Q: Do you remember whether or not the Cetnik units were a tall black cap called the Cetnik Cockade?
A: I have never seen such a cap and never seen such a cockade, and I don't recollecte anything like that. I may add here that the Commander in Chief of an area such as the Balkans was, could not possibly concern himself with the members of a band that had murdered his people wearing a certain star on their cap or such and such a cap. They were illegal fighters, and had to be treated as such, if the Balkans were not to collapse altogether. We were in a terrible situation, and one could not concern oneself with the fact whether a bandit had a certain form of cap of a soviet star. Nor would the American commander in chief do so if certain people would appear here wearing a certain type of cap or cockade, maybe the insignia of the former Stahlhelm. Certainly he could not recognize those people as a national uprising. He would say those are illegal bands and they have to be treated as such. As it was all the Balkans were on fire.
Q: You mean then, Field marshall, that it was not important to you whether or not the bands wore any insignia?
A: I don't want to say that, but these people did not wear insignia in the sense that they would have been regarded in any way as military formations. They were just bands, i.e. they had to be characterized as such.
Q: Would you have fought these insurgent bands any differently if they had been wearing any insignia?
A: If the bands had been uniformed and had adhered to the war regulations they would have been treated differently. Then these bands would not have attacked people from cornfields and ambushed people passing by in motor vehicles. They then would not have stopped trains with troops going on leave and they would not have shot at them from the next hill with machine guns and then these people would not have robbed supply columns, and would not have committed atrocities in the most bestial manner which I cannot remember in detail right now, but which I think can be testified to by witnesses.
I just remember vaguely one or two of the events, but unfortunately only vaguely, as I have unfortunately, also forgotten details in other respects. All these things could not have occurred if these band members had been a national insurgent army, and adhered to the rules.
Q: What kind of attacks did the insurgent bands made on your troops, did they attack your supply lines, and communication lines?
A: They caused considerable disturbances.
Q: Did you consider attacks of that kind irregular, invalid or unpermissible methods of waging war?
A: When a country is in a peaceful state, as Serbia was, and in spite of that such events happen, then the people who cause these events must be called franctireurs, and it is illegal, irregular and forbidden. Those were very obviously attacks on the vital spots of the occupying army. One must realize that only one railroad line ran into Belgrade, and if it was interrupted and for three weeks on end the shipping on the Danube was halted, that meant that the oil supply from Roumania to Germany was throttled. That could also have meant that the occupation power in the Balkans might have collapsed, that even the Greek Government and the Greek population could no longer dispose over the necessary food supplies and with the collapse of the occupational forces the allies would have had the opportunity to land in Greece, and to establish airfields there, thus endangering the whole Southern Flank of the German Army in the Balkans.
I am only printing out what could have happened, if it had been so. In that case I would have been perfectly right to have myself and my officers shot at once for neglect of the most elementary duties of an officer towards his Fatherland.
Q: Let us suppose for a minute that you faced a regular belligerent army. Would the attacks on your communication lines then have been considered by you as a normal or an abnormal method of warfare?
A: If we find myself in a state of war the interruption of communication lines is of course permitted. There was no state of war, however, an armistice had been signed and this was a peaceful and occupied country.
Q: Did the warfare In the southeast that you faced ever reach the stage of becoming real war?
A: You mean after the conclusion of the belligerent actions? To begin with we fought a war against Greece, and Yugoslavia, and you mean whether at a later time it ever reached that state, that is open hostilities and a state of war?
I did not quite ge the question.
Q: Well, supposing the campaign against Greece and Yugoslavia ended, take the months of July, August and September 1941, can you then speak of military victories by one side and real tactical and operational warfare?
A: One can't talk of military victories, but there were larger operations which Boehme had to carry out, and they were of a military character and they were tactical and military operations.
Q: Were the insurgents you faced in the southeast openly armed?
That is to say did they carry their arms openly?
A: No.
Q: Were they organized along military lines?
A: Not in my time. I may add, of course, when a band was actually fighting then they carried their weapons openly, because they were shooting during the fighting, but when they realized a conclusion was near they endeavored to get rid of their weapons and threw them in a river or ditch or hid them somewhere and then just loitered around as peaceful peasants, and pretended not to know of anything.
