DR. PELCKMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Before the Tribunal or what?
DR. PELCKMANN: Before the Commission, Mr. President. I shall dispense with reading it. I only refer the Court to page 3552 of the transcript before the Commission which is in special connection with this point.
Affidavit 16 of General Roettiger, USA Exhibit 560. As the cross examination before the Commission can no longer be used by the Prosecution in the sense desired by then, I shall not quote it although I would like to quote it, and refer the Court to pages 3318 and 3324. In regard to the testimony of SS Fuehrer Rode, USA Exhibit 563, whom I unfortunately could not cross examine, I point out that the witness himself begins with the words "As far as I know one Einsatzgruppen were completely subordinate." As counter evidence I have 52 affidavits on this point, numbers 701 to 752. Affidavits 704, 705 707, 710 to 752 make it completely clear that there was never any subordination of the Einsatzgruppen. commander of an Army Group, on a more rumor that Jews were being murdered, immediately took stops, calling the Higher SS and Police Chief to him and telling him that he would not permit excesses against the Jews. This SS Fuehrer assured him that no excesses against the Jews took place, and that he had no orders to that effect. I refer the Court to affidavit 709 which indicates that General of the Panzer Troops, Freiherr von Schweppenberg, when a leader of an Einsatz Commando came to him and said that he was entrusted with the political matters, immediately had him removed free, the operational area. Fuehrer arrested because he wanted to have 50 to 60 Jews shot who, according to the statements of confidential agents, were anti-German and had the intention of clearing up acts of sabotage against the German troops. In this connection one piece of evidence seems of special importance; that is affidavit 16370 of General Kittel. According to this affidavit, a national German in the area of Marinka, because of crimes committed against a Jewess, was condemned to death by a court martial and shot.
How could this sentence be explained if the military leaders had ordered and permitted the murder of many thousands of Jews? Commission who testified that the Einsatzgruppen were not subordinate to the Wehrmacht. Now, on the Commissar order. Colonel von Boniehn, according to which this order was valid for all units of the Eastern Army. But the same affidavit shows that the Commanding General of the 47th Panzer Corps, General Lehmeisen. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, you are commanding upon evidence of the Prosecution. You are commenting upon USA affidavit 565. At least, so I understand it.
DR. PELCKMANN: Mr. President to I believe I was misunderstood. I was only referring to a part of this document to which the prosecution did not refer.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the affidavit is in evident I suppose, and it is in evidence for the prosecution, and you are commenting upon it and that is not want we want you to do. We want you to present your evidence. Go on
DR. LATERNSER: Very well. Refutation of the charge in regard to the Commissar order I supplement by a further affidavit. I turned over 82 to the Commission, numbered 301 to 373. I should like go to into this point in more detail, but in consideration of the haste, I shall dispense with it and only refer to special points which I absolutely must point out. against the order when it was drawn up in the OKW and OKH and the unsuccessful attempt to prevent it. The Chief of the General Staff of tie Army, Generaloberst Hoeppner, immediately protested to Hitler against this order. It is thanks to him that the order was rescinded. That is shown by document 302-B. I ask what I may be allowed to quote are paragraph from this important document, 301-B.
THE PRESIDENT: 302-B, I thought. Which is it?
DR. LATERNSER: I believe that the he is a mistake in the list which the President has. This document has been numbered 301-B.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DR. LATERNSERL I quote: "After I took up my duties as Chief of the Army's General Staff, I had a private conversation with Adolph Hitler, and a very plain and outspoken one regarding this command, and I explained matters in detail from all angles. Adolph Hitler was, at the time, as I remember, very much impressed by it. That struck me, because he otherwise never changed his opinion in such matters and out short any person if such matters were referred to. For that reason I referred to it several times, and I believe I altered his opinion." I dispense with the rest of the affidavit.
I should like to refer particularly to Affidavit 315. This shows that Generaloberst Hoeppner, the Commander in Chief of Panzer Truppe 4, acted in the some way as the other commander in chief. That is, he did not carry out the order.
Then I refer to affidavit 324-A, B, and C. With these documents I refute the Russian prosecution on page 4401 and on Page 1 of the Document USSR 62. General of the Panzer Troops confirms expressly in this affidavit the order was not carried out in his jurisdiction. This testimony is confirmed by affidavit 336.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Laternser.
