A Yes, Your Honor.
Q Now, when you were commissioned to serve in that capacity, did you receive a new commission or did you just assume it under the same terms that your predecessor had served in the command?
A I can't state that with certainty, because I didn't talk to my predecessor when I took over office. As far as I was concerned, my appointment as Military Commander was a great surprise to me.
Q I believe you told us that, in your opinion, Serbia was wholly occupied during the time that you were there by the German Army. Is that correct?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q And were you the highest Wehrmacht Commander in the territory?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q I assume that you have made some investigation as to the duties of an occupant to the population and the duties of the population toward the occupant?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q Whose duty was it while you were down there to -
A I didn't understand the first part of your question. Could you please repeat it?
Q Well, I didn't finish my question, General. I am sorry. Who was responsible for preventing crime and controlling criminal elements in Serbia while you were there?
A Criminal elements were to be controlled by the Police authorities and by the Higher SS and Police Leader. His name was Meyszener.
Q Supposing the elements got out of hand and they couldn't handle them, whose primarily responsibility was it?
A In the final analysis it was the task of the Military Commander that is, of the troops.
Q And you mean yourself in that respect?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q And you, of course, were subject to the orders of the - of your superior who at the time was Field Marshal von Weichs?
A The authority of command was not sufficiently clearly provided. Generally I would receive my orders from the OKW, from the Quartermaster General's Department in the OKW.
Q Let me put it this way. But from the standpoint of control in the area, the primary responsibility rested on the highest Military Commander within the territory. Is that correct?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q In your capacity as the Commanding General of occupied territory, did I understand then that in the final analysis it would be your duty to control even SD, SS, or any other element that might be labeled a criminal element?
A We did not have the right to control the authorities of the Higher SS and Police Leader and his police authorities. We were not authorized to control these functions. There was an order by the Fuehrer according to which even in the operational areas the Reich Fuehrer of the SS, Himmler, had special tasks, by direct order of the Fuehrer, which he on his own responsibility had to carry out. That was an order which, to the best of my recollection, existed already at the beginning of the Russian campaign and was issued at that time by the OKW. In this opinion I took over in fall of 1943 my office, that is, with the express instruction not to intervene with the police tasks of the Higher SS and Police Leader.
Q I understand that you had several different channels of command from Berlin. Is that right? And you had to contend with both
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q But in the final analysis the obligations of the population to the occupant and the occupant to the population had to be settled by the Commanding General of the territory; is that right?
A Yes, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE CARTER: No further questions.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Presiding Judge for this Tribunal, do you have any questions to ask?
THE PRESIDENT: I do not.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Do members of the Defense Counsel wish to interrogate the witness?
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I have a few questions. General, you don't need your earphones.
RECROSS EXAMINATION HANS FELBER BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q General, first of all, a preliminary question. What nonmilitary agencies exercised authority in your area?
A There was principally the agency - or, let me put it that way, the most important authority had -
Q General, I would like to make it very brief in order not to claim too much time - too much of the time of the Tribunal. What I asked you was: What non-military agencies exercised authority of any kind in your area?
A There was mainly the Plenipotentiary German Envoy; that was Neubacher.
Q Go on.
A Then there was the Police, which was a non-military agency, then in Belgrade a number of individual detachments of Rosenberg, and a number of cultural associations. Then there was the Plenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan. And I believe those are the most important ones.
Q Wasn't the SD also active in that area?
A I count the SD amongst the police units.
Q To what organization of a political nature did the members of the SD belong?
A In my opinion, they were members of the Staff of the Higher SS and Police Leader.
Q Very well, that is the organizational unit which you mentioned just now.
What I mean is, quite generally, to what political organization did the members of the SD belong? What I mean is, what kind of uniforms, did they wear?
A They wore the usual uniform of the SS with insignia, to the best of my knowledge, of the SD.
Q I would like to know from how, and very briefly at that, in what relation - or, let's put it that way: What authorities did a Commanding General of an area have towards the members of the SD or other SS agencies which were not a part of the Waffen SS?
Q The authority of the Commanding General toward the agencies which you mentioned just now were almost zero.