Q: You say then during your time in the southeast it is improper to speak of real war between the German occupation troops and the insurgent forces?
A: A real state of war did not exist. There were only individual fights.
Q: Will you look at Exhibit 53, Document Book 2, this is on page 71 of the English, Your Honor, and I believe page 55 of the German. Field Marshall, this is an order of the Commander in Serbia dated Belgrade, 16 September 1941, the original document bears the receipt stamp of the 718th Infantry Division for four days later, 20 September 1941. You will note that the subject of the order is "Insurgent Movement." The first paragraph states, "With regard to the insurgent movement which increased daily and which increased because of temporary military victories of the insurgents." Do you disagree with the author of the report that you can speak of military victories by the insurgents in the month of September 1941?
A: If I may say something in this connection, Mr. Fenstermacher, these orders were not written with the idea that they were to be taken under the lense of an American Military Court in Nurnberg, but they were written with the idea of giving the troops the necessary initiative for their actions, and to describe matters to the troops as was deemed necessary.
As it says here "Temporary military successes of the insurgents", this can be interpreted in various manners. I don't know what Boehme referred to but I would assume that he refers to the fact that the insurgents succeeded in trapping a number of German batallions and in disarming them, and that they succeeded in shooting a number of people in this action. Maybe it was so, I do not know, and I cannot recollect it, Mr. Fenstermacher. Is it thus that in various places military units suffered losses and reverses as consequences of the actions of the insurgents, and that Boehme describes this as a military success of the insurgents. He only means to say that the insurgents gained a success over us, but he does not consider this military operation.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Fenstermacher, we will adjourn at this time until Monday, September 22, at 9:30 in the morning.
(thereupon a recess was taken until 9:30 a.m.
September 22, 1947) OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF MILITARY TRIBUNAL V, CASE VII, IN THE MATTER OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AGAINST WILHELM LIST ET AL, DEFENDANTS, SITTING AT NUREMBERG, GERMANY, ON 22 SEPTEMBER 1947, 0930, JUSTICE CARTER PRESIDING.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal V.
Military Tribunal V is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if all the defendants are present in the Courtroom?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the Courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Carter will preside at this day's session.
PRESIDING JUDGE GARTER: You may proceed, Mr. Fenstermacher.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q. If your Honors please, Field Marshal, did you consider the war against Yugoslavia unjust or an aggressive war on Germany's part?
A. I am of the opinion that the war against Yugoslavia was caused by the change which had taken place in Yugoslavia, and therefore by Yugoslavia herself. And thus by the mobilization which had already started in January or February of that year. It was an emergency situation in which the Reich found itself at that time.
Q. Isn't it true that after the revolution occurred in Yugoslavia the new Government offered loyalty declarations to Germany?
A. I am not informed about anything of that kind.
Q. But you were informed that mobilization of the Yugoslavian army had taken place?
A. I was informed about that and about the fact that an increased number of troops had been mobilized and drafted.
Q. Had those troops been mobilized by the government of Yugoslavia prior to the revolution?
A. That must have been the case because otherwise it wouldn't have been possible that immediately after the revolution our reconnaissance units informed us that my troops faced 15 divisions.
Q. Did you anticipate that the Yugoslavian people would be friendly to the German troops after they marched into Yugoslavia?
A. I had no reason to assume that after armistice had been concluded, any kind of uprising would take place.
Q. Did you believe that these people in Yugoslavia would welcome your troops in their country?
A. The opinions were various on that subject. Part of them might have welcomed the German troops others not.
Q. In any event, shortly after your troops occupied Yugoslavia, many attacks took place upon your supply and communication lines, upon your troops. Is what correct?
A. Shortly after the occupation, it is not known to me. Besides I was not in Serbia at that time. My activities merely started on the 23rd of June.
Q. And had attacks on your troops in Serbia by the 23rd of June taken place?
A. Yes, that is certain, in any case.
Q. As I recall your testimony of last week, Field Marshal, you said that many of these attacks on your troops came from ambush from people who were hiding in the maize fields in Serbia. Is that your testimony?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. Did you consider an attack from ambush an irregular method of fighting war?
