Q Might I ask for the third question......
A That is my second question about?
Q How this report originated.
A The Military Commander in Greece also received his reports from his Feldkommandantur (District Headquarters). He compiled it together in his staff because he needed it at the end of the month for his monthly report and then he gave the most interesting reports, especially as they concerned the tactical sphere, to my office and also to the tactical offices associated with him, Army Group E.
Q There is another question -- it is not correct to say that the lowest offices from which the first reports came, events which were in that sphere or the neighborhood in which they were stationed, they recorded these reports without having had anything at all to do with these events themselves. Didn't they report these events to the next highest office?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q. Isn't it right that perhaps the second or the third office then could not ascertain at all who had ordered any kind of measures so that if such event was reported to higher quarters, nobody without having seen it could have known whose responsibility it was?
A. Yes, that could be right; that depends on the contents and the subject of the report concerned.
Q. Then could I ask you to look again at this morning report from the 15th of March, page 2, where retaliation measures are mentioned? I would ask you to explain whether this report allows the conclusion to be drawn that these retaliation measures in no case, come expressly from the military commander in Greece, but that these could also have been measures which any kind of office in the whole of the Greek area could have been ordered.
A. Yes, that is quite possible, especially because under one number here, a "corps" is mentioned, "Regiment EAKR". I don't know what it means. I do not know now whether it was subordinate to the Military Commander then.
Q. But at any rate one thing is correct, that the report, regarded in itself, it did not happen that the report which some office passed on above, and did only contain that which happened in its own sphere of command, and fell under the responsibility of its commander?
A. That is correct. Especially it is correct for the report I have already mentioned, the one which was sent on in the Ic channel.
Q. One more question , - the so-called hostage orders, the orders in which quotas were laid down, there came from the OKW, and then through the official channels, they went through you, to the subordinate commanders, etc?
A. I can only make one limitation here. In my time the orders were already then there when I arrived, but otherwise they went through the channels, through me to the subordinate units. The connective reprisal order which is mentioned here had already been present in the Balhaus when I was not there.
Q. According to my information this retaliation order came from the first 1 to 50 order, when the first time came with General Speidel when you were still there, could it have been possible that the order could have been passed on to General Speidel when you were then military commander in southeast?
A. Yes, I think one should understand the link there, that in an installation of an officer, as with the case with the military commander Greece, that there all the fundamental orders had already been issued previously but had not yet arrived in the staff, were not yet placed at the disposal of the staffs. This was not the issuance of a new order, but merely orders of all kinds being placed at the disposal, among them this collective order.
Q. About your personal attitude towards this collective reprisal order, did you also inform General Speidel about this?
A. Yes.
DR. WEISGERBER: I have no further questions.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Is there further cross-examination of this witness? --(Defense counsel indicated they did not)-
Have you further direct examination Mr. Rapp?
MR. RAPP: Yes, your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. RAPP:
Q. Witness, yesterday, in connection with the cross-examination by the defense you were asked about various authorities of the defendant, von Weichs, and one of the questions, at the end of the this certain period about which I am speaking concerned, this was the question which you were asked: "Would you think it correct if I said that his main task was a stragetic task?", and thereupon witness, you answered , "Yes, that would be correct". Witness, in the introduction or or further statement to the question, and answer which you gave to this couple of questions, I would like to ask you first of all, did you have so-called territorial authorities in Serbia?
A. After it has been made clear to me, yes.
Q. Did you have territorial authority as Military Commander Southeast in the southeastern area?
A. On paper, and according to official directives, yes.
Q. Witness, did the defendant Weichs have so-called security authorities in the southeastern area, that is to say on matters regarding security?
A. Yes. Might I make a limitation to the question which was previously asked, about territorial authority in the southeastern area? In Croatia, I didn't have any such territorial authorities. There, the Croatian government had this.
Q. Witness, did you have security authorities in Serbia?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have these security authorities yourself, or did you have these security authorities by reason of the security authority which Weichs had for the whole southeastern area?
A. We both had the authority simultaneously.
Q. You are now speaking about Serbia?
A. Yes, only about Serbia.
Q. Witness, would you please explain to the Tribunal what you understand by "security authority"?
A. By "security authority", I personally understood that the task assigned to me, to maintain peace and order , and for the tactical foundations; I had to safeguard these, and if necessary, by making use of the troops at my disposal.
Q. Witness, would you please tell the Tribunal what you understand by, "territorial authority"?
A. The territorial authorities was covered by that of the Executive power, in that power in which the competent office expressly was ordered.
Q. Witness, the whole territory of reprisal and retaliation, can this be described as the expert field of "security authorities"?