Q Would you have had a possibility under the circumstances prevailing at that time to - let's leave out the Waffen SS for the moment -give any binding order to an SS agency?
A No.
DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well. Any further questions?
DR. FRITSCH: If the Tribunal please, I have a very few questions.
RECROSS EXAMINATION HANS FELBER BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q. General, you gave answer to His Honor before concerning the fact of how a men becomes a prisoner of war. When the German Armed Forces capitualted in May 1945, were you and, in fact, all members of the Armed Forces prisoners of war?
A. In my opinion, not. I myself became a prisoner of war voluntarily on the 12th of May. I believe the capitulation actually took place on the 7th or on the 8th. It is quite correct that I have to clarify a statement which I made previously, that in spite of a general surrender one does not necessarily have to feel oneself to be a prisoner of war.
Q. Do you believe, General, that an individual soldier has to be physically caught to become a prisoner of war.
A. You mean, so to speak, put one's hand on his shoulder just like one arrests a man usually.
Q. Yes.
A. I don't think that applies.
Q. When do you believe now that, if a surrender takes place, the individual soldier does become a prisoner of war?
A. Seen from a purely formal point of view, I presume at the moment when the capitulation is being signed.
DR. FRITSCH: Thank you, that suffices.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Sauter, on behalf of the defendant von Geitner.
RECROSS EXAMINATION HANS FELBER BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. I would like to connect my question with the last point which was discussed. What you told us now, is that just an opinion which you feel to be yours, or did you say what you said on the basis of some legal studies?
A. Concerning the concepts of becoming a prisoner of war, I have so far never read anything in writing, I must admit that. It is just an opinion which I feel to be mine, more or less, if you want to call it that way.
Q. As a rule, to the best of my information, a whole Army capitulates -- that is, a Commander-in-Chief capitulates for the elements subordinated to them.
A. It doesn't have to be an Army; it can be a unit of troops.
Q. Have you ever stopped to think about it, General Felber, particularly at the time when you were stationed in the Balkans, if such an Army capitulates, when does the individual soldier actually become a prisoner of war? Or did you at the time never stop to think about this problem at all?
A. At that time these questions played a decisive part in the Balkans, but still I had other ideas which occupied my mind more, since I participated in the campaign in Russia.
Q. During the training which officers and particularly general staff officers, have to go through in the German Army, were these legal questions dealt with in great detail?
A. No. I myself was an instructor in the War Academy for five years, and concerning these topics, to the best of my knowledge, and recollection, there were no discussions at all, except at one time by a Judge Advocate during special instruction.
Q. Now, General Felber, I have one other question to ask you which refers to Serbia. I would like to clarify one particular point in that connection. Is the Fuehrer Directive 48 still in your memory?
A. I cannot give you the contents exactly today. I only knew that it did exist.
Q. In order to refresh your memory, General, I would like to tell you the following: This Fuehrer Directive 48 is to have contained a provision according to which the Higher SS and Police Leader in Serbia was subordinate to the Military Commander.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, heretofore, I believe, we followed the procedure if we cared to, to refresh the witness' memory, by having him study the document himself. I have no objection if Dr. Sauter wants to do that. However, to get Dr. Sauter's interpretation as a fact before the witness, I object to.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I am inclined to think the objection is well taken. Dr. Sauter, if you wish to interrogate the witness with respect to a written document, it should be made available to him, or the quotation from it should be, such as to raise no doubt as to its accuracy.
DR. SAUTER: The Witness received the Fuehrer Directive 48 in Serbia. He says that he recalls the Fuehrer Directive as such. The only thing he doesn't know, if I understood him correctly, is what was contained in Fuehrer Directive Number 48. I haven't got this document handy at the moment, but I can't ask him in any other way that in the way I did. That is, by briefly telling him the contents which we assert to exist and ask him under oath whether that is correct.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: In the interest of expediency, you may proceed.
Q. Then, perhaps I ought to put the question in the following way: Witness, was there a Fuehrer Directive for Serbia according to which the Higher SS and Police Leader in Serbia was formally subordinated to the Military Commander for Serbia?
A. I can only recollect that the Higher SS and Police Leader was subordinated only concerning his own person and military tasks. I can further recall that the end of this Fuehrer Directive Number 48, I believe, was that through this instruction all other instructions were rescinded.
