Q. Witness, I don't think you understood my question quite correctly. What I want to know is while you were a prisoner did you ever talk with any serious Norwegians with regard to the evacuation? Did you have any conversations to this effect while you were a prisoner of war--and I am particularly interested to know how these Norwegian people now reacted and what they thought of the actual facts which accompanied the evacuation?
A. In no way did I ever find bitterness among the population -at least such people as I talked to.
Q. General, I am coming to the end of my questions. The prosecution maintains that a general plan was in existence according to which the civilian population was supposed to be systematically weakened and broken down. Did you ever hear anything of such a plan?
A. No, it seems to be quite unfeasible to me.
Q. You never knew anything with regard to such a plan?
A. No.
Q. General, did you know the army order which the then Supreme Commander gave by which the transfer of the high command in Norway was announced?
A. No, I cannot remember anything like that.
Q. General, how did these orders finish? I mean what was the salute?
A. We usually said "Long live the Fuehrer", "Heil Hitler".
Q. Was that quite the usual way of terminating any order?
A. Yes, it was.
DR. FRITSCH: I have at the moment no further questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take our morning recess at this time.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I have just thought of a other two short questions during the interval. May I ask the witness these questions?
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q. General, you said that the carrying out of he order to destroy the Finnmark was a very difficult task to you. Why did you not resign your office as Commander?
A. What use would that have been? I would have put my soldiers into a very difficult position and I would have left them there by themselves. If I resigned another man gets my position and the soldiers have to carry out the orders anyway.
Q. Would you have had the possibility of resigning?
A. No, I wouldn't have had this possibility.
Q. Why not, General?
A. I would have had to give a reason for this resignation; I would have had to give a practical reason why I did not carry out the Wehrmacht orders and I son't have to tell here why I did not want to do so.
Q. Is an order known to you, the order that there was no such thing as a resignation?
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, we submit that this line of questioning is entirely outside of the scope of the direct examination and if defense counsel wished to make the witness their own witness, for this particular line of questioning, we have no objection.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I cannot agree with these statements.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may answer.
BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q. May I ask this question again, General? Is an order known to you according to which it was impossible for officers, especially high officers, to resign?
A. I have not seen such order but I have heard about one, and I assume that a resignation of that kind, especially during the war did not exist.
Q. You say that you heard about such an order?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, one other question, witness. General Rendulic, whose defense counsel I am, was in the Balkans, especially in the Balkans and also in Norway. For weeks now the reproach is being made that the German forces, especially in the Balkans, used especially severe fighting methods, and had proceeded in a very serious and were manner altogether.
Now, you stated that General Rendulic, as Commander-in-Chief in Norway, had done every thing in his power to create good and favorable conditions for the civilian population. How do you account for the difference in the warfare in Norway then? Will you please answer that?
A. I believe that the difference in waging war in Norway and in the Balkans or in Russia or even in Finland can be very simply explained. The enemy was of an entirely different nature. The Soviet Rusian and the Partisans in the Balkans, as far as I am in formed, fought with very brutal attitude and ruthlessness. The German officer and the German soldier could only use the same method of fighting.
DR. FRITSCH: Thank you.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. RAPP:
Q. Witness, were you ever in the Balkans?
A. Yes.
Q. When?
A. At the beginning of the offensive I was in the Balkans.
Q. How long?
A. During the actual fighting I was there only fourteen days and for the preparations I was there for three weeks.
Q. Thank you. Witness, you said that you have never heard about the possible resignation of a German general.
A. I beg your pardon?
Q. I said that a German general could have resigned. You said you had never heard about such a thing. Is that correct? Did you say that?
A. Well, I had heard about it.
Q. What do you mean "heard"?
A. I have heard that a German officer could not resign, in war.
Q. Witness, my question was, whether you had over heard that a German officer or general could not resign.
A. Yes, I have heard of that.
Q. You also said that you do not know about such a case in which actually a general ever resigned. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you mean by resignation?
A. By resignation I mean a German general applying for his resignation and says? "I can no longer put my services at the disposal of the Wehrmacht." There were cases, in fact, where this resignation was actually accepted. I believe I seem to remember General Halder, for instance, in such cases, the wish of the applicant was granted and it coincided with Hitler's own wish.
Q. That is your assumption?
A. Yes, that is my assumption, but I also know in other cases, for instance, the case of Field Marshal von Rundstedt, that the application for resignation was not granted. My brother, for instance in his case his replacement was refused.
