Q. I will look again at Exhibit 14. Who was supposed to kill the Commissars according to the Commissar order?
A. It says under paragraph 2: "Political Commissars attached to the troops should be segregated and dealt with by order of an officer inconspicuously and outside the proper battle zone." Figure 2. It says: "When in action or resisting they are to be killed at once fighting."
Q. Exhibit 585 which was submitted to you yesterday. Did that originate with a rear area?
A. Yes.
Q. The combat troop in that case had taken the Commissar prisoner and I want to ask you does it say in this exhibit whether a court proceedings took place concerning this criminal action?
MR. DENNEY: Your Honor, again I think we have been over this. In addition Dr. Laternser needn't ask him about his own testimony.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor I can't be through with it yet because the Prosecution knows quite well that this document was only submitted yesterday during cross examination and I can't possibly have put a question in regard to it. I am just about to ask an important question with regard to this exhibit and that is similar to what the Prosecution did.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. Just one concluding question. Does it say in this Exhibit 585 anything about whether a court proceedings took place and why the Commissar was shot?
A. No.
Q. You further were shown Exhibit 22, which will be shown to the witness-- It is in Document Book 1, page 55 of the German, and I regret very much I can't say at the moment what English page.
THE PRESIDENT: 76.
THE PRESIDENT: 76. Dr. Laternser, my notes show that you referred to Document 22 in your examination of Thursday September 18. Now unless this is on some matter which has been brought up on crossexamination I think you should not go into this matter further.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Your Honor.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. I shall then turn to Exhibit 30. That is on page 99 of the Document Book I, English, and page 75 of the German Document Book I. This document was submitted to you during cross-examination. What date does this exhibit bear?
A. 31 July 1941.
Q. Where were you at that time?
A. On leave. I suppose in Vienna.
Q. I shall now turn to Exhibit 48, that is also found on page 51 of the English Document Book II and on page 42 of the German Document Book II. In this document there is some talk about the four year plan. To clarify this matter I would like to ask you what was the meaning of the four year plan.
A. The four year plan was a program as to what achievements were demanded from industry during the course of the coming four years, from the industry of the Reich and the occupied territory.
Q. Just in order that everything should be clear about this question, had this four-year plan anything to do with the plan to weaken the Balkan population as the Prosecution asserts?
A. No, on the contrary. The industry in Serbia was built up and expanded in order to carry out this four year plan in the Balkan territory; the copper mine Bor which had been destroyed by the Serbs was rebuilt and machinery was brought there in order to bring up production to a certain level.
Q. Now, the last exhibit which I want to deal with here, that is exhibit 68 which has been submitted to you here. We find this on page 137 of the English Document Book II and on page 105 of the German Document Book II.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser do you propose to examine this witness on some matters that have been developed on cross-examination?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Your Honor. Only on such points an the basis of notes which I made during cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: My notes show that you went into this matter on your direct examination but I don't wish to restrict you concerning matters which pertain to the cross examination.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. This order was submitted to you during cross examination in order to establish connection with the SD. All I want to ask you is what was the purpose altogether of this order which is Exhibit 68?
A. Exhibit 60 dated the 10th of October, that is employment of the Rosenberg Staff?
Q. Yes, it is exhibit 60.
A. The purpose of it was to establish what was the economic and disciplinary assignment of Detachment Rosenberg for the time while this Detachment Rosenberg was in the area of Southern Greece.
Q. That is Exhibit 68, I am sorry.
And what is the consequence of this orders what does it concern?
A. That this detachment is entitled to draw rations and quarter and that violations of discipline are under the authority of the Wehrmacht Commander, Southern Greece. In this case the members of the Detachment Rosenberg were enlisted men.
Q. On the basis of this exhibit 68 do we see a justification to give orders in a factual connection?
A. No.
Q. Field Marshal, to conclude, I would like to deal with the interrogations, the records of which have been submitted to you. Those are interrogations by Mr. Walter Rapp on the 15th of January and another interrogation by Mr. Walter Rapp on the 16th of January and one by Mr. Kreilsheim on the 7th of March 1947. So far I have not had a chance to look at these interrogations. I only want to ask you which way did these interrogations come about? Were they put down in shorthand?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether it was written down in longhand afterwards?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Were you ever shown a copy of such an interrogation?
A. No.
Q. Did you have the possibility to make corrections?
A. No.
Q. Did you have the possibility to correct mistakes in the shorthand notes or to examine the interrogations?
A. No.
Q. Did you have an opportunity to check or to have cheeked the translation into English?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever sign anything in this connection?