A. Yes, certainly, in that case, because there was no longer a state of war. An armistice had been concluded and the land was completely pacified and peaceful.
If, for instance. Today in Germany on the autobahn from the woods bordering the autobahn, shots were being fired on American soldiers, that would doubtlessly be regarded as an irregular action.
Q. Would those types of attacks be considered illegal attacks if the attackers were clothed in uniform, or wore insignia?
A. Even in that case, yes.
Q. How many years have you been an officer in the German army, Field Marshal?
A. Forty-three.
Q. Did you get training in the rules of war, particularly in the provisions of the Hague rules of land warfare?
A. Yes, on the war academy.
Q. Are you familiar with Chapter 1 of the Annex to the Hague Convention of 1907 which relates to the qualifications of belligerents?
A. Of course I don't know the article in its detail any more, but on a large scale I am conscious of it, yes.
Q. I should like to read to you from Chapter 1 of the Hague rules of land warfare, Article 1, to refresh your recollection on the provisions with respect to the qualifications of belligerents.
"The rules, rights and duties of war apply not only to armies but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
"1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates.
"2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance.
"3. To carry arms openly.
"4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
Does that refresh your recollection with respect to the qualifications prerequisite to belligerent status?
A. I didn't quite get the question.
Q. How that I have read to you the section from the Hague rules of land warfare with respect to the qualifications of belligerents, does it refresh your recollection with respect to the prerequisites for belligerent status?
A. These provisions were known to me, but considering the bands which opposed us, I cannot regard them as belligerents. All prerequisites were missing for this fact and all prerequisites also that were laid down in the Hague conventions. They were not belligerents but they were quite plainly franctireurs and bands. Not one of the four prerequisites laid down here applied, actually, at the time when I was in command in the Balkans.
Q. You say the insurgent forces that opposed your troops in Yugoslavia did not carry their arms openly?
A. Yes.
Q. Marshal, will you look at Exhibit 56 which is in Document Book 2, page 71, of the English and 55 of the German.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I would like to point out that if anything from laws is submitted, the whole paragraph has to be submitted to the witness because this partial paragraph which has been submitted to the witness may easily cause a wrong picture in his mind.
BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q. I think, if your Honors please, I neglected to read the final sentence of Article 1 of the Chapter 1 of the Hague rules of land warfare, and I should like to read it now.
"In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination 'army'".
Field Marshal, Exhibit 56 is an order of the Military Commander of Serbia, dated Belgrade, 16 September 1941. Will you turn to paragraph 3 of that order? It is on page 72 of the English and I believe 56 of the German. The second sentence in that paragraph begins -
A. May I ask, please, that I may also look at the other pages of this document before I deal with this?
Q. Yes, of course.
A. Yes, I am ready.
Q. The second sentence of paragraph 3. "The fights near Losnica and Krupanj, as well as single enemy operations west of Uzice and near Mitrowica, have proved clearly that these bands are at one with the communists and face us armed and openly an enemies."
Did you ever receive information from the Military Commander of Serbia to that effect?
A. To this effect I did not receive any information from the Military Commander Serbia but may I deal with this sentence for a moment and compare it with the second paragraph of the previous page?
It reads there: "The district area headquarters Nish has permitted the followers of Kosta Petjanec to carry arms. However, the arms must be carried openly."
I emphasize this last part -- "However, the arms have to be carried openly."
Under paragraph 3 it reads that these bands go together with the communists and oppose us openly with arms in hand as enemies.
I think there is a basic difference here. It is a difference whether a band carried arms openly i.e. permanently, whether they, so to speak, confess to their carrying of arms openly, that is, whether they confess to being a militia as laid down in the Hague conventions. That carrying arms openly as described in the Hague conventions is, in my opinion, to be understood to the effect that these militia feel actually to be militia, that in this sense they are a uniform unit, a united unit, and that they confess to carrying arms. That is even when the actual fighting is over, they don't hide their weapons and that they don't start a fight with hidden weapons then throw their arms away after the fighting is over and hide them, but instead that they act as military unit, as a militia unit and that carry their weapons all the time. In a similar sense, for instance, a company may deposit its weapons uniformly or may store its munitions some place, but not secretly in individual little houses or in churches or on church staples as it happened, because that does not correspond to the idea of a militia.