DR. LATERNSER: The testimony of General Major Pape, in affidavit 333, refutes this. It is the some division which Field Marshal Model commanded at one time. It refutes the Russian charge under USSR 62 and is based on the testimony of the soldier Trest. In this division, at the time when Field Marshal model, then in a lower rank, commanded this division, the order was never carried out. was opposed in the Navy, which had only subordinate importance. But among the Allied troops no action for treatment of Russian commissars contrary to international law took place, as proved by the testimony of Lt. Col. Felmer regarding the 13th Rumanian division and for the area of the Italian expeditionary corps. the did not receive the order to pass on, and he did not pass it on. fully because the total shows that the order was not carried out. I would certainly have been in a position to present further evidence on this point if I had had more time.
THE PRESIDENT: You refer to 75. I think that perhaps is sufficient. I say you have already referred to 75 affidavits.
DR. LATERNSER: On partisan warfare, the Prosecution contends that in the East in particular, this fight was carried on contrary to international law. As evidence for these assertions, the Prosecution has referred to Affidavit 15 of General Roettiger, USA Exhibit 559, to Affidavit 20 of General Houseinger, USA Exhibit 564, to Affidavit 17, USA Exhibit 562, and to the testimony of the witness von dem Back Zelewski before the Commission. I crossexamined Hauesinger and Roettiger, and I ask the Tribunal to take notice of this transcript. General Roettiger, which is affidavit No. 15, USA Exhibit 559, had raised an especially severe charge. examination before the Commission concerning this point. General Roettiger had asserted that there were orders of the Commander in Chief of the army to take the most sever measures; furthermore, that only a few prisoners were taken; furthermore -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, we have pot to consider, not these individual details, but we have got to consider the criminal character of the organization charged. First of all, whether it is an organization within the meaning of the charter, and, second whether it is a criminal organization. Here you wanted to draw our attention to individual details about partisan warfare in your cross examination of one witness before the Commission. As I have pointed out, we have nearly 3,000 affidavits to consider. If you would only give us the numbers of the affidavits which you say relate to a particular topic, then we shall know what relates to that tonic and we shall be able to consider it.
DR. LATERNSER: But the Prosecution presented these details and they are an especially serious charge and - want to prove -
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, they did, and I have a reference to them. They were presented in the US affidavits 559 to 564, and I am perfectly well aware that you have cross examined the witness. What I want to know is what affidavits you want to draw our attention to in reply to the case of the Prosecution on partisan warfare.
Dr. LATERNSER: I draw the attention of the Court to pages 3519 to 3523 of the Commission transcript. The result of the cross examination is that the affidavit of General Roettiger presented by the Prosecution was completely refuted. saw uprising, to affidavits 1501 to 1507. In detail, statements 901 to 905 contain general agreement on the partisan warfare in all theaters of war. Especially significant is affidavit 908, Fieldmarshal von Weichs. Affidavits 906 to 931 give examples of the methods of fighting of the partisans. 906 to 920 describe special atrocities committed by the partisans. Affidavits 921 to 924 prove the actions contrary to international law of the bandits. Affidavits 925 to 930 deal with the extent of sabotage against railroads.
That the Germans fought according to the rules of international law, is proved by affidavits 932 to 970. They show that the partisans were treated like prisoners of war. leadership to combat partisans and destroy Jews or Yugoslavs, there was no question of this at the Front. commander-in-chief of the 18th Army, that on the 30th of October 1942 he ordered that all partisans were to be shot without distinction. In this connection, I refer to the affidavit of Generaloberst Lindemann also. He was the commander-in-chief of the 18th Army. This shows that such an order was never given, because the entry in the war diary of the Wehrmacht operational staff, 1786-PS, is incorrect. This affidavit 1033 is available in translation. partisan undertaking; in spike of an application of Army Group North to the OKH that the Army should be entrusted with the execution of this action, the undertaking was carried out under Himmler's leadership by General von Dem Bach Zelewski. This affidavit refutes the testimony of von Dem Bach Zelewski, who calls himself "an agency for the collection of information." To prove that this assertion by the witness von Dem Bach Zelewski is incorrect, I further refer to the testimony of the witness Hauesinger before the Commission; concerning the suppression of the Polish uprising in Warsaw, affidavits 1501 to 1507, the treatment of Generaloberst Guderian, 1501 in particular, certify that Police General von Dem Bach Zelewski was entrusted with suppressing the uprising. Second, that he was appointed to this task by Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler and was directly subordinate to Himmler. Thirdly, that he received his orders from Himmler; that is, not from the OKH nor from Army Group Center nor from the 9th Army. Fourth, that the troops employed in Warsaw were SS and police troops, including the SS Brigade Kaminsky. Fifth, that the special atrocities in Warsaw against the population were carried out by the SS Brigade Kaminsky which consisted of Eastern peoples and that this Brigade, to prevent further mischief, was removed from the battle and its leaders were punished.