I also remember that shortly after taking over my office down there,-that is, at the beginning of October 1943, or even earlier, perhaps,--I had to discover that when I pointed out to the Higher SS and Police Leader the existence of this Fuehrer Directive Number 48, he transmitted a communication to me through the channel via Himmler and Keitel to the effect that in the area of the Higher SS and police Leader a former Fuehrer Directive existed with particular permissions and concessions to the Police, and that this was valid now as before. To my intense surprise I was informed, by way of a kind of reprimand that I was to--that I had to follow the demands of the Higher SS and Police Leader implicitly.
Q. You, as Military Commander, had to follow the demands of the Higher SS and Police Leader? That is what you said?
A. And that the Fuehrer Directive Number 48, which I had received and which really should have been my guide, was now described to me as though it was not completely valid and could not be regarded as being completely valid.
Q. General, now one last question. How did that take effect in actual practice? Did actually the Higher SS and Police Leader subordinate himself to you or did he in actual fact not become subordinate to you?
A. Quite doubtlessly and clearly he subordinated himself only concerning his own person and only where pure military tasks were concerned. And, furthermore, he objected in the most stringent manner if in any way we intervened with his police interests.
Q. This Higher SS and Police Leader -- I believe his name was Meyszuer--did he tell you, when you had such disputes from, which agency he received his orders?
A. He again and again stressed that his channel was the one through Himmler, and in the very beginning he threatened me with going to see Himmler during the next few days, from which fact we could very clearly conclude that this utterance was an open threat, and it was meant to have the effect of a threat on us.
DR. SAUTER: I have no further questions to put, your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Very well. Are there further questions on the part of the Defense Counsel? If not, are there any further questions by the Prosecution?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION HANS FELBER BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q. General Felber, did I understand you correctly when you said the Higher SS and Police Leader would subordinate himself to you for carrying out military tasks but he would not subordinate himself to you with respect to police tasks?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Would he ever subordinate himself to you for the carrying out of reprisal measures--by that I mean the execution of hostages in retaliation for German losses?
A. In that connection he did not have to subordinate himself to anybody because this was a task which was assigned to him from Himmler.
Q. Did Meyszuer execute hostages on his own initiative or would he execute hostages only when you told him to?
A. Well, I can say that as a rule he adhered to the last mentioned procedure. But I did learn in 1943, before I took over office, that in one case-
Q. Let's not go into what happened before your time. In other words, when you told Meissner to carry out the execution of hostages, he did so?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. You had full power to order him to carry out the execution of hostages?
A. Yes.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: That is all.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Are there further questions?
DR. WEISSGERBER: Dr.Weissgerber for General Speidel.
RECROSS EXAMINATION HANS FELBER BY DR. WEISSGERBER:
Q. General, were the competencies and command authorities of the Military Commander of Greece similar to those of the Military Commander of Serbia? Were they identical?
A. Concerning the Service instructions, to the extent of which I remember them today, they were identical. That is, the tasks for the Military Commander in Greece were the same as the tasks for the Military Commander in Serbia.
Q. During your first examination you testified that there was a considerable difference, inasmuch as you were a tactical leader and the Military Commander for Greece was not. Is that correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. To this extent then there is a considerable difference between your position and the position of the Military Commander of Greece?
A. Yes. Yes, in the purely military sphere there was, certainly.
Q. I see. Thank you.
CROSS EXAMINATION GENERAL FELBER BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q. General Felber, when members of the German Police or the Serbian police were killed, you issued orders to Meyszuer as Higher SS and Police Leader to retaliate for their deaths didn't you?
A. Subsequent to a report from Meyszuer who brought these things to the attention of the Military Commander.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: That's all.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The witness may stand aside.
Has Dr. Gawlik or his assistant appeared?
We will take a 10-minute recess at this time, and will you please get word to Dr. Gawlik to be here at that time.