A. I only signed my questionnaire.
Q. I am now talking about the three interrogations of the 15th and 16th of January and 7th of March, 1947?
A. No.
Q. Were you told for what purpose you were being interrogated?
A. No.
Q. Were you told that your statements might possibly be employed against you or might incriminate you?
A. No.
Q. Was it made clear to you that you were permitted to have counsel?
A. No.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, at this stage of the proceedings I have at the moment no further questions to put to the witness - to the defendant Field Marshal List, but I reserve the right, after having looked through the material which has newly come in, to put questions to him which might result from this material, and to call him again to the witness stand.
I further reserve the right, in case that it becomes necessary, in connection with the submission of my document books, again to call him to the witness stand, because it may well be possible that in that connection I may have to put a few questions to him which I could not put before, because the document books were not ready at the beginning and not even now at the end of this examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has previously made an order which in substance covers the matters of your request, and you may be assured that the Tribunal will give you consideration in connection with further examination.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further matters in re-cross examination?
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honors please, we submit for the record that at this time two footlockers full of documents have come from Washington and have been sent to the Secretary General, in compliance with the Tribunal's order of 14 August 1947, and I believe Dr. Laternser is arranging with his colleagues to see a commissioner who has been appointed by the Secretary General in order that the documents will be available to all defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: In connection with that matter I would like to have Dr. Laternser come to my office briefly at the conclusion of this session, Dr. Laternser being the representative of the defense.
Are there any questions by members of the Tribunal? Judge Carter?
JUDGE CARTER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Burke?
JUDGE BURKE: Not at this time.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Perhaps this has no particular bearing in connection with this witness's testimony, but for my own information, and perhaps as indicative of the witness's position, can you tell us briefly, Mr. Defendant, as to the set-up of the Army in its relation with the SS and some of these subsidiary organizations - the relation of the Army to some of these other organizations that had developed?
A. You mean relations to the SS, the General SS?
Q. Yes.
A. There was no relation to the SS, that is, to the General SS - no official relations. The Waffen-SS, so-called Waffen-SS, was naturally, wherever it was employed, tactically subordinate to the Military Commander concerned.
With regard to the SA, the case was that at the beginning it was employed to go with the so-called frontier protective organization for the purpose of securing the borders, but that was stopped, as far as I recollect, after the Roehm Putsch on the 30th of June 1934. As of that date there was no official connection between the Wehrmacht and SA.
Q. Was there any difference of opinion in connection with the administration of the Army and these various other organizations that developed?
A. Yes, there was. Up to the year 1934 considerable differences of opinion with the SA. Since after 1934 the SA lost esteem to quite a considerable extent and receded into the background, these differences of opinion did not appear to the same extent as before. There were certain differences of opinion all of the time, but they might well have been different locally. It depended quite a lot on the personality of the leader concerned, just as much as it was the case with the SS, also with the General SS; and after the creation of troop units of the WaffenSS, it was naturally regarded with suspicion by parts of the Army and was not popular, and I know also that the Commander in Chief of the Army continuously objected to the creation of the SS units.
Q. Was the authority of the Army in any way affected by these organizations?
A. One could not say that very well, that the authority of the Army was affected. Himmler might well have endeavored to gain more influence for his own person, but the authority of the Army in itself remained officially sustained. I say "officially" because I do not know whether in an indirect manner there was not a certain struggle against the Wehrmacht, especially in order to weaken the authority of the Army in Hitler's esteem.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all. Are there any further questions?
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, only one question to this question which was just mentioned by Your Honor regarding the SS.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. Field Marshal, during the course of the war, as you know, SS divisions were formed, and you said that - if I understand you correctly they were subordinate with regard to tactical matters to the Army.
A. Yes.
Q. Please explain to the Tribunal what it means that they were tactically subordinate during combat.
A. The tactical subordination means that this SS unit has to account for its actions on the basis of such orders as were given to it by the military and in that case by the Army superiors.
Q. What actions do you mean?
A. Actions during combat, or in the actions preceding combat.
Q. Who punished a member of the SS if he committed a criminal action, a punishable action?
A. The punishment lay in the hands of the members of the SS, and if it became necessary to institute a court proceeding, that was done by special SS courts.
The SS member was not subordinate to the jurisdiction of the Army.