Sixth, that the 9th Army took special care of the population escaping from Warsaw.
I will not point out any more details of this affidavit 1501. As further proof that the army agencies had nothing to do with the battle in Warsaw, I present the testimony of General von Vormann, affidavit 1504 -document USSR 128 -- on pages 161 and 162 of my document book 2, which also shows that the Wehrmacht had nothing to do with the destruction of Warsaw which was apparently intended in 1944.
I should like to refer particularly to partisan warfare in Italy. The prosecution has presented two orders by the commander Fieldmarshal Kesselring and sees in them violations of international law. I refer to the testimony of Fieldmarshal Kesselring before the Commission, page 2087 to 2124 of the Commission transcript. In this examination, the witness testified expressly that to suppress the uprising he had to take those temporary measures and that he thus succeeded in mastering the situation. This testimony of Fieldmarshal Kesselring is confirmed by affidavit 3004 of Roettiger.
Treatment of prisoners. The prosecution charges the military leaders with planning, permitting or committing crimes against prisoners of war which they are said to have committed in all theatres of war. The Russian prosecution, in particular, contends the special atrocities. I shall not mention them in detail. The accusations in so far as they affect the circle of persons whom I represent, I can refute by affidavits. I refer to affidavit 1101 of Fieldmarshal von Kuechler, which deals with the principles of the treatment of prisoners of war. Lt. Col. Scheder testifies in affidavit 1102 that in November 1941 in Oscha he participated in a discussion between the Chief of the General Staff, General Halder and the Chief of the three army groups on the Eastern Front, at which the feeding of prisoners was discussed. Army Group Center and South, who had particularly many prisoners asked who approval in case of an emergency to reduce the German troops' rations and be allowed to use army supplied to give the prisoners more to eat In this connection, I/refer to the affidavits 1103, 1104, 1104-A, 1105-A to C and 1106 to 1109, inclusive.
A very particularly important affidavit is affidavit 3146 of General Girke. General Girke, from August 1930 to the end of the war, was chief of the transport system in the OKH. He describes that the transports of Soviet prisoners of war were treated exactly like the transports of other prisoners of war. They were carried through in closed freight cars. Orders deviating from this were never issued. Open flat cars, as contended by the prosecution, were used only very seldom and only on transports on short stretches, because there was a great scarcity of this type of car. In no case were transports made intentionally in the winter in open cars in order to lot the prisoners freeze to death. That is shown by affidavit 3146. prosecution in the field of the treatment of prisoners. On page 4337 of the transcript, it is contended that on the island of Portizza on the Dnieper corpses of Rod Army men were found.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, the Tribunal has already said that it intends only to listen to you for half a day end unless you shorten or unless you have in mind the shortening of your address, it doesn't look as if you will be able to do it. If you can't do it, then we will have to take your documents as they are without any further reference. It seems to me that with reference to prisoners of war, all you have got to do is tell us what are the numbers of the affidavit which deal with it and say "I particular refer to" such end such an order or such and such an affidavit and then we shall know that you attach particular importance to those affidavits but to deal with it in detail like this is simply wasting our time. Anyhow, what I mean is, that at the end of half a day your address on these topics will cease.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I must have on opportunity to answer the accusations made by the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: You are having that opportunity at the present moment and you have had since twelve o'clock.
DR. LATERNSER: On page 4337 of the transcript it is asserted that on the island of Portizza on the Dnieper, corpses of Red Army men were found, whose hands had been out off and whose eyes had been put out, whose stomachs had been cut open, and so forth.