(Tribunal in recess until 1515 hours)
(AFTER RECESS)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Before we begin, I would simply like, on behalf of the Prosecution, to extend our very sincere appreciation to a small group of people who did a very good and very difficult job in a very competent manner. The Court interpreters from German to English, Miss Evand, Mrs. Schaeffer and Mr. Weber, and from English to German, Mr. Hopfer, Miss Lenzen and Mr. Scharf, who have been with us throughout and have always, with great patience, and great good humor, I believe, stayed up with these proceedings.
The Court reporters have, I think similarly done a very competent job. Unfortunately, there were so many of them we do not have the names, and cannot, unfortunately read their names get into the record.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The record will show the attitude of the Prosecution in the matter.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I join these thanks, in the name of the Defense counsel, to the fullest extent.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The record will show your attitude. Dr. Gawlik.
DR. GAWLIK: (Counsel for the defendant, General Dehner):
Your Honor, first of all I would ask that Document, Dehner No. 59, to which I have already given Exhibit Number, Dehner No. 55, be now accepted as sur rebuttal evidence.
I submit it to refute the credibility of Bach-Zelewski. It is an excerpt from a Prosecution Document PS 1919, an excerpt from a speech of the Reich Fuehrer SS in Posen on the 4th of October, 1943, in which Himmler stated that 95 out of 100 of all reports were either lies or only one-half correct. This is the document which I showed the witness BachZelewski during his examination and to which, at that time, I gave the number, Dehner 55.
MR. FULKERSON: I do not want to raise a long objection, but this is an excerpt from this Posen speech Dr. Gawlik attempted to use, unsuccessfully, because of the ruling of the Court, in the course of his crossexamination of General Gach-Zelewski, and it has no probative value; it means absolutely nothing in so far as rebutting the specific statement that General Bach-Zelewski made on the witness stand here.
DR. GAWLIK: I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal first of all to the fact that it is a Prosecution document, and I am very astonished that the Prosecution maintains its own document, that it has no probative value.
In addition, I submit it to rebut the statement of Bach-Zelewski that all of the reports were true. Here in the witness stand he stated that no incorrect reports were made, end in order to refute these statements by Bach-Zelewski, and at the same time to impeach his credibility.
I am now submitting this document as an exhibit in the trial.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection will be sustained.
DR. GAWLIK: The next document I would like to submit is Document Dehner No. 36. This document I have already submitted during the examination of Bach-Zelewski. I assume that at that time it was not accepted because at that time the reason was that it could not be submitted during the examination of Bach-Zelewski, but at the present stage in the proceedings, I would like to submit it to refute the statements of Bach-Zelewski.
It is an affidavit by Konstantin Kammerhofer.
MR. FULKERSON: I object to this document. As I pointed out before during the examination of a witness we had the other day, this document has been in Dr. Gawlik's document book for a good long while, and he could very easily have put it in before, but he waited and attempted, after having deliberately passed over it, he attempted to use it in the cross-examination of a witness here the other day, and he now attempts to go back and put it in, thus depriving us of a chance of cross-examination. I object
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Mr. Fulkerson, I am sure that you did not intend to do it, but you interrupted Dr. Gawlik before he had concluded his statement.
Proceed, Dr. Gawlik, to make your statement.
DR. GAWLIK: While submitting my documents I did not present this document because when I checked over the documents again I did not think that it contained relevant, evidentiary material, and at the time I only wanted to submit those documents which were relevant, and for this reason I limited myself to a very small number of documents, but since the Prosecution, in rebuttal, brought the witnesses Bach-Zelewski and Kern, this document is now relevant, and the position for me, as Defense counsel, is now different from what it was at that time when I presented my documents.
For this reason I think that now I have the right to offer this document in evidence.
It is further incorrect, as the Prosecutor has asserted it, that I left it out intentionally for some specific reason. I do not know what reasons they could have been. I can state here that the only reason was that at that time it was not relevant.
If the Prosecution had produced the witnesses Bach-Zelewski and Korn in their case-in-chief before I started with my documents, then I would have presented the document at that time,--this is, as I said, supposed to be a document to refute the statement of Bach-Zelewski and Korn, and on the same subject for which the Prosecution brought them here, namely, the connection between the Wehrmacht and the SS, and I would like to inform the Tribunal that the first witnesses on this subject was brought forward in the rebuttal proceedings.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Mr. Fulkerson.