Q Field Marshal, you don't believe that the bands referred to in paragraph 3 of this order refer to the Kosta Petanac bands, do you?
A No. In paragraph 3? No.
Q Which bands were meant in paragraph 3?
A It reads here: "Bands that party also call themselves Cetniks which, however, are not subordinate either to Kosta Petjanec or to the government, but what in detail the Commander of Serbia thought when he laid this down, I cannot say. Besides, I didn't know this order.
Q Were the insurgent forces which your troops faced in Serbia led by officers, Field Marshal?
A Inasmuch as the reports show it, that was partly the case.
Q And did those officers wear insignia of rank?
A I can't say that any more now.
Q Will you look at Exhibit 23 which is in Document Book 1, at page 84 of the English and page 57 of the German? The portion which I am particularly concerned with, Field Marshal, is the very last page of that exhibit which is perhaps not on page 57 but several pages later. These are excerpts from the War Diary of the 704th Infantry Division and if you will turn to the entry on the 25th of September, 1941, in that War Diary, the last paragraph of the entry reads: "On a Serbia First Lieutenant killed in action, they were found to be members of a band, mostly from Valjevo."
Did you receive any formation that the bands were led by officers and that it was known they were led by officers, because they wore the insignia of lieutenants and captains and colonels etc.?
A The other day I have already testified that at present I cannot reconstruct any more reports in detail I received and what I knew at the time, but I am very sure that in the course of time it was reported to me that the bands were partly led by officers. However, may I add that according to my conception a band does not become a militia just because it is led by an officer. If today in Germany, for instance, parts of an SA and SS formation together under the leadership of a lieutenant of the former Wehrmacht, started to fight somewhere and to appear somewhere, making surprise attacks, etc., the American commander will surely not recognize these formations as militia and he will be justified in not doing that and in exactly the same position we were in those days in the Balkans.
Q Were the insurgents units well organized, Field Marshal?
A I believe I expressed that once in an order. Apparently they were partly well organized, but even that doesn't prove anything against the concept that they were bands. I think in the history of the world there are ganster bands and criminal bands which were excellently organized and against which the police found itself in great difficulties and the best criminalogists were not in a position to cape with them.
But thought such criminals bands were so excellently organized they didn't become legal because of this. And the very same applied to the situation we faced at that time.
Q Do you remember ever having received reports to the effect that the so-called bands wore soviet stars as their insignia?
A I don't recollect anything from those days but I know it now from these proceedings here. But regarding these insignia, I may say, that if the communists bands a sheep skin cap which they frequently did - a cap also referred to here as "tall hat" if they wore a soviet star in it somewhere, that does not constitute, in my opinion, an insignia which can be recognized in the meaning of the Hague convention because the insignia would have to be visible in a modern fighting. That is 800 to a thousand meters. Besides, this soviet star in the cap, as far as I can take here from these documents, was not carried by all of them but only by individuals.
Q Field Marshal, isn't it true that in modern war were camouflage is used to a large extent, it is quite possible that uniforms of regular armies are not visible for a distance of 800 meters?
A It is, of course, possible, that the uniforms are not recognizable, because they are camouflaged, but the situation here was completely different. Here fronts were clearly defined, were the two opponents faced each other, and the general situation shows clearly to the troop leader whether it is the enemy or their own troops which are concerned, - that is, the formation of fronts belongs to a certain extent to the concept and to the definition which the Hague Convention laid down about militia troops; there was a basic difference at least in these initial stages between those insurgents who appeared here, or let's say the large units of volunteers and militia of the war 1870-71, which after the collapse of the whole Northern front, and the collapse of Paris were called together by the French. In that case there was a uniform leadership; there were complete units, and they were at least loosely connected with parts of the old army which was still fighting.
Therefore it was clear that these were militia troops and that they were volunteers, and it is just as clear here, in that case of the Balkans, that these people were franctireurs.
Q Then if these people that you faced in Yugoslavia wore fully uniforms and all insignia, you would not have recognized them as a militia, and would therefore, not have treated them as regular belligerents. Is that your position?