This is refuted by the affidavit of Fieldmarshal von Kleist, 1115, who was commander-in-chief of those groups. There were no German troops employed on this island. The Hungarian Corps was fighting there. That is shown by 1115. of the transcript, prisoners are said to have been driven before the attaching German troops of the field. This is clearly refuted by the testimony of the former commander-in-chief of the 18th Army, Generaloberst Lindemann. Affidavit 1116-A; these testimonies are confirmed by the affidavit of Colonel Nolbe, No. 3159. on page 4360 to 65 of the transcript contains the examination of General von Gestreich, containing especially serious charges in the field of treatment of prisoners. As counter evidence I present an affidavit No. 1117 which proves that the action in May 1941 was reproduced completely falst by Oestreich. In particular it refutes the assertion that orders were given that fleeing prisoners should be shot or prisoners incapable of work should be poisoned. numerous prisoners are said to have been killed by intentionally poor treatment. This contention is clearly disproved by the testimony of the army doctor of the 11th Army, Generalstabsarzt Rosse, in his affidavit 1118.
According to page 4338 of the transcript, on the 4th of September -- or December, 1943, three railroad trains full of prisoners of war are to have been taken from Kerch to Sevastopol and burned or drown there. This assertion is disproved by the testimony of Generals Deichmann and Roettiger who were both at that time in the Crimea given in affidavits 3140 and 3007. The Russian Prosecution attempts on page 4394 of the transcript to say that the fighting in the quarries near Kerch was bestial on the part of the Germans According to the testimony of a woman who apparently counted them, there were exactly 900 prisoners who were mistreated or shot. The testimony of the commanding general, General Mattenklot is in contradiction to this affidavit 1121. 4, 400 to 4,401 of the transcript, according to which on the orders of Field Marshal model and General Nehring, no prisoners were to be taken. This is refuted by affidavits 1222 A to F, that is, by six affidavits on this particular point. On pages 4455 and 4456 of the transcript, mistreatment of prisoners in Norwegian Camps. Generaloberst von Falkenhorst in affidavit 112 proved that these prisoners were not under the military but under the SS. where treated like our own wounded. From various theaters of war there is testimony that the enemy himself recognized the good treatment. I submit statement 1161 and 1162, the latter recognition by the American General Storm. 1165 is a letter from the newphew of the English King, and 1166, that is from the PAF officers to the Commandant of the Air Corps Camp at Oberursel for the chivalrous attitude. Affidavit 1168 shows that the commander of the Fourteenth Division, General Heim, in October 1942, ordered for the German troops at Stalingrad, even though there was a scarcity of food for our own troops, that the Russian prisoners were to be fed. Further example of the chivalrous treatment of the captured enemy is given by the statement 1170 of Generaloberst Student, when there was infantile paralysis amongst the English prisoners on Crete, a transport was sent to Berlin for the necessary special serum. Oberstabsarze, Dr. Schaefer, in affidavit 1172, indicates that the Mountain Rescue Service in the Alps saved approximately 350 enemy flyers from death.
THE PRESIDENT: Surely, Dr. Laternser, you can give us the reference to the numbers of the affidavits which state that prisoners were treated properly. Why waste time about it by telling us what each affidavit says. You only have to tell us that these affidavits refer to good treatment by individuals.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, if I only give numbers and do not refer at least partially to the contents, all the material will hardly have any weight because these affidavits are not translated. Of all my affidavits approximately 40 have been translated. If I cannot go into the contents at all, then -
THE PRESIDENT: We have got the summary before us in writing. What you are doing practically in every case is repeating the summary we have before us in writing. For instance, 1174 (Decent Treatment of English Prisoners) There is another one from some of the British officers showing who the British officer is and saying what he said about the treatment. Well, I have made it quite clear to you, I hope, that you will not be allowed to go beyond a half day; and now the Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will not sit on Saturday next.
DR. LATERNSER: The Russian Prosecution assertions on pages 4336 and 3494, evidence to the contrary, affidavits 1176 following. The Russian Prosecution asserts that Soviet Prisoners of war were used in the service of the German Wehrmacht and were forced to do so. In this connection I should like to refer to affidavits 1179 to 1203, affidavits from which we see that within the period of one year the number of volunteers was 500,000 men. like to refer to affidavits 1203 to 1213. like to refer to affidavits 1214 to 1216. material into five branches:
