Perhaps you can clear up that misunderstanding; were there really no villages in the Panther area, or what did you want to say on direct examination?
A. What I think I said was, that if I mentioned small villages or places which were scarcely villages, what I meant was the mountain villages, but I don't think I said on direct examination that there were no villages at all in Croatia. In the Panther area villages certainly were there, because it was a relatively large area which was involved in this operation. I then said that there existed people who remained outside the villages during combat actions, and that they seemed to be suspects, because as a rule civilians did not like to be involved in fighting; that if such are round about in an area where there is fighting and shooting, and if people roam about in the open there, that alone is suspicious. I said it was precisely the tactics of the partisans to hide their arms as quickly as possible somewhere in order to roam about as apparently harmless civilians. That is why that passage appears in the order that these people were to be apprehended in order to find out whether they were suspects. Another point, General, which was also mentioned on your cross-examination, which was put to you by the prosecution this morning, from Document NOKW 1772 contained in Document Book XXV, which is Prosecution Exhibit 570, from page 46 of the German and page 61 of the English. This is the report by the First Mountain Division of the 10 February 1944. It concerns the situation between the 26 of January and 10 February 1944. Can you tell us first, was the First Mountain Division subordinated to you at that period of time.
A. I couldn't say that off-hand, unfortunately. I assume it was, because the villages named were in that area, and I know that for a short period of time the division was subordinate to me at once. That is all I can say with certainty.
Q. From this document the Prosecution had quoted one sentence, which reads: "Establishment of special units in British-Italian uniforms as well as civilian clothing, and for expedient employment similar to Regiment Brandenburg would certainly bring unrest to the enemy ranks, and success," and I suppose the Prosecution concluded from that that troops under you were disguised in that manner. Now, a distinction will have to be made, I figure, between the things contained in this document and the conclusions which one might possibly draw therefrom. I don't think that became quite clear from your examination. Now, I read this sentence to you again, General. Would you like to tell us what this sentence meant as it stands there?
A. Well, it is a suggestion.
Q. A suggestion by whom to whom?
A. A suggestion by the First Mountain Division is contained in this report. Whether this reached me at all cannot be seen from this document.
Q. Was the suggestion ever carried out?
A. Not as far as I was concerned. Nor do I believe I could ever carry it out, and I believe I said so this morning. The risk would have to be viewed that these people might be caught in the middle of this stratagem, and then would have to expect to be punished with death off-hand.
Q. If I understand you correctly, General, you say that this sentence amounts to a suggestion or opinion by the Division?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Then it says "similar to Regiment Brandenburg, -" I don't think that explains it quite fully, General; can you tell us once again what Regiment Brandenburg was?
A. All I can say is that this Regiment Brandenburg was subordinate to me for a short period of time, like any other military unit, and it was said of this unit that it was under the OKU direct, by whom it would from case to case or from time to time be given a special assignment. As far as I am concerned it was a unit like any other unit, such as I would use for tactical purposes, such as might become necessary in my sector.
Q. Now, if the Brandenburg Regiment was employed by you for special purposes, would it then become possible that the Brandenburg Regiment, or men of that Regiment could turn up in civilian uniforms or foreign uniforms?
A. Not that I know of, nor did I ever order such a thing. I used them as a troop unit as any other unit.
Q. Could you tell us anything about how the employment of the Brandenburg Regiment was handled, whether they changed their uniforms in that sense, as alleged here, etc.?
A. I know nothing about that.
Q. But in any case you know, according to what you said just now, these orders did not come from your corps?
A. No.
Q. General, once again this difficult question of hospitals. Destruction of hospitals, so-called hospitals, has been discussed in a number of cases in testimony before; I merely would like to make one thing clear, which wasn't made quite clear this morning in cross-examination......the Prosecution have put to you that in one document mention is made of destruction of one hospital barracks with 500 beds, in other words that must have been a fairly considerablesized hospital.