A. I should like to answer this question with -- yes!
Q. Witness, the so-called tactical or police -- or necessary for police reasons -- reprisal or retaliation measures about which we spoke yesterday, as well as the day before yesterday, were these matters of security authority or matters of territorial authority?
A. I would like to answer this question by saying that they were the tasks of security authority.
Q. Witness, the next question which I would like to discuss with you quite briefly, - you said yesterday in reply to a question from the prosecution, that the warfare in the Balkans could be formulated by saying that the warfare carried on by the bands was in no way equal to the warfare which you had met with any other enemy in any other theater of war, and not even in the very bloody fighting with the partisans in Russia in 1941-1942?
A. That's right.
Q. Would you please explain to me further whether by this you mean that in other words, the bloody battle in Serbia or in the southeastern area were so to speak forced upon you? Do you mean that by that statement?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, do you know who invaded the Balkans, which Army?
A. Which Wehrmacht you mean?
Q. Yes, which Wehrmacht , which Wehrmacht was that?
A. That was my own. The German.
Q. And then when were the Balkans invaded?
A. In 1941.
Q. Do you know the date witness?
A. In think in May 1941.
Q. May?
A. No, before then, in April, 1941.
Q. Before April 1941. Up to then witness was Yugoslavia and Greece in a state of war with Germany?
A. No.
Q. Now further, witness, did you say that the German Army, so to speak, came into this territory and hoped to meet an honest and brave enemy who fought in accordance with international conventions. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were asked yesterday about the Commissioner order. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you told us that as Corps Commander inside of the 4th Army you received this Commissar order?
A. Yes.
Q. I think Field Marschal Fuechler or Kluge commanded the 4th Army?
A. Kluge.
Q. Now witness, did you think that the Commissar order was an order which originated from Hitler?
A. Without doubt.
Q. Do you know who at that time was the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, and how they received the Commissar order?
A. Of course; Field Marshal von Brauchitsch.
Q. And who was the Supreme Commander of the German Wehrmacht at that time?
A. That was Hitler.
Q. Was the German Army a part of the German Wehrmacht?
A. Yes.
Q. Was the then Supreme commander Hitler at that time the superior of Field Marshal von Brauchitsch?
A. Yes.
Q. Now witness, were you as a professional officer under oath to the Supreme Commander of the German Wehrmacht at that time, and what did this oath mean?
A. This oath meant for the German soldier, that he should give themselves completely to their duty as he had sworn to do.
Q. Witness, does this also include unconditional fulfillment of the orders of the Supreme Commanders?
A. Yes.
Q. You told us yesterday, witness, that you did not pass on the Commissar order. Is that right, witness?
A. Yes.
Q. Why didn't you pass on the Commissar order?
A. Because for the first time in my life as a soldier, I was of the impression that there was an order which was given to me which I could not be responsible for to my inner conscience and the carrying out of this order would be such a burden for the officers and men under my command, and for this reason I refused it, and tried in another way to carry it out in a weaker form, to use other words for the word "sabotage".
Q. Is it correct , - do you mean by this, that it was possible that Fuehrer orders could not be carried out?
A. In reality, absolutely, but the consequences of such an action had to be clear to one.
Q. Then you did not carry out the fuehrer Commissar order?
A. No, I did not carry it out.
Q. Now witness, in order to come back to our original subject, that is the fighting methods in the Southeastern area, and you compared this to the fighting methods in the east by which the otherwise honorably fighting Wehrmacht was forced to fight in this way; I would, therefore, like to ask you to answer the following question: When did Germany invade Russia?
A. On the 22nd of June, 1941.
Q. Your Honor, I am now giving the witness NOKW 1076, Exhibit 14, Document Book 1, that is the famous so-called Commissar order. Witness you told us that the German Wehrmacht attacked Russian in June; do you know the exact date, witness?
A. 22nd of June.
Q. 22nd of June. The document which I have given you is the socalled Commissar order. In this case comments to the Commissar order. What is the date of this document, witness?
A. From the commander-in-chief oi the Army, the 8th of June.
Q. 8th of June?
A. June.
Q. According to your statement, Russia was attacked on the 22nd of June, so that two weeks before that, oh 14 days before the attack, and before it was even known how the Russians fought or what their fighting methods were, this order was issued; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, in connection with this question, I would like to limit myself specifically to the southeastern area in which you maintained yesterday, that there the brutal methods of fighting and the inhuman methods of fighting, were forced upon the brave German soldiers. Somethings you have told the Tribunal, witness, that Yugoslavia or Greece, was attacked in April by Germany; is that correct, witness?