1. Alleged destruction and desecration of churches.
2. Destruction with the advance in the East.
3. Alleged destruction and plundering of cultural monuments and 4. Destruction connected with the retreat.
5. Plundering. Prosecution dealing with the destruction of numerous churches and their being desecrated. Most of the churches had already been destroyed or had already been desecrated or they had been made into museums. Affidavits 1301 to 1323 concern themselves with this subject. In the retreat, churches were especially protected: Affidavit 1324. Quite on the contrary, churches were once more restored to their religious purpose, as shown by affidavits 1325 to 1348. Special protection granted the churches in the French Campaign and the prevention of the destruction of the Cathedral at Rouen is shown by affidavits 1349 to 1353. advance, affidavits 1354 to 1401. Affidavits 1354 to 1362 prove a planned work of the Soviet Commandos charged with destruction under German advance. Affidavit 1363 shows tremendous destruction by the Soviet Russians in the Denitz Dasin, as well as the same which applies for the industrial realm of Maikop, Artenisk, Dnjeptropetrowsk, Kriwoi-Rog, Orel, Ovchom-Kisegrad Brjansk, Stalingard, Saporoschje, Riga and Charkov.
established who had petrol at their disposal and all of this is being brought forth to refute the record, pages 4812, 4819, and 4857.
The demand Dnieper was destroyed by the Russians themselves. Proof: Affidavits 1371 to 1384. 1400. Destructions in Greece were not carried out by the German troops but rather by the retreating troops and this is proved by affidavit 1401. monuments, affidavits 1402 up to 1552 cover an unequivocal refutation of numerous statements. Affidavit 1402, deposed by Field Marshal von Kuechler, according to which objects of art were taken from the front areas to the rear region and safeguarded and secured for their solemn transmission to the Metropolitan of that city. Leningrad destruction determined by military necessity; affidavits 1403 to 1405 are proof and refute the witnesses Orbeli and Numarti. Affidavits 1406 to 1411 refer to the destructions in the vicinity of Leningrad which in the majority were destroyed by Russian fire. This may be seen from affidavits 1406 to 1411. The famous estate of Telstei was protected by the Germans under express command by Colonel General Guderian, as shown by affidavits 1412 to 1418. One of these affidavits testifies that in the Russian Victory film of the spring of 1941 the Telstei Estate was shown complete and without any damage after the recapture by the Russians. The Tchaikovsky Museum was not plundered by the Germans; Proof, affidavits 1419 to 1422. Affidavits 1423 to 27 prove that the Observatory on Keltchovai was never in German hands and was not plundered by the German Wehrmacht. The plundering of the Naval Observatory at Siemais on the Island of Crimea, was not carried on by German troops, according to affidavit 1428. Instruments were removed by the Russians in their retreat before the German troops marched in. Destruction in Novgorod, affidavits 1429 to 1438. Petri Church and the famous house in Riga were not destroyed by the Germans but rather by the Russians themselves by setting fire to the houses.
Riga, Rival and Novgorod suffered heavily through Russian bombing attacks. The church goods of Bleskav were not plundered by German troops. The Russians in 1941 took all these goods on a ship; it was sunk and remained there. Proof of this, affidavits 1429 to 1438. The monument, "1000 years of Russia", was treated by the Germans in a perfect manner; proof for this affidavit 1439. Never was an order given that 500 villages in the neighborhood of Rostev be set on fire. Proof 1441 to 1443.
or rather rob the museum of valuable paintings. This is proved by affidavits 3,021.
Destruction in Kiev. Kiev care into German hands pretty much damaged. That is shown by affidavits 1441. The destruction was caused chiefly by too many bombs. The German troops did everything in order to do away with the nine, and in that way the Lenin Museum was saved. Hoses to fight fire were brought in from Germany by airplanes.
Plundering in Tula never took place. German troops were never at Tula. Affidavit 1452 proved this. Affidavit 1883 by General Wohler proved the fact that at the last minute the wish of a higher Russian Church Principal was granted that church valuables would be secured. kind was strictly prohibited. If anyone was guilty of plundering he would be severely punished even if it was of insignificant value.
Affidavit 3,024 is especially important. General Eberbacht deposed that the order given by Hitler in the summer of 1944 that everything was to be destroyed in the retreat from France, was not carried out by the Commander-in-Chief of the Seventh Army in agreement with Fieldmarshal Model. Weizsaecker and Kesselring and in addition, affidavits 3,009, 25 and 26. First of all, cities that were valuable were evacuated in good time. Monte Cassino, Bologna and Ravigni were protected. Thirdly, the destruction of industrial installations was not carried through through the personal intervention of a German General. The Port of Genoa was not bombed. This is shown in affidavits 3,008, 3,025 and 3,026. That port was not blown up.