Destruction of 500 beds is mentioned in only one document, which I shall hand to you now. It is contained in Document Book XXV of the Prosecution, page 104 of the English and page 81 of the German. Let me hand you this document, General, and tell the court what actually is mentioned about the destruction of this hospital barracks in the document, which is contained in the Daily Report of your Corps, 12 June 1944 under the heading 373rd Division?
A. What it says there about the so-called hospital is this: "9 hospital barracks." I said myself that they were barracks. The Prosecution maintained that nothing was said of this in the document. They merely said that it was one hospital with 500 beds. I should like to remark in this connection that in the original this paragraph was crossed out. In other words although this has been made part of the document, it was never used as a report. Why it was not, I do not know. Perhaps the whole matter was not correct in this form because in the original the whole paragraph is crossed out.
Q. Then, there is only one more document which I'd like to discuss with you which was shown you on cross examination. This is one of those collective documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me just a moment. In connection with this document to which the defendant has just made reference, Exhibit 575, can the Tribunal see the original, is either in the court room?
MR. FULKERSEN: It has already been made an Exhibit, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but reference has been by the defendant that this portion that is in this document here was crossed out of the original. Now, we'd like to see the original. You may proceed, we will come back to that later when we get the original.
DR. TIPP: Very well, Your Honor.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. The only document left to us now is a document which the prosecution showed you on cross examination. It is one of those collective documents which always bothered us a bit. I am talking a bout NOKW-1426, introduced as Exhibit 613 by the prosecution. I only have a few questions about this exhibit. Let me show you the document first.
You were asked this morning what your attitude was concerning the conscription of able-bodied men, and what it meant when the various documents referred to the fact of the able-bodied men being apprehended. I don't know whether there was not some misunderstanding due to the translation.
It was my impression that the prosecution was of the opinion that the term "seizing able-bodied men" was equivalent to "arresting able-bodied men." The German term "erfassen", in the case of conscription into the German Wehrmacht always has been a definite term. Even at home, an able-bodied man would be "conscripted". Therefore, would you please tell us, General, what was meant by the term "erfassen" (conscripting) in the case of the German armed forces. Perhaps you can give us an example in this connection.
How, in order to specify my question, was an able-bodied man fit for military service conscripted into the Wehrmacht?
A. There was what was known as Armed Forces District Offices in Germany, and there those fit for military service had to report when it was their turn. They were then medically examined, their papers were looked over, all the personal data taken down, and then they were told that they will be sent to this or that unit as recruits; and all that we called "erfassen", the conscripting of people fit for military service. Now, if the documents here speak of the fact that these able-bodied men were conscripted, that means, as the order and also the document mention, that these able-bodied men were conscripted by a commission of the Croat authorities, in order then to be inducted into the Croatian Armed Forces. This is what we mean by "erfassen".
Q. May I draw your attention here to the fact that this term is particularly important in document NOKW-1426. First in the daily report of the 7th March, 1944 where it says under "284th Division", roughly in the middle of the page, "200 able-bodied men conscripted." May I assume, General, that this is how you want to explain this particular entry?
A. Yes.
Q. Then the same term reappears in the daily report of 9 March 1944 which is on page 4 of the translation. I think that makes that clear.
Now, another question, General, concerning the occupation and evacuation of the Island of Raab which is also discussed in this document.
The prosecution have put to your from the document just mentioned the final report concerning the Raab operation. It is contained on pages 7 and 8 of this document. It is a report by the 15th Corps of 24 March 1944, addressed to the Second Panzer Army. Do you recall, General, what division it was that occupied Raab?
A. I think it must have been the 392nd Division because it was stationed in that sector.
Q. The report which I have mentioned just now was made by the 15th Mountain Corps. What were the actual facts on which the Corps based itself for this final report?
A. It had the daily reports of the Divisions concerned.
Q. In other words, the 392. Now, the prosecution have put to you concerning the final report that it said "a hundred people arrested and transported to Fiume." This, at least, is what the final report by the Corps says, which is dated the 24th of March, and the subject of which is the Raab Operation. I would like to draw your attention to page 6 of this document. There is the daily report of 20 March 1944 which includes a report by the 392nd Division. Would please look at this report and then tell the Court whether in your opinion it could be said that this report was one of the things used for the final report by the Corps?