A It is difficult to say that I would have done six years ago, in case a certain event had occurred. If these franctireurs did not adhere to the rules of warfare, though they wore uniforms, they still would not have become militia instead of being franctireurs, because if after the conclusion of an armistice, i.e. after a government has decided that its army will not fight any longer - a soldier on his own initiative or on orders of any officer, be it a Major or Lieutenant or a Colonel, - if such a soldier joints up with such officers, and they decide to fight on their own initiative, they are to be regarded as franctireurs even if they wear uniforms.
Q Were the insurgents that you faced in Yugoslavia disciplined?
A I cannot say that anymore. I do not assume that they were particularly disciplined because they themselves did not know what they wanted, at least partly, and the organization Mihailovic was not completely organized. It was also true that part of the Mihailovic people fought against us, part of the Mihailovic people fought against the Communists, and another part of the Mihailovic people again said, "The time has not come yet; we are not going to fight yet" and they did not fight, and this alone shows that neither uniform leadership existed nor that these troops were really disciplined. That is what one generally understands by discipline.
Q If you will look at Exhibit 44, which is in Document Book 2, page 33 of the English, and 28 of the German, I believe, -
A What is the document number, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit No. what?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: 44, you Honor, page 31 of the English, page 27 of the German.
This is a report from the 378th Infantry Reigment, to the 718th Infantry Division, dated 9 September, 1941, -- will you turn to the last paragraph of that report, paragraph: "The fights around Koviljaca have shown that the Serbian Insurgent movement already has at its disposal perfectly well organized and disciplined units under good leadership".
Did you receive information to that effect?
A I do not know this report of the 718th Infantry Division. It was not addressed to me. To what extent I was informed about such an event in detail, I do not recall any more today. I have already made a general statement to this effect.
Besides, the 718th Division just gained this impression, that is at a locally defined, -- in a locally defined area, and concerning one particular band.
Besides, we must take into consideration that all of these reports, of course, take into account a psychological factor. The troops were probably wanting to show what they had achieved.
Q Field Marshal, were these insurgents recognizing the rules of war when they fought against your troops?
A They did not observe them because frequently atrocities were reported as having been committed by these insurgents.
Q How did they treat their prisoners?
A Partly these prisoners, so far as I recollect, were killed; partly these prisoners were treated as prisoners of war.
Q Will you turn to Exhibit 101 which is in Document Book II, page 81 of the English, and page 58 of the German, - this is a report of the Commanding General Plenipotentiary in Serbia, dated, Belgrade, 22 October, 1941? Will you turn to the last page of that report, the third from the last paragraph on that page, you will note there the second sentence of the first full paragraph on the last page of the document reading:
"Band leaders were mostly former Yugoslav officers. These were for the most part wearing old Yugoslav uniforms."
And then the report continues:
"It is reported for the first time that the German soldiers were not deprived of their uniforms. The soldiers also left in possession of their property. Colonel Mihailovic had been pointed out personally as the leader of the units in this area to the two non-commissioned officers. He was surrounded by many uniformed officers. The insurgents in this territory designated themselves as the National Free Serbian Army, whose sole and only aim was to drive the Germans from the country.
They considered themselves soldiers and consequently recognized as valid the laws of war, hence probably the strikingly good treatment of the prisoners."
Did any of the reports which you saw as Armed Forces Commander Southeast, emphasize information of that nature?
A I can only say that I did not get knowledge of this report any more. It is dated the 22nd of October. Besides, this report here shows clearly that the respective unit was led by Colonel Mihailovic personally; therefore, these were probably the very best people which Colonel Mihailovic had, and with whom he surrounded himself. He, for his own part, might well have looked after it that nothing occurred which he did not want to occur.
In this connection may I point out the sentence which precedes what had been read by the prosecutor, and that reads:
"The statements of both non-commissioned officers confirmed the rumors that the entire population participated in the insurrection, since all of them from the child to man were armed and supported the roving bands."
Q Do you make exceptions in your treatment of those persons whom you captured, for those who were led by people like Colonel Mihailovic, and therefore fought correctly; did you treat them better than the insurgents whom you captured, who did not fight correctly?
A No.
Q Field Marshal, were these bands organized along regular military lines, according to the information which you received?