Q. Witness, at the beginning of your examination, in cross examination, you said that the weather conditions at that time were most favorable for the German Army. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Were they also favorable for the Norwegian population?
A. I think I expressed that.
Q. Witness, furthermore, you were asked in the cross examination whether one was ever afraid that Finland, after it had been excluded from the German coalition pact, had ever really been an actual enemy of the 20th Army in Finland or whether it could have been an enemy ever. Witness, did the Finnish General Staff or the Finnish Government report to the Army in Finland at the proper time that the Finnish Government was turning away from Germany and did they, through this measure, give the opportunity to the German Army to withdraw from Finland immediately?
A. The information came with a time limit of a fortnight. This time limit of a fortnight was not enough, quite insufficient in fact, to grant us a proper orderly withdrawal from Finland.
Q. But generally it is a fact, witness, is it not, that the enemy does not usually give a fortnightly time limit and then says after that we attack?
A. Well, these were special conditions.
Q. But a fortnight was better than nothing at all, witness, was it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, witness, you also spoke about your not having seen any atrocities being carried out on the part of members of the 20th Army and you also said that you saw no vandalism of any kind; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, at the beginning of your examination, in cross examination, you said that the weather conditions at that time were most favorable for the German Army. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Were they also favorable for the Norwegian population?
A. I think I expressed that.
Q. Witness, furthermore, you were asked in the cross examination whether one was ever afraid that Finland, after it had been excluded from the German coalition pact, had ever really been an actual enemy of the 20th Army in Finland or whether it could have been an enemy ever. Witness, did the Finnish General Staff or the Finnish Government report to the Army in Finland at the proper time that the Finnish Government was turning away from Germany and did they, through this measure, give the opportunity to the German Army to withdraw from Finland immediately?
A. The information came with a time limit of a fortnight. This time limit of a fortnight was not enough, quite insufficient in fact, to grant us a proper orderly withdrawal from Finland.
Q. But generally it is a fact, witness, is it not, that the enemy does not usually give a fortnightly time limit and then says after that we attack?
A. Well, these were special conditions.
Q. But a fortnight was better than nothing at all, witness, was it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, witness, you also spoke about your not having seen any atrocities being carried out on the part of members of the 20th Army and you also said that you saw no vandalism of any kind; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that you had never heard of rumors of such vandalism. Now, witness, if I understand you correctly, this negative answer of yours can only refer to the time, as you said on Friday, at which you actually had something to do with the evacuation measures. Is that correct?
DR. FRITSCH: I object, Your Honor, please, this is a typical case of a leading question.
THE PRESIDENT: He may answer.
A. I repeat my former statement. I heard for the first time of an antrocity in February, or possibly April 1945. The 6th Mountain Division was reproached within or in the neighborhood of an old age home, of having burned a house with an old man inside. On instruction of AOK I at that time cross-examined by court martial those who were supposed to have been in charge of this. I read the affidavit of the man in charge, the engineer platoon leader. I had it in my own hands, in fact, and I read that he himself, before it was burned, that he examined and searched each house, and that he thought it quite impossible that this case had actually happened.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I have only one question to ask. My attention was drawn to the fact by my colleague, Dr. Laternser, that the word "court martial", which the witness used, was not translated. I would like you to ask the witness to repeat, perhaps in one sentence.
MR. RAPP: I have heard it. I heard it translated.
THE PRESIDENT: In order that there may be no question about whether it was translated or not, the witness will repeat the statement to which reference has just been made concerning the actions in connection with court martials.
THE WITNESS: I repeat, I had the matter in question examined through the competent authorities, which was in the case a court martial.
Q. Witness, you told us that your brother, who was the Chief of Staff of the defendant Rendulic, and of course you also, were against this order, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you said furthermore, witness, that a proclamation was made directed to the Norwegian population which was to the same effect as the OKW order, which was signed by Rendulic, as well as by Terboven is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you regard this order as a so-called Fuehrer Order?
A. I never thought about this. This red poster I only actually saw once or twice stuck on walls of houses. Otherwise I never had it in my own hands.
Q. Witness, perhaps you haven't understood my question correctly; the poster was not the actual order of which I speak; I mean't whether the order which you in the 19th Corps received from the 20th Army, and which came from the OKW, whether this order was regarded by you as a Fuehrer order?
A. Yes, for the reason that according to my memory the order contained in its first phrase that "the Fuehrer has ordered." I don't remember exactly, but I think I am almost certain that it was so.