MR. FULKERSON: I think that I have pretty well covered the subject in what I said before, except that there is one other peculiar thing to be pointed out about this, and that is that it is being used to rebut, according to Dr. Gawlik, the testimony of the witness Korn.
Now the witness Korn was called here by Dr. Gawlik, and has already appeared. Now it appears that he has been holding an affidavit in reserve; not having used the man as his own witness, he has been holding this Kammerhofer affidavit in reserve to attempt to rebut him with it in case somebody else put him on the stand.
That is another very good reason for objection.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Your objection therefore was?
MR. FULKERSON: My objection if Your Honor pleases, is that this Kammerhofer document is entirely irrelevant and is not proper sur rebuttal.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Your objection will be sustained.
Does that conclude your matter, Dr. Gawlik?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, Your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Does that indicate that all defendants have rested?
It so appears, and the Adjournment of the Tribunal will be placed in the hands of the Presiding Judge, Judge Wennerstrum.
Judge Wennerstrum.
PRESIDING JUDGE WENNERSTRUM: Heretofore the Tribunal has indicated its desire that both the Prosecution and the Defense Counsel submit their closing arguments at a time, and within a time which will permit the translation department, and the reproduction department to handle these particular documents, and papers or addresses in a way which will not put any great pressure upon those particular divisions.
The Tribunal has indicated the time within which these are to be presented, and that they shell be handed to the translation department at least within a day after the close of the evidence.
Do you wish to make a statement, Mr. Rapp?
MR. RAPP: Yes, Your Honors. Dr. Mueller-Torgow has asked me to make a statement on behalf of the Prosecution regarding the inquiry I made of him prior to the recess, and I am prepared to state now that Dr. Mueller Torgow did not send for translation to Mr. Hodges any document after the Court ruled on that particular issue.
I went to have the record so show. I wanted merely to inquire, and I have now gotten the answer.
THE PRESIDENT: The record shows heretofore that the Prosecution rests. Is that correct, Mr. Rapp?
MR. RAPP: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I again want to urge both Prosecution and Defense counsel to submit their closing arguments to the necessary departments promptly, and so that there will be no undue pressure placed upon those particular departments.
With that statement the Tribunal will adjourn until February 2nd at 9:30 AM, at which time the Tribunal will hear the closing arguments for both the Prosecution and the Defense, and give the following week over for that purpose.
The Tribunal will be in recess, as previously announced.
(Tribunal in recess until 0930 hours, February 2, 1948)
Official Transcript of Military Tribunal V, Case VII in the matter of the United States of America against Wilhelm List, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany on 3 February 1948, 0930, Judge Wennerstrum presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal V. Military Tribunal V 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, have you ascertained that all the defendants are present in the court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in court.
THE PRESIDENT: It was my understanding that the prosecution was to present their argument at this time. Are they ready?
MR. RAPP: If your Honors please, the prosecution is prepared to offer its closing argument at this time. I would merely like to make one request for the record. I have checked our files and there are still a small number of photostatic copies in the hands of the defense counsel which have not been returned. I will give Dr Laternser during the recess a list of these numbers and I ask that you be kind enough to return them as soon as possible.
PROSECUTION'S CLOSING STATEMENT Case No. 7 It is a challenging and formidable task for any advocate to sum up a record of almost 10,000 pages in a trial which has lasted for almost 7 months.
When the panoramic events of several years of military and political history in four different nations are the subject matter of a judicial proceeding, when nearly 700 Prosecution documents - orders, reports, war diaries, photographs and even films - are introduced into evidence, when 50 odd witnesses have personally appeared before the Tribunal and more than a thousand by affidavit - then in summation one can do little more than outline in incomplete highlight the contents of this sordid and depraved text.
Many things may be said in future days about this trial. None enjoys the process of being tried and judged, and it would be too much to expect from the defendants praise of the fairness and detachment with which this litigation has been conducted. But it must be obvious even to them that they could not have found a more dispassionate forum anywhere in this world.
No matter what might be said by history about this proceeding,of one thing we can be sure. No fair-minded critic may ever say that not all was said in these defendants' favor which might have been said.