A. May I look at the report of the Corps again?
Q. It is part of the same document, General, a little further back, but I could also hand you the photostatic copy. Let me show you the photostatic copy, General.
A. Having compared the two reports, I'd like to say that the report by the Corps to the Panzer Army is based on the report which you have just shown me. Of course, the same subject matter is discussed, namely the occupation of the Island of Raab. We occupied it only once.
Q. Could you then tell us, General, please, whether in the daily report of the 20th of March, mention is made of those hundred people and what expression is used there about them?
A. In the report by the division, it merely says a hundred able-bodied persons brought to Fiume.
Q. And what does the Corps say?
A. The Corps says "a hundred arrestees transported." It is rather striking here that the report by the Corps also contains 25 Jews who are not mentioned by the 392nd Division. This is a symptom, as I discover here for the fact, that during the combat operation the troops only seized these hundred able-bodied persons which was not so in the case of the Jews, and then later it was probably reported to the Panzer Army that the opportunity was used for these 25 Jews to take these people on the boat to Italy.
Q. A final question in this connection, witness. This morning they put to you the question why these able-bodied people were sent to Fiume and since you say they were to be put at the disposal of the Croat authorities, I am not quite sure whether you can make this quite clear. Was Fiume a city which was exclusively subordinate to the Italian authorities, or was there another part of Fiume, an additional suburb or something, which was under Croat authorities?
A. As far as I know, part of Fiume belonged to the Croatian State. That is how I remember it, at least. And there, I suppose, one of those agencies had its seat which accepted able-bodied recruits and that one simply used these boats, since these people had to be transported somewhere, to take them to Fiume.
Q. My final question, general. The report does not say anything about the 25 Jews being deported as arrestees. All it says is that they were transferred to Fiume.
A. Yes. That becomes quite clear from the report, especially if you compare those two reports.
DR. TIPP: Thank you very much. I have no further questions on redirect examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Do other counsel for the defense have any further redirect examination? Is there any limited recross examination on behalf of the prosecution?
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. FULKERSEN:
Q. There are just a few things I would like to ask you, General. You gave us a fairly detailed description here in the last few minutes about how these executions of hostages were carried out, that is, who had to be consulted and who was in charge of it, etc. Now you have emphasized that there are only two references in these documents that refer to reprisal actions in which persons were actually hanged or put to death in some manner in your corps area while you were there and you disclaimed having any knowledge about either one of these. You said you did not have any independent recollection of either incident.
How then.... That is true, isn't it? You said you did not recall either one of these instances?
A. I did not say that. When am I supposed to have said that?
Q. You recall that you were questioned first about the 22 hostages who were hanged at the site of the blasting -- I believe that is almost literally what the document said. You said you didn't know anything about that. Then you recall that in the course of direct examination, Dr. Tipp read this short passage in which it said that 20 hostages were either hanged or shot, I don't recall what, and you said you could not tell from the document what that was about and that you had no recollection of that. Do you recall that?
A. No.
Q. The only reference in the document is the 22 hostages and you said that you did not have any recollection at all about that incident.
A. I never said that. During my examination I stated how I supposed the matter went at the time but I never said that I did not recall the matter. I cannot remember saying anything like that.
Q. Well, then, let me ask you now. Do you or do you not recall any incidents in your Corps in which hostages were hanged or shot?
A. I am saying that on the basis of the documents given me I reconstructed the incident as I think it happened at the time and I have stated that on the basis of existing orders and regulations I explained how a matter of that sort was handled; and as, according to the documents which I have seen and which were submitted by the prosecution, this incident occurred in the sector of the 15th Corps, I stated this incident must have been handled as it was ordered.
Q. Well, I repeat my question, General. Do you personally recall any occurrences in which hostages were hanged or shot in the area of the 15th Corps while it was under your command; regardless of what's in the documents or what is not in the documents, do you recall any such incidents?