Q. Witness, did you ever in your military career, and you have been asked questions here about Finland, the Balkans, Russia and Norway, -- did you ever see a proclamation to the population which was really like an order?
DR. RITSCH: Your Honor, the way he puts this question shows that it is a suggestive question, a leading question, and I protest.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I am trying merely to refresh the 'Witness' memory about what he has been asked here, and I have not at all stated my question.
THE PRESIDENT: You may conclude your question.
Q. Did you over see such proclamations at all which were signed by a supreme command, and also at the same time by a political personality?
A. I cannot remember having seen such an order or proclamation anywhere.
Q. Did that mean anything to you?
A. I never thought about this. I was much more interested in the general over-all problem than with regard to a proclamation.
Q. Witness, do you mean to say that on the basis of the fact that this order was a Fuehrer Order you were bound to carry out this order?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you have carried out a repetition of this order in the sense of this discussion with your brother?
A. I expected this question, and I accept all consequences too. Secondly, then I would not have agreed to the destruction of things and villages probably after I did not see the necessity of them, and I would have taken all consequences in general.
Q. General, what would the consequences have been?
A. I would have been shot immediately.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q. Witness, I have only two questions which result from the direct examination; Mr. Rapp asked you, General, whether it was usual that the enemy was informed before that you would be attacked in 14 days; how was the relationship with the Finnish Army?
A. Our relation with the Finnish Army was excellent.
Q. Did that come out of these very critical days?
A. Partly, yes. I had nothing to do with the Finns. I was not actually a witness, because up there we had no troops in our district; but I do know that those Finns whom I had dealings with were in excellent relationship to us until the last moment, and they regretted the unfortunate development very much.
Q. Do you mean this way, they did not approve of the attitude of your Government?
A. No.
Q. The second question, General, is in connection with the proclamation. The prosecutor asked you whether you saw such a general proclamation at another place or on another date; in any of the occupied territories was there a Reichskommissar apart from the supreme commander?
A. I believe not.
DR. FRITSCH: Thank you. I have no further questions, Your Honor.
Just one moment, please.
I have no further questions, Your Honor.
MR. RAPP: The Prosecution had no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions desired to be asked by members of the Tribunal -- Judge Carter?
JUDGE CARTER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Burke?
JUDGE BURKE: I have none.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused
MR. RAPP: If Your Honors, please, we would like to turn now to Document Book 23. If Your Honors will turn to page 1, please, of the Document Book 23, and this is also on page 1 of the German Document Book. This is a report in the nature of a decision made by the Police Chief in Finmark in the town of where the Norwegian Government carried on an intensive investigation of war crimes committed by the 20th Army during that time.
DR. FRITSCH: Mr. President, in order to save time I would like to object now against the submission of these documents. These are not official documents at all, they are just reports of the general atmosphere, without any reference material of any kind, and it is a report which has not been sworn to, and from which nothing becomes evident, and it has no similarity with any acceptive evidence material or any probative value.
MR. RAPP: Most of the documents contained in this document book are similar to this Document No. 1. They were put at our disposal by the liaison officer and representative of the Attorney General's office in Norway. He has made out the covering certificate which I will offer at the end of this presentation, that all of these affidavits have been submitted to him, they have been taken in his presence or by persons working there in conjunction with and under his authority, and we submit that we would like to have these documents admitted into evidence, and your Honor yourself should decide how far the probative value of these documents should be adjudged.
THE PRESIDENT: First, may I inquire, Mr. Rapp, if the affidavits or depositions are in the form which has been approved by the Tribunals, or the rules for the Tribunals?
MR. RAPP: If Your Honor, please, I would like to pass up to you the affidavit so you may decide yourself as to whether this would meet with your requirements.
THE PRESIDENT: I think then your preliminary proof should be presented first, rather than the affidavits and the supporting certificate.