A I must admit that I am being asked a lot of details here which result from a study of the complete files and material available regarding the Southeastern area; I, for my own person, was at that time, -had at that time to rely on the reports I received from the troop units, and I have repeatedly testified here that I had the very definite impression that the people concerned here were franctireurs, and not for a minute did I doubt, nor did any of my officers have for one moment the concept that they were militia troops in those days, If individual bands were well organized and others were badly organized, I might have got to know that.
I might have known it. I might have pointed out to the troops that they had to take that into account, but I cannot draw any other conclusions from those facts than the one which I have already drawn, and I cannot now recollect details any more, how one or the other bands might have looked.
Q I agree with you, Field Marshal, we cannot expect you to remember specific details after six years, but I am interested in your general recollection.
Will you turn to Exhibit 56, which is in Document Book 2, page 73 of the English, and page 55 of the German; this is on order of the Commander Serbia which we had looked after earlier.
I should like now to direct your attention to paragraph 4, I beg your pardon, paragraph 5:
"The Communist and Serbian bands camouflaged as nationals, who are hostile to us in the insurgent district, have recently organized themselves in such a fashion that one can already speak of enemy organizations. Their military structure is composed of companies and battalions which are frequently under the responsible leadership of former Serbian officers. The armament is distributed in such a manner that each company disposes over an equal amount of weapons."
Is your general recollection of September 1941 to the effect that you were fighting a real war against an enemy organized to the last degree from a military standpoint?
A The question is very pointedly put. I did not regard it in this sense. I knew that well organized bands existed, that had been reported to me, and that the troops had to take care regarding these bands; I knew that on the other hand other organizations existed too. But this military organization of a band does not necessary mean this band has to be recognized as militia. Bands might well be militarily organized, and be organized according to military norms; it might well take a military form because it might assume that it thus can exist better and can achieve better results, but that does not mean it was actually militia.
Q Field Marshal, I believe you were asked by Dr. Laternser on direct examination whether you had seen any regulations of the Communist party of Serbia regarding the methods they were to use in fighting your troops. Do you recall that?
A Yes.
Q I think paragraph 7 of this very same order was pointed out to you. 'By reason of the order dated 13 September, instructions of the communist party of Serbia for guerilla warfare' distributed to all offices and troop units within the jurisdiction of the Commander of Serbia, as well as its supplement by additional available orders for service.
THE INTERPRETER: Where are you reading.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Paragraph 7. Page 73 of the English.
BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q --"distributed to all offices and troop units within the jurisdiction of the Commander of Serbia, as well as its supplement by additional available orders for service within the companies and battalions, one has to reckon with the fact that in the insurgent district especially we are facing an enemy who is well organized to the last details."
Are you quite sure that the instructions of the communist party of Serbia for guerilla warfare related only to the organization of the insurgent units, and not to the methods of warfare they were to employ?
A No, I recollect the methods, not the organization.
Q Did you ever hear, Field Marshal, that your troops, after they were captured by the insurgents, were treated very well by them and that in some cases wounded German soldiers were given excellent treatment in insurgent hospitals?
A I do not recollect that. I will not say that it has not been reported to me, that is possible.
Q I will show you a report and see whether you can have your memory refreshed. Will you look at Exhibit 127, which is in Document Book 5, page 27 of the English, and page 34 of the German. In this exhibit, I am particularly concerned with a report which was sent to you from the Plenipotentiary Commanding General in Serbia. The particular report is on page 45 of the English, - it should be around page 50 in the German. It is document NOKW 123, and the report is a radio message to the Wehrmacht Commander Southeast, 12th Army. This particular report does not seem to have a date, but it precedes a report for the 26 of September, 1941. It is on page 51 of the German, I am told. Will you look at paragraph 6 of that report to you, as Wehrmacht Commander Southeast:
"8 wounded captured German soldiers before Sabac returned to own unit. 27 heavily wounded German soldiers are in a hospital in Losnica belonging to insurgents."
Did you ever have any information to that effect? I do not mean specific information, but just generally?
A No. With the best memory in the world, I cannot say to what extent I received such information. I have said that so often here. I would very much like to say, "yes, I did receive them all"; say that I did receive particular ones, but I cannot merely in order to give an appearance of credibility here, say that I did receive them. I do not know it any more.