A. Yes.
Q. And yesterday in your statements witness, you were asked how you explained that in 1943 the so-called, I think you described it as massacres, were less numerous, as in 1942 or 1943. Were you asked this question, witness?
A. Yes. This question was put to me.
Q. You told the Tribunal that the reason for this was that perhaps under your predecessor, or even under those commanders who before your time had been active in the Balkans, the fighting methods of the enemy must have been of especial brutality; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. First of all, I would like to give you a document, NOKW1111, Exhibit 4, Book 1.--
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: What is the number of the exhibit please?
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, the number of the exhibit is 4; exhibit 4, book 1.
Q. Witness, what is the date of this document?
A. The date is the 27th of April, 1941.
Q. During this time you were in the southeastern area?
A. No.
Q. Witness, who signed this document?
A. A Commanding General --- von Kortzfleisch.
Q. Would you now please read the second paragraph, firstly for yourself ..... (witness reading document)..
Would you now please read this paragraph to us again, witness?
A. The whole paragraph?
Q. Yes, the whole paragraph.
A. "I expect every instance of resistance to be broken with ruthless force. Every person encountered resisting or fleeing with weapon in hand, is to be shot dead immediately. Persons surrendering are to be handed over to courts martial or summary courts martial to be judged immediately. We draw attention to the decree, OKW -here follows the numbers of 2nd of April 41, sent with commander-in-chief of the 12th Army" and then -
there are diary figures A "...In areas of unrest, furthermore, hostages are to be taken whose shooting to death is to be applied for in case further enemy resistance should occur.
Any consideration will be interpreted as weakness of the German troops an is a mistake."
Q Thank you very much, Witness.
DR. LATERNSER: The Prosecution should not be allowed to ask this question because in re-direct examination he can only touch upon points which arose in the cross-examination; therefore, I object to this.
JUDGE BURKE: The objection is made rather belatedly. You may proceed.
MR, RAPP: Your Honor, since the Court did not, at this time, rule on defense counsel's objection--however, defense counsel maintains that this particular phase has not covered during the cross-examination, I would like to call the Court's respectful attention to the fact that I intend to go on this particular phase, provided the Court sees fit to sustain the defense counsel's objection. Inasmuch as we believe yesterday this point was brought up by defense counsel when the witness stated that measures taken by the German Army were taken under duress and as a direct outgrowth of measures taken first by the German Army.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection of the defense counsel is over-ruled and you may proceed.
MR. RAPP: Very well, your Honor.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, this document which I have just shown to you was dated the 27th of April. That is in the same month in which the German Wehrmacht invaded the Balkans. Is that correct?
A Yes, but I would like to point out that under figure I of this order, the comment to the measures by the German Wehrmacht are set down.
Q Thank you. Witness, in connection with the same compiles I would like to show you a final document, NOKW-1198 Exhibit 5, Document Book 1. Witness, what is the date of this document?
A The document is dated 28th April 1941, from the Army.
Q And how do you recognize this document? Can you please describe it?
A It's an Army order of the Commander in Chief of the 2nd Army, signed: Freiherr von Weichs, and the order is passed on to the General Command, already mentioned -- 11 -- signed Kortzfleisch down to the companies.
Q Would you read through the order briefly, Witness, before I put a few questions to you about it. Have you looked at the order enough, Witness?
A Yes.
Q This order, is it the fundamental order by reason of which the regulation by Kortzfleisch was issued?
A Yes.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Just a answer please!
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, the Witness is now asked about something which happened in 1941. At that time he wasn't in the Balkans. Also, in addition the question which was just put not a question which refers to facts but one about something which asks for an opinion of the Witness. This can not be done in the direct-examination. I would like the question to be rejected.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: If the Witness has personal knowledge of the matter he may answer it; otherwise he would be stating a conclusion. It would be incompetent.
MR. RAPP: Very well, your Honor; we accept the Court's ruling in this respect. If the Court permits I would like to make, however, one comment which has no bearing on this particular decision. The defense counsel calls to the Court's attention the fact that this Witness was not in this area at that time. I would like to call to the Court's attention the fact that this Witness has never been a member of the OKW. Yet defense counsel proceeded to talk to him at great length. He has not been in the area in 1943 in January, he came to the Southeast sometime in August; yet he was talked to during the defense cross-examination.