I should like to refer to the Documents USSR 115, 168 and 119. I should like to refer to the Wehrmacht Communique of the 18th of May, 1940, in which it is shown that Louvain was taken after a hard struggle. The destruction of the university may be shown by the Witness Van Der Essen and can he traced back to arbitrary action.
Treatment of civilian population: The Russian Prosecution has asserted on Page 4101 of the Trial Transcript, that according to the principles laid down by the Barbarossa order, the physical destruction of the people under suspicion has been put down. In order to refute that I should like to refer to affidavits 1601, 1601a and 1601b. There we see that frequently the death penalty was applied when it came to excesses, especially in cases of rape. against the family. On Page 4471, it is asserted that the German Wehrmacht on the first of July, 1944, had done much killing at Lemberg. I should like to refer to affidavits 1602, 1603 and 1604 which show that when the German troops marched in, many, many heaps of corpses which had been mutilated were found. On the second of July, a Moutaineer Division marched in. As far as mistreatment of Jews, in the area of Smolensk, according to the indictment, 100,000 corpses were found. Evidence to the contrary; 3,006 and 1607. It is easy to prove an especially good relation existed at Smolensk. The Cathedral was restored and re-opened. At the retreat of the German troops, large masses of the population followed the troops. That is proved by Affidavit 1608. certain number of children were poisoned. Evidence to the contrary; 1609, an affidavit by General Konrad. From this we can also see that the relationship with the population of the Crimea was especially good. this connection. According to the assertion found on page 4145 of the indictment a strict alarm by the Commander of Theodosia was ordered. Proof, affidavit 1612-a. There we see that the 260th Infantry Division never was on Crimea. Supplementary proof, 1614.
On page 4548, reprisals in Kiev were mentioned in the year 1941. I should like to refer to an affidavit deposed by General von Obstfelder, Page 15. According to this, the German troops had reinstated an insane asylum. The insane asylum gave a terrific picture of negligence where the inmates had been left to themselves. Dealing with the murdering of 33,000 Jews in Kiev, I would like to refer to the affidavit deposed by General Heim, 1936, I believe it was. He knows no order to that effect. In the autumn of 1943, 193,000 men in Kiev allegedly were killed.
Evidence to the contrary, 1116-a, 1116-b and 1116-c. Stalingrad told everywhere how things were in Stalingrad. That may be seen from Affidavit 16, 17. Wehrmacht had drowned 144,000 Jews in the sea, and in another spot, 144,000 citizens are mentioned who were taken into the ocean on ferries and then drowned. I should like to refer to Affidavit 1609, 3007, 3140, 1625 and 1625a. There we see, among other things, that the shipping space at their disposal was so small that not even the supplies of German troops could be handled by way of water in its totality, but rather that the Luftwaffe was charged to help out. that participation of the Wehrmacht in the persecution of the Jews is definitely set down. He very comprehensively pictures the condemnation of the Wehrmacht in this regard and endeavors to take steps to prevent excesses. where special measures of medical help, against the will of certain officers, in the spotted lever epidemic among the Jews were applied. There were no orders issued for the killing of Jews or other members of the peculation of the occupied territories. 3099, 3000, 3124, 3050, 3150 and 3127; a few documents of the Soviet Prosecution, USSR 291, Pages 1 to 3 assert atrocities in the area of Jasma, Rischevska and Rchev. by Weiss that people were hanged. Two women, at that time, were sentenced to death and were hanged publicly.
Reasons? The murdering of 15 children and the sale of the flesh of these children on the open market. For that reason two women were hanged publicly at Rehev.
USSR 2, Page 7, deals with slavers in Staline; evidence to the contrary, Affidavit 2637, of General Kittel. and Pskov; refutation by Affidavit 1640, deposed by Field Marshal von Kuecher; the alleged shooting of 50,000 inhabitants of the town of Narva, refuted by the statement given by the some officer. Pleskau are testified to, and in Affidavit 1645.