MR. RAPP: As Your Honors will note that many of these affidavits are made at a time, or quite a number of these affidavits were made at a time by the Norwegian Government when Ordnance No. VII was not known either to this Tribunal or to us, and the Norwegian Attorney General has travelled around extensively in these Northern parts or Norway and has gotten these affidavits on the basis they are used to, that is according to their laws and their regulations, and I do not know whether or not the affidavits as they are today will comply meticulously to the rules laid down in Ordinance No. VII. Nevertheless, I will have Colonel Volestad, who took these affidavits and who is present here and who could also, if the Court so chooses, take the stand in order to give the Court information as to how these affidavits were obtained, and the nature in which they were obtained, and elaborate on that particular rule.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, may I say something to that? The first report which will be submitted with a new exhibit number, is of 14 March 1947. That is a date when doubtlessly the rules of this court were known. These rules have not been kept to. There is no explanation of any kind in these documents that they were made in forms of affidavits or that they have been sworn to.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, as I would like to repeat, and I am sure you will appreciate this particular emphasis I am trying to make, these reports were not made by us, they were made by the Norwegian Government, and we are trying to have them submitted for whatever probative value the Tribunal wishes to give these reports.
THE PRESIDENT: You are presenting, Mr. Rapp, an affidavit which is not in the form as has been approved of by the rules laid down for these tribunals, am I correct in that?
MR. RAPP: In some cases it is true, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: That being true, can they be offered with any degree with which you could support them and on which the Tribunal could receive them.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, we felt that it was technically not possible for us to bring all the affiants down to Nurnberg, we, therefore, we asked Col. Volestad to be present here and thought if there was any question as to the procedural value of these affidavits, the Tribunal might like to avail itself of the opportunity of talking to Col. Volestad, to see whether or not, as matter of fact, all rules were observed as laid down in Ordinance No. VII.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not for the Tribunal to satisfy itself in that respect. It seems to me it is encumbent upon the prosecution to present affidavits that are in keeping with the rules laid down for the Tribunals.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I have pointed out before that though Document Norway No. 1 was possibly made at a time when the rulings were known, I can see about 7 documents which were made at a time when the ordnance was not published or not known. How could we go about after this has been submitted to us to get this changed at this time? Would it be agreeable to the Tribunal if we put them in for identification, and we are trying to get the necessary rules and procedures as laid down under Ordnance VII affixed to these documents?
THE PRESIDENT: You can, number them for identification, and if you wish submit them later in what you think is the proper form to the Tribunal, and we will give consideration to them then.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, that will be agreeable to us.
DR. FRITSCH: May I just ask, Mr. Rapp, if this applies to all the documents of this document book which are now numbered?
MR. RAPP: The documents which are in this book, although reaching us through the Norwegian government are German reports that is official German Army orders, as for instance the document Norway No. 4, Norway No. 6, Norway No. 7, Norway No. 8, Norway No. 10. These documents are regular German reports which fell into the hands of the Norwegian Government, and were turned over to us, and they have the regular certificates saying where they came from, and we believe there is no question as to the authenticity of these particular documents, so I feel we could put these in and withhold those which are in the nature of an affidavit but are not at this time admitted by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will receive and give consideration to the old captured army documents. If you wish to present them we will consider then one by one when they are presented. As to the others, the Tribunal is not receptive to their consideration at this time in their present form.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, may I inquire from the Tribunal whether or not it would be acceptable to the Tribunal if the Prosecution would put Col. Volestad on the stand to testify as to the nature of these documents? This is merely in the nature of an inquiry?
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, this seems to be a procedure which is not in agreement with the general rules. It is important that each individual man who made these statements was conscious of having made these statements under oath. That is one of the essentials of affidavits, and that cannot be borne out by the witness either.
THE PRESIDENT: If the Prosecution wishes to call the suggested witness he may do so, and we will rule on the matters as they develop.
MR. RAPP: Very well, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We are not telling you how to submit your case.
MR. RAPP: We appreciate this, Your Honor, I would like to in the nature of the existing rule of 24 hours, inform now the defense that we may call this colonel to testify about this.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I may call your Honors attention to the fact that this witness has been present here since the beginning of the proceedings, and in my opinion therefore he can not be examined as a witness at this point.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be overruled.
MR. RAPP: If Your Honor will then mark the following documents for identification only, Norway No. 1 for identification 511-A, Norway No. 2, for identification 5 -----
Am I going too fast, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: No.
MR. RAPP: 511-A, Norway No. 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is 510?
MR. RAPP: 510 was offered, the Norwegian picture we saw last Friday.
THE PRESIDENT: And the script is 509, and 510 is the picture itself?
MR. RAPP: It is the picture itself. Norway No. 1, is 511-A, Norwa, No. 3, is 513A.
And now if your Honors will turn please, to page 11, there we have a document which is Norway 4, offered as Prosecution 514. This is a report submitted by the Mountain Army Corps, dated the 30th of October, 1944. It was at that time commanded by the previous witness, Jedl. It is secret, and the subject is: Comment of the Division Commander of the 210th Infantry Division concerning the evacuation.
