping, but from what newspaper or when, it is impossible for anyone to tell.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I submit that it be submitted for the probative value of the newspaper clipping then.
You may continue, Dr. Weissgerber.
DR. WEISSGERBER: The second announcement also deals with the pardon of 106 prisoners who had been convicted by Italian military courts.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I recall, Dr. Weissgerber, that when Mr. Fenstermacher offered the rather voluminous document at the close of a busy day covering the Greek situation, at the suggestion of the Tribunal we assumed that we perhaps would find time to read it in the solitude of our offices and if you would extent us the same courtesy with respect to the Greek newspaper clippings, we would consider them all at that time for such probative value as the Tribunal may feel they have, if any.
MR. FULKERSON: Well, if Your Honors please --
DR. WEISSGERBER: Yes, your Honor, I am in full agreement with that suggestion and I will submit the documents without reading them in detail.
MR. FULKERSON: While your Honors are weighing the probative value of these in the solitude of your offices, I would like you to keep in mind that the last clipping is on August 24, 1944, which is after the defendant left Greece.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I am sure that the Tribunal will take that into account in the balancing of the scales in this matter, you may trust that the balance will not be found wanting.
You may proceed.
DR. WEISSBERGER: That, if your Honor please, brings me to the end of my evidence for General Speidel. The case is resting.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You rest your case for the defendant Speidel?
DR. WEISSBERGER: Yes, Your Honor, I rest my case.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Are there any further matters in this connection to be brought to the attention of the Tribunal by either the Prosecution or the Defense Counsel. That will have ---I am sorry. Did you have something, Dr. Weissberger, to offer before we have the witness returned?
DR. WEISSBERGER: No, if it please your Honor, I have nothing further to submit.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Tipp.
DR. TIPP: If it please the Tribunal, if I am being allowed to speak in behalf of my colleague, Dr. Gawlik, he has still one or two documents to introduce. I can not be certain about this, but I believe it is so, and I would like to inform the Tribunal so that the rights of my colleague. Dr. Gawlik, may not be impaired in any way. To the best of my knowledge, his assistant who was here has already left to inform Dr. Gawlik.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well.
If the Marshal will advise the witness now here to appear before the Tribunal.
(HANS FELBER a witness, was recalled.)
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The witness has been sworn. He may take his place.
It was originally my intention to interrogate the witness, General Felber, on some points that I conceive to be of some importance, but due to the severance of Field Marshall von Weichs from the case, I see it no longer necessary to pursue that intention. However, my associate, Judge Carter, desires to ask the witness a few questions.
Judge Carter.
EXAMINATION BY THE COURT HANS FELBER BY JUDGE CARTER
Q. General, you recall testifying here in August?
A. Yes, your Honor.
Q. I believe you told us at that time how many years you had served in the German Army?
A. Yes, your Honor.
Q. How many?
A. 40 years.
Q. That was the training that you bad before you became an active officer?
A. I went to high school and the first two years of college passed matriculation.
Q. Now, I really referred to military training, General.
A. Before I entered the Army as an officer, or, rather as officer candidate, I had no military training. Then from 1908 onwards I was trained in troops and in the General Staff.
Q But you had experience in both world wars?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q You have been somewhat familiar with the international law as it applies to the conduct of military warfare?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q And you are familiar with - generally at least - with the terms of the Hague Convention of 1907?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q General, can you tell me in what manner an enemy soldier who meets all the requirements of the Convention can be made a prisoner of war?
A He can be made a prisoner of war if, while carrying out his service under arms as a regular soldier and during combat, he comes into the captivity of the enemy.
Q Is it your thought that physical control of the soldier is necessary to his being made a prisoner of war?
A Yes, it is my opinion.
Q And I assume from that that it is your opinion also that a regular soldier can not become a prisoner of war by any constructive process?
A I am not quite certain whether I have understood that question correctly. I don't know whether I understood the meaning of the question properly.
Q All right. Let me put it another way. Can he become a prisoner of war without him knowing it himself?
A I wouldn't assume that that is possible. He ought to have been informed of the situation sufficiently to know when he is a prisoner of war.
Q Very well. Now, what was the position you held in Serbia?
A I was in charge of the office of the Military Commander Southeast, who was in the same time Military Commander for Serbia.
Q And I am correct in assuming that you succeeded General Bader?
A That is correct, Your Honor.
Q And he in turn succeeded General Boehme?