A. If I remember an incident I remember it only on the basis of the documents. I know, for instance, that I was asked by an interrogator, and I did not remember these incidents at all; but the fact is actually that in the course of this trial and as you see the documents you remember more and more than you did at the beginning of the trial. Now, having been given all these documents again and having perused them, many things come back to me.
Q. Well, what comes back to you by way of recollection of reprisal measures taken against hostages? What comes back to you, now that your memory has been refreshed, because you have given us here a rather elaborate description.
A. I can say that I do remember this one incident on the basis of the documents you have shown me.
Q. And that is the only incident you can remember?
A. I did not understand the question.
Q. And that is the only incident of the sort you can remember?
A. As far as I remember, I cannot remember any other incident because otherwise it would probably have been used here.
Q. Now you have testified about this independent Croatian State at some length on redirect and I just want to ask you one or two questions about that. It was, to put it mildly, at least a convenience to the Germans for an independent Croatia to exist, wasn't it?
A. I do not quite know whether I understood you rightly. You said it was convenient -- did you say convenient?
Q. I mean by this, General, by the simple act of sending a diplomatic representative to Zagreb, and recognizing an independent Croatia, the German Wehrmacht was transmuted from a hostile occupying army to an ally. Isn't that correct?
A. I would like to say that this was none of my business. As a soldier, I went down there and took over my Corps, and I was told that the Croatian State was an ally of Germany's. I therefore did my duty and my service down there as I had to, as a soldier. Politics were none of my business.
What my government does -- if my government does this -it is hardly a soldier's business to make any decisions in that respect. As far as I was concerned, this was an established fact and as a soldier I had to be content with it.
MR. FULKERSEN: I have no further questions.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. General Leyser, in connection with Exhibit 575, to which you made reference earlier this afternoon, and concerning which you made the statement that a certain portion of this document was crossed out -
A. It says so in the document.
Q. In the German document and it also states that in the English document. Now is there any material in this document, Exhibit 575, which you want to call to the attention of the Tribunal?
A. I don't think.... I think this is a different document.
DR. TIPP: May it please the Tribunal. May I just have a look at this photostatic copy which is the document to which the General had reference this morning? I can clear this up, your Honor, what General von Leyser meant before. He had reference to the daily report by the 373rd Division of 12 June 1944 and he told the Tribunal that that daily report was crossed out in the original. I see from the photostatic copy which is before me that actually on the first page the daily report by the 392nd Division and also by the 373rd Division are crossed out. They are the last two paragraphs on that page.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Now what type of a report was this? Was this the final draft?
A. Yes, it is, as I said before. This paragraph is crossed out. I read before "9 hospital barracks with 500 beds." I read this aloud and it is crossed out here.
Q. Can you give any statement or explanation, or do you have any knowledge, or from your prior experience would you know when that would be crossed out, or hew it would be crossed out or by whom it would be crossed out?
A. My explanation is that on the basis of inquiries which were made it was found that this teletype letter -- I believe it is a teletype letter -- yes, it is, a teletype letter, - that inquiries were made and then information was received that all this was an error, and therefore these things were crossed out. Therefore it does not mean that the things which were crossed out actually happened. I can therefore assume quite easily that all these things were a mistake. It cannot be a fact because otherwise there would be no reason to cross out the entire paragraph. There must have been an error made somewhere.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all the questioning I care to participate in. Judge Carter?
EXAMINATION BY JUDGE CARTER:
Q. General, I would like to ask you a few questions about this matter of subordination of various units to your command. Let us start first with the SS Divisions. As I understand your statement, the SS generally was a political organization in Germany, is that correct?
A. The SS was a political organization and it included elements of the Waffen-SS, which in wartime were employed as troop units.
Q. Now the Waffen SS Divisions were regularly trained military units, is that correct?
A. Yes, their training and equipment was entirely military.
Q. And who trained them?
A. The SS itself, because the SS included a large number of former officers and N.C.O's, or officers of the Wehrmacht and N.C.O.'s were transferred on order in some cases to the SS.
