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.
Q Field Marshal, we cannot expect you to have detailed knowledge of these things after 6 years. Do you recall whether the insurgents ever demanded recognition as a regular belligerent?
A No.
Q Will you look at Exhibit 123, in Document Book 4, on page 129 of the English, and beginning on page 73 of the German. These are excerpts from the War Diary of the 18th Army Corps, and I am particularly interested in the entry for the 8th of October, which should be on about page 80 of the German, I believe, the entry:
"Kraljevo, 6 October, --" it is page 78 of the German. This entry reads:
"65th Corps Command: The Peoples' Liberation Group of Jeva Kursula on 7 October demands the following of the local Kraljevo Garrison Commander."
and will you look at the 5th demand:
"Recognition of all rights as a unit engaged in warefare Nonfulfillment will bring about the shooting to death of 8 captured German soldiers:
Were any of these demands for recognition ever brought to your attention?
A Of course, I do not this activity report of the Army Corps Commander 18: I have already stated that I do not recollect such a demand, and I do not believe that the 18th Corps regarded this demand because this was only one group which was limited as to area and the group called itself Jeva Kursulov that was one individual band leader, who demanded the status of a belligerent, and I can well imagine that the Army Command, - 18th Corps Command, - said, "That is quite impossible; we cannot ascribe such a concession to such a small individual band in view of the fact that the whole rest of the insurgent movement has been and is being regarded as an insurgent movement?
Q Now, Field Marshal, how did you treat these insurgents when you captured them?
A The insurgents were to be treated as franctireurs, that means there existed the possibility that they would be killed in battle i.e. shot in battle,and on the other hand, the possibility that after the fight if they were found with a weapon in their hands, they were shot, after a summary court martial.
Q. How long did the average Summary Court Martial take?
A. I can't say that. That was relatively quick. A Summary Court Martial is a relatively fast court.
Q. Was the accused permitted to bring witnesses on his own behalf?
A. No, that would not have been permitted to him. The Summary Court Martial passed sentence when the facts were obvious and when the two associates could confirm the facts. But I personally never participated in such a Summary Court Martial, but the possibility, in any case, existed.
Q. Was the accused permitted to testify on his own behalf?
A. Yes, certainly. I'm sure he was permitted to do that. I must assume that as absolutely certain.
Q. What was the lowest rank......
A. But I emphasize again that I myself never participated in a Summary Court Martial or in any proceedings of a Summary Court Martial.
Q. Yes, but surely you as Armed Forces Commander Southeast and as an officer with forty odd years knows how these Summary Court Martials are handled. What was the lowest rank of an officer who was permitted to convene a Summary Court Martial?
A. That was a regimental commander or the independent batallion commander.
Q. And what would his rank usually be?
A. In war-time that was different; it varied. A regimental commander could be a lieutenant colonel or a full colonel, and a battalion commander would be a major or a captain. The independent battalion commander would have been a major or a lieutenant colonel.
Q. Was there any appeal regarding the verdict of the Summary Court Martial?
A. Appeal? No, that possibility did not exist.
Q. Field Marshal, is there a difference between a franc-tireur and a spy, in your opinion?
A. Yes, I would think so. There is a difference between a franctireur and a spy.
Q. What is the difference?
A. A franc-tireur is a person who is a member of a certain band and fights with a band, and a spy is a person merely concerned with intelligence and information matters. But I'm not in a position to define that from a legal point of view.
Q. A spy generally does not wear a uniform or insignia, does he?
A. Generally speaking, I don't think he would wear a uniform or insignia.
Q. Field Marshal, I would like again to go back to the Rules of Land Warfare of the Hague Convention of 1907. Article 30 reads: "A spy taken in the act shall not be punished without previous trial." Did you ever consider any of these people spies rather than franc tireurs?
A. No.
Q. Field Marshal, I have noticed in the reports, from the subordinates to you as Armed Forces Commander Southeast, references to certain numbers of insurgents fallen in combat and to other numbers of insurgents shot dead. I wonder if you can clarify for us what the two references meant?
A. Generally speaking, it would have been like this: the person fallen in action would have been designated as "fallen in action," and the person who was caught, sentenced by a Summary Court Martial and then shot would have been designated as "shot to death."