It has been somewhat more than a year since the International Military Tribunal handed down two historic decisions involving the criminal responsibility of high-ranking officers of the German Army for the outrages of German troops during World War II. In one, Keitel and Jodl were held to be as guilty as Goering and Ribbentrop for the aggressive acts and wars, with their inevitable consequences, that mark the period of German hegemony in Europe. In the other, it was held that the group of military leaders indicted as the German General Staff and High Command was too amorphous a collection to be dealt with as a group or organization. But in commenting on the evidence concerning the guilt of individual German officers the Tribunal made this clear and unequivocal pronouncement:
"They have been, responsible in large measure for the miseries and suffering that have fallen on men, women and children.
"Many of these men have made a mockery of the Soldier's oath of obedience to military orders. When it suits their defense, they say they had to obey; when confronted with Hitler's brutal crimes, which are shown to have been within their general knowledge, they say they disobeyed. The truth is they actively participated in all these crimes, or sat silent and acquiescent witnessing the commission of crimes on a scale larger and more shocking than the world has ever had the misfortune to know.
This must be said.
"Where the facts warrant it, these men should be brought to trial so that those among them who are guilty of these crimes should not escape punishments" By filing the indictment here, the prosecution was in effect carrying out the mandate of the International Military Tribunal.
The defendants in the dock all fit the description of those officers whom the International Military Tribunal believed should not be allowed to escape the consequences of the vile acts which they either fathered, furthered or allowed to be carried out by their subordinates without a rummer of protest.
Since these crimes all occurred either in territory where active fighting was taking place or in territory which was being occupied by the German Army - Since, in a word, they took place in areas where the German Army constituted the only real source of political or military power and where the only organizations of any kind were either directly or ultimately controlled by the Army - it is only to be expected that the nature of these criminal acts follows a more or less uniform pattern. Indeed, it would be surprising if this were not the case. Most of these defendants, as has been said, served on the Russian front before being transferred to the Balkans. One does not ordinarily expect to see a total change of character and habits of thought effectuated by an individual's transfer from one place to another, especially if he serves in the name capacity in both places.
Further, the nerve center of the entire German. Army was in Berlin, and German troops, wherever they were stationed, were influenced to a certain extent by the broad. policy directives which issued from the OKW, so that one would expect to find, as in the case of any Army, a certain uniformity of policy and, within a broad framework, certain accepted ideas and methods of action. The defendants, of course, seize on this unifying direction and attempt to balance on the pin point of the OKW a whole absurd inverted pyramid of argumentation to the effect that most of the indefensible acts committed by their troops and auxiliaries can be laid at the door of the OKW, and that they, who were mere Lt. Generals and Colonel Generals and Field Marshals were completely stripped of any discretion whatever.
This tendency to minimize their own importance is a characteristic which does not appear in their biographies prior to the date the indictment against them was filed.
We will deal with this newly-developed self-abasement presently. What is pertinent for the moment is that this identity of personnel, especially in the higher ranks in various theaters during the course of the war, plus this centralized direction of policy reduces the number of legal issues to be considered in this litigation.
Especially in the case of the execution of hostages is the legal issue simple and clear. The prosecution takes the position that the killing of a civilian whose only proved offense is that he or she lives in the neighborhood of a place where some unidentified person did something which displeased the German occupation power, is simply murder, no more, no less. This seems to be a principle which is utterly indigestible to the Defense.
We might say parenthetically that it is rather amusing that they, on the one hand, can argue with apparent seriousness that it is perfectly legitimate to drag a man out of his house, stand him up against the wall and shoot him without even asserting that he is guilty of anything, and yet on the other hand, with an equally straight face,they are able to quiver with indignation at the outrage on their private rights which was perpetrated when they were relieved of their medals by some souvenircollecting GI in 1945. But this is only one of the many spectacles of moral acrobatics to which we have been treated in the course of this trial.
And the factual issues are really little more complicated. Lifted out of the morass of detail with which the record is deliberately and unnecessarily encumbered, the case is impressive in its simplicity, The prosecution has had no trouble establishing that the German Army carried out executions of innocent hostages and other savagely disproportionate reprisal measures, that it killed prisoners of war of lawful belligerents by the thousands, and that it participated in the round-up and incarceration.