Q. Was it at all possible that a member of the SS was sentenced by a Wehrmacht court?
A. No.
Q. Who promoted an SS man during the period of his tactical subordination?
A. Himmler.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honor please, I do not think there is any need of Dr. Laternser going further. It has not been show that the witness had any SS troops under him and it has not been show that he has been in the SS, and in response to some general questions by the Court Dr. Laternser now seems to be going pretty far afield. The wit ness's knowledge of these things, certainly with reference to the SS units, is questionable at best.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I only wanted to make it quite clear to the Tribunal what relations there were between the Waffen-SS and Army officers in actual fact, and I ask to be allowed to put two or three more questions. I shall soon be finished.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps I started you off on something that is hard to get away from, but we will have to conclude at 12:15.
DR. LATERNSER: By that time I shall be finished, Your Honor.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. Let us assume a Spanish or Italian division, for instance, would be employed in the East. What would, in that case, have been the subordination? Let's make it clear to the Tribunal.
MR. DENNEY: I think we are going too far afield.
THE PRESIDENT: Sustained.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. Who gave decorations to an SS man during combat?
A. He received it from his SS superior.
Q. What was the only relation between Waffen-SS and the Wehrmacht
A. A tactical subordination, a tactical order.
Q. That means during combat?
A. Yes, during combat.
Q. Do you know that there were stronger subordinations than tactical subordinations from Waffen-SS units to the Wehrmacht?
A. I do not know of an example.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until one-thirty this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION THE MARSHAL:
The The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. FRITSCH, (for Rendulic): Your Honor, I would like to ask you that General Rendulic will be excused from the sitting tomorrow in order to prepare himself for his examination.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honors please, we have no objection to that procedure. It has been followed in several cases that are presently pending, and in cases that have been concluded, if Your Honors see no objection to it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has no objection, it being understood that it is without prejudice on the part of any party, the fact that he may be absent.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors may--
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honors please, I think we ought to have a statement on the record from counsel for the defendant , Rendulic, to indicate that he heard, understood and agrees to what Your Honor has just stated.
DR. FRITSCH: I have accepted, and the Court agrees that Rendulic need not take part in the proceedings tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: And with your understanding that he will not note any exceptions or any prejudice by reason of his absence.
DR. FRITSCH: Yes, I have taken note of that.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: May I make one brief statement at this time to clarify the record of yesterday afternoon?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors, I said yesterday afternoon, that I offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 585, Document Number NOKW 1902, which was a report from Town Headquarters 1 to the commanding officer, Wehrmacht Area 553, dealing with the execution of the Battalion Commissar Mahala.
I then offered Prosecution's Exhibit 586, which was a report,-NOKW 843, which was a report from Secret Field Police Group 647 dated 25 August, 1942, and being an activity report for the month of August, 1942. That report dealt with the turning over to the SD of two Jews and commissars.
I then offered as Prosecution Exhibit 587 NOKW 848, but upon objection by Dr. Laternser that it was an identical document with eith Exhibit 585 or Exhibit 586, I withdrew the offer at that time. We have now checked and find that the document which we offered and withdrew is not identical with either of the two proceeding documents, and we should now like to offer NOKW 843 as Prosecution's Exhibit 589.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit number?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Exhibit 589. I have copies for Your Honors, copies for defense counsel, and the original exhibit for the Secretary General.
Your Honors will note that this is an activity report for the month of July, 1942, relating to the execution of the Politruk Grand Commissar, being a report of the same secret field police group 647 that is involved in Prosecution's Exhibit 586, which concerned the month of August, 1942.
JUSTICE BURKE: Do you have an exhibit number for NOKW 1011?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I believe NOKW 1011 is Exhibit 587.
JUSTICE BURKE: Was that withdrawn yesterday?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: No, the document I am now referring to as 848 was offered yesterday as Exhibit 587 but was withdrawn, and then this morning NOKW 1011 was offered as Exhibit 587.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, may I have a look at the new document before it is submitted?
....Document handed to Dr. Laternser...
DR. LATERNSER: I will object to the submission of this document because I have reason to assume that the names arc the same, which have been given in this document, - that is the same names which have been mentioned in document 306.
If that proves to be the case this would be cumulative evidence, and therefore would be inadmissible.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I can clarify that, Your Honor. In Exhibit No. 585 which is a report to the town headquarters, to the commanding officer of the rear area 553, it is stated that on the 5th of July, 1942, the Battalion Commissar Hahala was taken prisoner in Kerkeni and shot on the 10th of July 1942.
In Exhibit 386 there is a reference to two Jews and commossirs being turned over to the SD, and 386 is a report to the Secret Police Group 647, an activity report for the month of August 1932. There are no names mentioned in that document, - exhibit 586.