USSR 39 deals with Estonia; refutation: evidence to the contrary by Field Marshal von Leeb, Affidavit 1641. Reichenau Order may be seen by Affidavits 1662, 1663, and 1665. Particularly the last affidavit, 1665, states the reasons according to which the decree was given by Reichenau. Among other things, one of the reasons was the murdering of two German officers. by Affidavits 1666, 1667, and 1670. Among them is an affidavit by Prince von Hessen, who, in his affidavit, also states the opinion of the last Italian king. Matters obtained in the same way in Yugoslavia; proof: Affidavits 1671 and 1672.
Especially good cooperation was found in Norway and Denmark; proof: Affidavits 1673 and 1674. Numerous examples of the endeavors of the Wehrmacht for cooperation with the Belgian and French populations, and above all through restrictive controls of troop discipline. From Affidavits 1675 to 1679 Colonel General Blaskowitz's dealings can be seen, and those of two other generals in Affidavits 1681 and 1682. From this it can be seen that the Wehrmacht took sharp measures against excesses on the part of the troops in Poland. As far as plundering is concerned, many strict measures were taken; proof therefor: Affidavit 1683.
It is known that in all occupied countries the proverb applied: "German soldier with eagle on the breast -- very good". And such a situation as that indicates the merit of the military leadership.
the attention of the High Tribunal to the picture contained in my document book which has the number MIL 12, and which may be seen on Pages 74 to 76 of my document book. The High Tribunal can see from this picture that the commander-in-chief of an army was the judicial overlord only for part of the army, and this may be seen from Page 74 of my document book. system, see Affidavits 501, 502-A, and 503. Furthermore, three of the highest judges of the former German Wehrmacht have been examined. Their attitude can be seen from affidavits 504, 505, and 506. Here we are concerned with Generaloberstabsrichter Lehmann and Hammerstein. Both of them testified that punishments were very severe for crimes against the population of the East, and they testified how the Wehrmacht always made its will prevail over Hitler's will. 602-PS, USA Exhibit 541, and 503-PS, USA Exhibit 542. These documents were submitted, and I should like to point out in this connection that both of these documents were signed by Hitler.
Affidavit No. 600 gives a comprehensive picture to the effect that his Kommando Order is to be traced back to the sale initiative on the part of Hitler, and without his having consulted his commanders-in-chief beforehand. Affidavit 600, therefore, refutes and contradicts the assertion put forth by the Prosecution that the military leaders, when this order was issued, participated in the setting up and the drafting of this order. Regarding the carrying through, or the execution, of this Kommando Order, the Prosecution has proved three cases which took place in Norway. Italian theater of war. 1942, three British Commando Troops were captured and turned over to the SD for special treatment: Documents 509-PS USA Exhibit 547. As far as the submission of this document 509-PS is concerned, the Prosecution will see a proof to the effect that this took place because of the instructions given by the OKW.
This conclusion, of course, seems obvious, but as has been proved, it is not true. him before the Commission, in which he states expressly under oath that these three British Commando Troops -- and the witness gave the place of their landing -- were not turned over to the SD, but rather were given to a prisoner of-war camp, and that the report to which the Prosecution refers, 509-PS, was an erroneous report to the OKW. In these three cases, therefore, the Kommando Order was not applied; evidence to the contrary: two documents, 503-PS, through the statement under oath by General Westphal before the Commission. cords of the court martial were not put at my disposal. But I should like to refer to the fact that a supplementary order given by Field Marshal Kesselring was issued, and that he reserves the right to determine just when a Commando expedition actually took place. General Dostler does not belong to the great group of people involved. through the application of the Command Order, foreign military commissions allegedly were shot. I should like to refer to the contents of Document L-151, USA 521, from which we see clearly that the Wehrmacht had nothing to do with this matter. that the General Staff of the Army and of the air forces objected to the Kommando Order; and further I should like to refer to Affidavit 610 regarding the application or non-application of the Kommando Order for the theater of war in the West, and supplementary affidavits, 611 and 622. Affidavit 611 shows that this order was not applied in the Netherlands. Affidavit 601 shows that this order was not applied in Africa, confirmed by Affidavit 603-C and 603-D. In the Italian theater of war, Affidavits 614 and 621 show that the order was not applied there, and of particular importance is Affidavit 619, in which proof is given that Field Marshal Kesselring reserved the right to determine when a Commando enterprise was being dealt with.