To 20th (Mountain) Army High Command Enclosed I am transmitting a comment of the Commanding Officer of the 210th Infantry Division concerning the problem of evacuation with which I concur completely.
1 Enclosure (initial) J This report is dated the 29th of October, 1944, 210 Infantry Division Commanding Officer, 1c.No. 1114/44 Secret.
Stamped, Corps Headquarters, XIX Mountain Army Corps, Received 31 December 1944.
This, Your Honor, is as it actually appears on the original document. We understand that this is rather ambiguous, how this report could have been received by the XIX Army Corps on the 31st of December. Yet, on the 30th of October, it is being forwarded to the 20th Army.
If your Honors wish, I could pass this up to the bench so that you could see this yourselves.
Competent Officer : Ic Diary No. 1479/44 Secret Comment concerning the evacuation
1.) The Division has pressed for more than a year for the evacuation of the Varanger area, Repeatedly the Division approached the office of the Reichs Commissar in Kirkenes requesting it. Again and again Government Councillor Dr. Schaud as well as the present incumbent of the office, Landrat Neven explained that the Reichs Commissar in Oslo did not agree to the evacuation.
When, during the past summer Russian hostilities increased the Division again contacted the office of the Reichs Commissar in Kirkenes with the request to speedily initiate the evacuation.
The heavy air combat on Kirkenes, Vadsoe and Vardoe toward the end of August caused me to personally request the speedy evacuation of the population now. The psychological moment seemed to mo particularly suitable. Actually I was informed from many levels of the population that at that time they were willing to carry out an evacuation according to plan.
"However the evacuation measures had to remain half measures since the Reichs Commissar in Oslo rejected any compulsory evacuation. At the occasion of the evacuation of some houses in Kirkenes the Deputy of the Reichs Commissar was informed by Reichs Commissar Terboven that Reichs Commissar Terboven reserved for himself personally the evacuation of each individual house. This directive was issued because the chief of the Organization Todt, Senior Architectual Councillor Dr. Luehrs during a visit in Oslo called the attention of the Reichs Commissar to the fact that the Division intended to carry out compulsory evacuation.
When the Commander in Chief of the 20th (Mountain Army) visited the Varanger area on 26 August 1944 I submitted to him the view of the Division according to which the area from Vardoe to Vadsoe would have to be evacuated immediately in any case, if necessary compulsion. I asked him to influence the Reichs Commissar in Oslo to grant the necessary authority. However, a decision as suggested by the Division was not made.
11.) The last minute evacuation measures could not be successful as had been foretold by the Division on the basis of their knowledge of the local situattion.
The reasons for that are as follows:
1.) Transportation via sea is too dangerous; no civilian can be influenced to go aboard.
2.) Transportation possibilities via land are exhausted excepting minor possibilities, as far as the Division can see."
3.) The civilian population does not fear the danger inherent in remaining any mere than it does the dangers of transportation of any sort.
111.) At this time compulsory evacuation is to be carried out in the territory still remaining. The troops cannot be employed for this purpose without endangering the defense tasks. However, the Division is ready to round up whatever can be rounded up of the population with the organs of Reichs Commissars, of the SD and of the Secret Field Police. Here however, one must state frankly that large parts of the population have fled to the barren lands.
They no longer can be captured. That is why the Division will limit itself primarily to the settlements along the roads. In as far as that goes, the population will be ordered suddenly to evacuate and a short time limit will be set. In order to compel tho evacuation the population will simultaneously be informed that all houses will be burned down. It is tho view of the Division that this is the only way by which anything at all can still be accomplished.
At this time Sturmbannfuehrer Baberske and the Secret Field Police by agreement with the Chief of Police (Lensmann) who is reliable, are establishing the parts of the population of tho Tana area concerned. This was done at the initiative of the Division. Execution of the operation suddenly after information has been received of the actual space available for transportation. It rust be avoided that the operation brings about the assembly of larger parts of the population, who then can not be evacuated.
Permit me to point out that such compulsory measures no matter how successful individually encounter serious objections of the political kind. The short time limit and the limited transport space will make it possible to evacuate only several hundred persons.
The mass of the population which in the Tana area alone 3,000 are still living, can not be removed. One should consider whether the disadvantage arising from the bitterness of the remaining population is not larger than the advantage accruing from the evacuation of several hundred persons.