In the document which we have just now offered, NOKW 848, as exhibit 589, we find that the same secret field police group 647 mentioned in Exhibit 586 is sending an activity report for the month of July, 1932. Exhibit 386 was a report of the secret field police group 637 for the month of August 1942.
In Exhibit 589 which we have just offered, two names are mentioned the name of The Politrur Kaliba, Joseph, as well as the name of the Battalion Commissar Hahala.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: The name Kaliba does not appear in either 585 or 586, though the name Mahala does, in fact, appear in Exhibit 585, which, however, is a report not from the Secret Field Police Group 47, involving Exhibit 589, but is rather a report from Towy Headquarters I, to the Commanding Officer of Army Area 553.
DR. LATERNSER: I shall investigate this. It may be as the Prosecution has just suggested, but just at this moment I detect a translation mistake in the document which has just been submitted, No. 589. I ask that the translation of the first paragraph of this exhibit be investigated. "Im Auftrag" is being translated "by order".
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Would you pass the original exhibit to the Court Interpreters, please (to page)
COURT INTERPRETER: This sentence reads "Politruk, Kaliba, Joseph thirty-three years old, and the Battalion Commissar Mahala, Vassili, thirty-five years old were shot by order of the 1-c-b of the 42nd AK -Army Corps."
Were shot "by order".
DR. LATERNSER: May I ask whether "Im Auftrag" and "Auf Befehl" are expressed in the same way in the English language?
COURT INTERPRETER: It all depends. In this context it can only be translated "by order."
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, to this point I ask that the Chief of the Translation Division submit a translation of this. For, if it says "by order", then the shooting has to be traced to the order; whereas, if it says "on behalf of", it is quite possible, of course, that it has reference to an edict of a court which was in existence and that this sentence was carried out on behalf of the I-c. The exact translation, therefore, allows such interpretation, whereas the translation just given does not give us this opportunity.
THE PRESIDENT: The Interpreters and Translators for this Tribunal will kindly transmit this request to their superior and report back to the Tribunal.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, before you leave, may the record show that the Defendant List is excused at this time, subject to the conditions announced in the session this morning and the previous orders of the Court?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes. On my behalf it is all right.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, the other matter I have just touched upon. Because of the possible identify of the documents I shall investigate and I shall then submit my objections to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. You may call your next witness.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I call as the next witness the Oberregierungsrat, Dr. Gert Feine.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly raise your right hand to be sworn. "I swear by Cod the Almighty and Omniscient that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing." (Repeated by witness) (Witness Gert FEINE took the stand) DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. LATERNSER:Q.- Please give us your full name.
A.- My name is Dr. Gert Feine.
Q.- Would you kindly spell this name?
A.- G-e-r-t F-e-i-n-e.
Q.- Dr. Feine, before you answer my question, would you kindly make a short pause, because the question will first have to be translated.
When were you born?
A.- On the 17th of June 1894.
Q.- What is your present profession?
A.- I'm Oberriegierungsrat at the Senate in Bremen. Oberregierungsrat can be translated as Government Councillor.
Q.- Were you a member of the National Socialist Party?
A.- No, never.
Q.- What was your profession during the time before you became Government Councillor?
A.- I was in the German Diplomatic Service. I was first Secretary with the Legation in the Foreign Office in Berlin.
Q.- Were you, in 1941, Council with the Legation, at the German Legation in Belgrade?
A.- Yes.
Q.- How did it come about that you were still in Belgrade in 1941?
A.- In 1936 I had been transferred to Belgrade. When war threatened to break out in 1941; on the directives of the Foreign Office; the Minister and the staff of the Legation were called back to Germany. All Germans living in Yugoslavia were transported back to Germany as well. I received, however, a telegram from the Foreign Minister Ribbentrop personally, in which he ordered me to remain in Belgrade as charge d'affair.
Q.- When did the German troops march into Belgrade?
A.- On Sunday, the 6th of April 1941, the troops entered Belgrade; after the previous evening a group of six men had penetrated as far as the Legation.
Q.- And on that day you were in Belgrade?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Do you know the Defendant Field Marshal von Weichs?
A.- I do know him.
Q.- On what occasion did you make his acquaintance?
A.- I made his acquaintance during negotiations for the capitulation.
Q.- Which events led up to these negotiations?
A.- Soon after Belgrade had been occupied by the German troops, negotiators from Yugoslavia appeared, a colonel and he asked for the conditions under which a capitulation or an armistice could be concluded.
Q.- Well, what course did these negotiations with this officer take?
A.- First, Field Marshal von Weichs sent him back and demanded that a delegation be sent which was authorized to conclude an agreement.