We submit, your Honors, that if the defense chooses to cross-examine the Witness during that period for which the witness is not, in our opinion at least, qualified to testify, then the witness becomes the witness of the defense, or if your Honors wish, an expert witness. But in this particular instance we submit we should have the right to inquire from the Witness on the same basis that the defense has now.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Your relationship to the witness is somewhat different from that of the defense. You called him as your Witness. You may, within reasonable rules interrogate him upon such matters as you consider material. The bounds of the defense are somewhat broader. They may cross-examine him upon any matter of which he is presumed to have knowledge. If the Witness has personal knowledge of the question which you have asked he may answer; otherwise his answer would be a mere conclusion.
MR. RAPP: Very well, your Honor. Witness, can you, from your personal experiences tell us something about this order? If the Court pleases, I haven't completed my question at all. I'm quite sure that Dr. Laternser can walk back, and he will be very happy when I have finished with my question.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I think he anticipates that the Witness may answer the question before he has a chance to make an objection. That's how the matter appears to me.
MR. RAPP: That's what I think, your Honor, but I haven't finished it.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Mr. Rapp, ask him the question and before he answers Dr. Laternser will have a chance to make another objection.
MR. RAPP: Witness, don't answer my question, under the circumstances until Dr. Laternser makes his objection. Witness, at that time were you in the area, that is, geographically, of the Commander in Chief of the 2nd Army?
A No.
Q Where were you then?
AAt this time I was in the Warthegau near Litzmannstadt (Lodz).
Q Witness, how long have you been a professional officer?
A For 40 years.
Q This document, which you have before you, is it an Army order?
A Yes.
Q Witness, what's on the second page of this order?
A It's a Corp order, if you mean that.
Q Correct. Witness, do you know whether this XI Corps was in the Second Army?
A I don't know it, but it is to be assumed.
Q Thank you. Witness, the last question which I want to put to you -- you said this morning that several subordinate officers to you, during your absence, deputized for you. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q For instance, General Geip. During your absence, Witness, was your chief of staff, Geitner, also absent always?
A Only once, for a few days in December, 1943.
Q Geitner remained in his position as chief when the other men took over? Is that right?
A Yes.
Q Witness, who, in addition to you, was the best informed personality in your headquarters?
A My chief of staff.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: We'll discontinue at this time for our recess.
(The court recessed at 1215)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session REDIRECT EXAMINATION HANS GUSTAV FELBER - Continued
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I would like to ask to check as to a translation which in my opinion is important. I request that at this stage of the proceedings, because I think it is right, that this be done while this witness is being examined. The translation in question occurs in Document 1010, which is Exhibit 351. This document is in Document Book 14. I request that the following part of the document be checked. It is on page 3 of the German version, and under Roman Numeral I, Figure 2. This Figure 2 reads as follows: "To Commander in Chief Southeast (Supreme Command Army Group F,) are subordinate: two letters "E", - the Military Commander Southeast in all questions regarding the securing of the country." The sentences which I have just read I am asking for a re-translation.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, the only thing I would like to submit to you is to have this particular paragraph not translated by the interpreters here in the Court, but have it translated if agreeable to Dr. Laternser, in the Translation Division downstairs for their rechecking, rather than bother about it here in Court at this time.
JUDGE BURKE: Is there any particular objection?
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I would like to take advantage of all instances or possibilities of translation. I would like to have the interpreters here do it as usual, then if the Prosecution doesn't agree it can be given to the Chief of the Translation Section for a decision. I believe that would be the right way to go about it.
MR. RAPP: I regret that my suggestion was not accepted without veto by Mr. Laternser. The reason to have it not translated at this time is rather obvious. If the translation comes out at this time not agreeable to the defense who are raising the objection at this time, it would be in the nature of his suggestion and may then influence a later translation downstairs.
Therefore, I suggest outside of this courtroom it should be translated and then submitted to us, being the final authority of the Translation Division, what the translation really should be.
JUDGE BURKE: Just a moment please. We will follow the same procedure the Tribunal has followed in the past. If you will pass the document to the interpreters it may be translated.
DR. LATERNSER: I have the sentence and the passages framed in pencil, that is in parenthesis, these particular passages I should like to ask for renewed translation.
THE INTERPRETER: I am sorry, your Honor, I cannot give an alternative to the translation in the document. If I had to translate it off the bat I would have said exactly the same. "In all questions regarding the security of the country," - no alternate suggestion.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I do not want to influence the interpreters in any way, but as I am of a different opinion I would like to make suggestions to them because I believe that the interpreters will translate independently in view because of their oath and I am sure they will be glad to submit themselves to a better suggestion, if they realize that there is a better translation.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I withdraw my objection.