Q. Will you look at Exhibit 67 in Document Book II? This is an Page 124 of the English and Page 96 of the German. This is a report of the 704th Infantry Division, dated 22 September 1941. Will you look at the last line of the report? "Communists are being caught daily and shot to death immediately. For instance, twelve in one day."
Is it your understanding that even though it is stated that they were shot to death immediately, they had previously been given a Summary Count Martial trial?
A. I have to assume that, although I do not know this report of the 704th Division.
Q. Suppose, Field Marshal, that you captured someone who were no insitnia and who did not have a weapon in his hand? How was it possible for you to determine whether or not he was an insurgent?
A. That depended entirely on the circumstances under which the person concerned would be captured. I, as Commander in Chief, did not find it possible to judge these individual cases. I would have to assume that the troop would do, in each individual case, what was proper to do. If I am located in Athens I cannot, for instance, judge events that occur in Serbia.
Q. Wasn't it your job to know what was going on in Serbia, even though you were stationed in Athens?
A. It was my task to know it on a large scale, but, on the other hand, I simply had to rely on my commanders as intermediaries--the commanding general, the divisional commander, the regimental commander, and, the battalion commander. And when these reports had gone through all these channels and reached me, I then had to assume that they had been investigated and that everything was in order.
Q. Field Marshal, will you look at Exhibit 115, which is in Document Book IV, the first document in that book. And will you turn to Page 5 in the German and Page 5 in the English. This is a report from the 342nd Infantry Division to the Headquarters of the XVIIIth Corps, and it is the Daily Report of the 29th to the 30th of September 1941. Will you look under the section of the report which concerns itself with prisoners and booty, the second paragraph: "Of the prisoners 190 men could be selected by interrogation as forming a Communist group in the village of Usveco. These men will be shot today." Does that mean that the people were condemned only after the interrogation and not after a Summary Court Martial trial?
A. No, after Summary Court Martial proceedings.
Q. Field Marshal, suppose some of these insurgents laid down their arms and offered to surrender to your troops. Would that make any difference as to the manner in which they were treated?
A, That , again, would have to depend on the individual case.
Q. I don't quite understand. Could you give us an example of what you mean?
A. It's difficult to say. When these people had fought previously and the Summary Court Martial judged that it was too late when they delivered up their arms--then the possibility existed that the Summary Court Martial gained the conviction that they were fighters and that they were caught while carrying arms, and then they would be shot in accordance with the very strict regulations which existed.
Q. In the case of the regular belligerent, when is it too late to surrender your arms? Are you allowed to fight up until the last minute and then surrender or must it be at a given interval before? I'm speaking now in the case of a regular belligerent.
A. The situation there is completely different. That is why specific regulations exist and why there is a specific difference between a regular belligerent and an insurgent.
Q. That is to say, in the case of a regular belligerent you must always accept his surrender?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. You have in mind, I take it, in saying that Article 23 of the Hague Regulations--Article 23 reads: "In addition to the prohibition provided by special conventions, it is especially forbidden"-- and then sub-paragraph "c" reads: "The killed or wounded enemy who, having laid down his arms and having no longer means of defense has surrendered at discretion." And it is your understanding that that provision relates only to regular belligerent forces?
Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Field Marshal, as I understand the Laws of war, they're based, in part, upon the principle of chivalry. Is that correct?
A. Yes
Q. You didn't feel that that principle applied in the case of franctireurs who offered to surrender to you?
A. In the manner in which we were fought, and considering the situation in which we found ourselves,we had to act rigorously. We could not act any differently. I believe that we proved to be chival rous in the campaign against Yugoslavia and against Greece and that we could not be more so than we proved to be--but on the other had this insurrection touched vital spots of the occupational forces, of the German Army and of the German population. For this reason we had to act rigorously, hoping that by acting this way we would avoid further Heavy losses on both sides. May I emphasize here that I had not the slightest idea of hate against the Serbian population any more than I had against the Greek population. Why would a Serbian peasant not be just as acceptable to me as a Greek one? This was merely and solely a case of emergency defense; and, if I may say this here, it happens to be the way that war demands severe measures, and soldiers, therefore, are not in favor of war. It is an erroneous concept to think that the German officer is fond of war. When one has already anticipated personally in the First World war and suffered the consequences, one Knows quite well what war means. And our endeavor has always been to, as much as possible, diminuish the severeness of war and the losses of war. But this here was to burn out a festering wound applying even severe measures, and that was the basic idea behind all of this.