Q.- What happened after that?
A.- Next a Yugoslavian Army General appeared. He had authority to negotiate but he had no authority to conclude a capitulation agreement. Field Marshal von Weichs did not accept him for that reason, but he stated that an authorized delegation was to appear which was empowered to conclude an agreement.
THE PRESIDENT: Did the witness mean von Weichs or List?
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q,- When do you mean of the defendants?
A.- Field Marshal von Weichs...
Q.- Now, how did the actual negotiations for the capitulation come about?
A.- On the next day a delegation appeared, led by the former Yugoslavian Foreign Minister Cincar Markovic; an Army General and a Colonel of the General Staff accompanied him.
Q.- Who else was present at these negotiations?
A.- Apart from Field Marshal von Weichs and his staff, a representative of the Hungarian Army and an Italian Military attache in Belgrade, and I as an observer on behalf of the Foreign Office were present. A conference took place in the building in which I was sejourning in Belgrade. That was the former Czechoslovakian Legation. The former German Legation had been destroyed.
Q.- Were the powers and authorities of the Yugoslavian' delegation investigated?
A.- Yes, that took quite some time.
Q.- What do you know about the investigation of these credentials?
A.- I can still remember the following:Cinzcar Markovic presented authority which had been issued by General Kalafatovic/..... Q.- Just a moment.
Could you kindly spell this name? Could you kindly spell both names?
A.- C-i-n-z-c-a-r M-a-r-k-o-v-i-c and the other name K-a-l-a-f-a-t-ov-i-c. General Kalafatovic, at that time, derived his power from an authority which General Simovic had left behind after leaving Yugoslavia.
Q. Have I understood you correctly that the former Foreign Secretary Markovic had an authority from General Kalafatovic?
A. Yes.
Q. And on what was this power of attorney or authority based?
A. It as base on the authority which General Simovic had issued to General Kalafatovic b fore General Simovic left Yugoslavia.
C. Who was General Simovic?
A. General Simovic was Chief of the Yugoslavian Air Force and had led them again Prince Paul and the Government's Svedkovic, by which this Government had been eliminated. After its fall General Simovic took over the Government and he also stood over the Army.
O. General Simovic was, therefore, at that time, the leader of the Yugoslavian Government?
A. Yes, he was Chief in the Yugoslavian Government.
Q. Where was General Simovic?
A. At the moment when the capitulation conferences took place he must have been on his war from Yugoslavia to Egypt, if he hadn't already arrived in Egypt.
Q. Where was Simovic later on?
A. Later on he was in London.
Q. And what was he there?
A. He was leader of the Yugoslavian Government in Exile.
Q. And on whose side was this Government which was led by Simovic?
A. On the side of the Allies.
Q. Were the powers of credentials pronounced to be correct after they had been investigated?
A. Yes.
Q. In which way did the capitulation negotiations take place?
A. In a very dignified form. Everything was done in order to lighten the difficult task of the Yugoslav delegation which it had to fulfill for the sake of its fatherland.
Q. Do you know the contents of the Instrument of Capitulation?
A. Yes. I could not read the contents of his capitulation, but I was present when it was read aloud.
Q. What were the essentials of its contents?
A. One can summarize the contents in one sentence. The Yugoslavian Armed Forces ceased fighting, and laid down their arms unconditionally.
Q. And now, regarding the Yugoslavia Government. What were the stipulations in their case?
A. I don't quite understand your question.
Q. Now, I will arrive at this point by another question, "ho signed on the German side and who on the Yugoslavian side?
A. On the German side Field Marshal von Weichs signed, and for the Yugoslavian Government the three delegates signed. And when Markovic put the pen to paper to sign his name, he put the pen down again and lean back a moment, and he said, "Today, three weeks ago I signed a different treaty with Germany." He referred to the entry of Yugoslavia into the Tri-Partite Pact.
Q. In order to make it quite clear, from whom did Markovic derive his credentials?
A. It was Ciocar Markovic.
Q. Did. certain difficulties arise about certain points?
A. Yes. Mr. Ciocar Markovic protested especially against two points. After he had seen that a mitigation of the general conditions could not be achieved the first point was this: It had been provided that the Yugoslavian troops should altogether lay down their arms and should remain together and go into the captivity. For those soldiers who left their troop voluntarily they were to be punished by death. Mr. Markovic states that at this would result in the most impossible state of affairs. Many troop units were already in a state of dissolution, and the leadership no longer had any control over these troops.
Q. How was this objection on Markovic's part treated by von Weichs?