JUDGE BURKE: In the event of any misunderstanding about it it may be translated to the Main Translation Department.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, may I add something to this. I do not want to take up the time of the Court unnecessarily but I know the translations are rushed through, but as this is a very important one to me, and there are reasons why the translation is not considered adequate. May I point out that the word "Sichering" is translated as "security".
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, if defense counsel at this time is being permitted to give his explanation as to why in his opinion the translation is wrong.
Which the interpreter has already said in has opinion is correct. That would amount at this time to influencing the translation of any independent translation in the Translation Division, and I have not heard that the Court has inquired from defense counsel why in his opinion the translation is wrong. Dr. Laternser has offered this statement gratuitously to the Court.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I am not offering anything. I am just trying to bring something under consideration. I am quite sure that if I make this suggestion here the interpreters here will agree with me.
Your Honor, in German there are two words, the word "Sicherheit" and the word "Sichorung" - I can agree that the word "Sicherung" would have to be translated as "safeguarding". According to my opinion for this reason only does it seem important to me, because it is decisive, and this point will be decisive in the opinion of the defense.
JUDGE BURKE: There appears to be a very definite confusion in the system. I am not hearing clearly.
It will be submitted to the main Translation Department for clarification.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, may I ask to add to this request an excerpt from the record about the proceedings of the last few minutes?
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, we respectfully object to this request from defense counsel, because if that would be done, first of all Dr. Latetnser would put himself into the position of an expert translator and secondly, it would, we believe, influence the supposedly impartial translation of the official translation Branch of this Court, and the entire institution, and if that were to be permitted, and any and all of us may send notes and suggestions to the translation department for any use that they may see fit.
JUDGE BURKE: It is the opinion of the Tribunal that the matter with which we are concerned is the truth of the interpretation, which certainly should be made available, assuming the interpreters are competent to do the work which they are performing.
It may be sent to the Translation Division, but merely with the request that it be translated.
You may proceed.
MR. RAPP: Witness, before the luncheon recess, I asked you whether during your absence, your chief Geitner was always absent too, or when you were represented by some other gentlemen whether he then mostly remained in your headquarters. And you answered my question in the affirmative. That is, you said that he remained there with the execution of one stay of yours in 1943 when he was not there.
A.- Yes, it is correct.
Q.- You further said that next to you the chief was the next well informed person in the staff, is that correct, witness?
A.- Yes.
Q.- How closely were you connected with the gentleman, professionally as well as personally -- with these gentlemen who deputized for you occasionally? How friendly were your relations, for instance, with Geip?
A.- I only knew Geip shortly before, during my career I had encountered him only occasionally. General von Glaise-Horstenau who came from the Austrian army, was likewise unknown to me before I came to the Balkans.
Q.- Geitner was much closer to you than those two gentlemen?
A.- Yes, indeed.
Q.- Those two gentlemen -- did they individually -- I mean at different times - did they comment to you about the manner in which Geitner looked after affairs during your absence?
A.- No, this question never came up. This question was never under discussion. I assume that there were no disharmonies anywhere. Otherwise, I would have been informed about it.
Q.- Well, all right. Witness, you were asked by the defense about so-called, I believe, mopping-up operations. Is that correct, witness?
A.- Yes.
Q.- And these spontaneous mopping-up operations took place in connection with reprisal measures. Is that so?
A.- No, I think that is an error. Yesterday I used the expression "spontaneous" in connection with the troops in order to make it clear that through some cruelty which had been committed against the troops in those cases, the troops on their own account, without interference from any higher command or without any order from any higher command, took it upon themselves to get revenge.
Q.- Yes, that is the answer which I have reference to, witness. Now, witness, who did have the right to order reprisal measures in Serbia? what I mean is either in connection with spontaneous mopping-up operations or on the basis of a direct order. Who had that right?
A.- Only the Commander-in-Chief had that right but it is quite possible that in the case of troops where the Military Commander was not present, during the course of band fights, excesses of the troops of this spontaneous nature might well have occurred.
Q.- Witness, before I put the next question to you, two points have to be clarified here, please. You are now talking about excesses. To you, are excesses and spontaneous mopping up operations the same?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Witness, your authority to order reprisal measures -- did you occasionally transfer or delegate it to other gentlemen in the Serbian area?
A.- No.
Q.- Witness, did you have front or combat units under your command?
A.- If I may take the units mentioned yesterday -- if I may include those units -
Q.- You any include those units you mentioned yesterday.
A.- If I am talking about that, then yes.
Q.- Then in other words, these units were subordinate to you for the purpose of combatting bands?
A.- Yes and for other purposes too.
Q.- Were there people under your command -- military commanders of these units which we are discussing now as well as field commanders who had the rank of a division commander?