Q. In other words, Field Marshal, the measures "which you took to pacify Yugoslavia and Greece were taken by you only to save lives rather than to destroy them? Is that what you mean?
A. If you want to put it that way, yes-solely and merely in order to achieve peaceful conditions as far as possible.
Q. You say, Field Marshal, that you had no hate for the Yugoslavian people and the Greek people. Were you surprised that they had some hate for you, as shown by the attacks on your troops? Could you understand that feeling of theirs?
A. As long as I stayed in Greece there were no considerable attacks. I could understand the feelings of the Greeks, in as much as Hitler let the Italians into Greece, and that through this fact the Creeks were upset about us. I can also understand that a nation like the Youglslavians was not kindly disposed towards us. This insurrection which we noticed here did not originate so much from the Yugoslavian peasants, but it was incited by Moscow and by the Russian legation in Sofia. Only when the Russian campaign started did this insurrection become what it appeared to be later on.
Q. Field Marshal, with that in mind, will you turn to Exhibit 42, which is in Document Book II. I beg your pardon--Exhibit 48 in Document Book II, which is on Page 31 of the English, Page 42 of the German. This is a communication from you to OKW, and you will note from the first paragraph you say, and this is at the beginning of the fourth sentence: "Association between the insurgents, in my opinion, not aptly described as Communists by the Commander in Serbia, with the Cetniks has been confirmed." Was this movement inspired by Moscow or was it not? Were these people Communists or not?
A. They actually were Communists.
Q. But on the ....
A. But it happens to be the case that the judgment of this situation was different at different times. That is, we didn't always know for sure where the insurrection originated to begin with, Later on it was quite clear that it was of Communist origin. In this particular case, maybe, or the basis of reports which I had just received, I wasn't sure whether this actually was the case, but I never doubted the Communist insurrection as such.
Q. When did you first believe that it was a Communistic insurrection? Can you give the approximate date?
A. No, I can't say that--not even an approximate date.
Q. But on the .....
A. If I may say this, it reads here: "Association between the insurgents with Cetniks has been confirmed," and in brackets it reads: "In my opinion not aptly described as Communists by the Commander in Serbia." That is to say, that it was not only purely Communism, but that insurgents were concerned as insurgents. That is, emphasis was laid on the word "insurgents," but that these insurgents were also Communistically influenced and influenced by Moscow is not refuted here.
Q. Field Marshal, do you recall that you said earlier that the Cetniks often fought against the Communists and here you indicate that the insurgents are collaborating with the Cetniks.
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. Did the situation change?
A. The situation did not change. That was continuously the case. Obviously here I mean by Cetniks the people around Mihajlovic and these people did partly fight with the Communists against us.
Q. Now, in any event the situation became very serious in August, September, and October of 1941. What measures did you take to put down the insurrection?
A. With this communication of the 15th September I made an application for uniform leadership in Serbia and for further forces.
Q. Did you tell your troops to take hostages?
A. Yes, that is contained in an order of the 5th of September.
Q. Did you tell your troops to put hostages on the railroad lines and if any attacks were made on the railroad lines which the hostages were to watch that the troops would then execute the hostages?
A. No.
Q. Field Marshal, will you look at Exhibit 67, which is in Document Book II, at Page 124 of the English, Page 96 of the German? I'm particularly concerned with the third page from the end of that exhibit, which is on Page 134 of the English and should be on about Page 106 of the German. This is the third page of the report from the LXVth Corps to the Commanding General Plenipotentiary in Serbia, dated 10 October 1941. Will you look at the paragraph which begins on Page 17 of the original document? It begins: "However, I told him that I could not understand his considerations regarding the taking along of hostages. If obstructions would have to be removed during the march hostages would have been the obvious labor forces. These forces would have been a means of sparing the strength of his own men. Furthermore, according to general opinion, the taking along of a greater number of male hostages who were distributed through the march columns would have represented the best protection against attacks, and so I could not see any valid reason for his failure to carry out the order." Did information of that nature ever reach you?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: We'll take our morning recess at this time. We will recess until 11:20.
(The Court recessed at 1100).