Q. In other words, regular Wehrmacht officers were used to command the SS divisions, is that correct?
A. I do not think that would be quite correct. The Waffen SS was an entirely independent unit. As far as I know, when war broke out, it consisted, I believe, of 3 SS regiments; and those 3 SS regiments, in the first months of the war, were transformed into an SS Division and the officers had different titles and ranks; for instance, with the SS they were not called captains they were called Hauptsturmfuehrer, Sturmbannfuehrer, etc. That part of the SS was trained and equipped in exactly the same manner as the Wehrmacht. It was trained by officers because a large number of those SS officers were formerly, before 1933, active officers of the Wehrmacht and they trained the SS as well.
Q. Well, now, they were a part of the armed forces of Germany, though, were they not?
A. Yes.
Q. But not strictly considered a part of the German Wehrmacht, is that correct?
A. Yes. They were completely segregated from the army. Perhaps I may make an additional explanation. The German Wehrmacht, the armed forces, consisted of the army, the luftwaffe, and the navy. In addition, later on the SS belonged to the Wehrmacht, but under Himmler's own leadership. But the SS, under Himmler, was not subordinate to the O.K.H.
It was on an equal footing to the Supreme Commander of the Army, in the person of Himmler, so that the army could take no influence in personnel matters or any other problems; it had no authority toward the SS.
Q. But it was subordinate to Hitler, is that right?
A. To Hitler, yes.
Q. Now the Skanderbeg and Prinz Eugen Divisions were examples of SS Divisions, isn't that right?
A. Yes, they were SS Divisions.
Q. Now, were they composed of German nationals entirely?
A. They were not all of them Germans. In the case of these Allied States, Himmler had got the Fuehrer to allow that SS units could be formed. Therefore, in Croatia, from among ethnic German, although they were citizens of the Croat State, the Prinz Eugen Division was formed, and in Albania, from the Koterow Area, the SS Division Skanderbeg was formed. The Leader Corps of the SS Division consisted of Germans.
Q. Well, the truth of the matter is, then, that Croatians and Croatian Nationals were used in these SS Divisions?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in the recruiting of able-bodied Croatians, were they sometimes assigned to these SS Divisions by the Croatian Government?
A. I must say I am not quite sure about that point. All I know is that the distribution of the recruits of the able-bodied men who were conscripted was a privilege of the Croatian Ministry of War. How the SS and the Croatian Ministry of War came to an agreement and what arrangement they arrived at I am unable to say, your Honor, because I had nothing to do with it.
Q. Well, when these SS Divisions were subordinated to you for tactical purposes, you say that you had no disciplinary rights over them?
A. No. That was the peculiar thing. They were tactically subordinate but if any irregularity occurred, although I was the commanding general and was higher in rank than their commanding officer I had no possibility of taking disciplinary steps.
Q. What did you do when a unit of the SS failed to carry out orders, or deliberately failed to do something that you ordered them to do?
A. All I could do in that case would be to report this to the Army and the Army would pass the report on. The taking of steps was done through SS channels.
Q. And your efficiency as an Army Commander in the handling of these SS troops depended upon the higher officers of the SS in some instances, is that right?
A. I am afraid I do not quite follow - I do not quite see what you are driving at. If an SS Division was under me and if it was subordinate to me, it would receive a tactical order from me, which it carried out as a troop unit.
Q. And if they did not carry it out you had to depend upon some higher SS officer to take the corrective measures? You could not do a thing about it yourself?
A. Yes, quite.
Q. Now, during the time that these SS Divisions were subordinate to you tactically, did you consider them then to be a part of the German Wehrmacht or of the German armed forces under your command?
A. Yes. They were tactically subordinate to me and as such were a part of the Wehrmacht, tactically.
Q. I would like to ask you a few questions about the Ustasha. As I understand it, the Ustasha generally was a political party and the Ustasha Battalions were military units similar to the SS as it existed in Germany. That is right, isn't it?
A. Yes, quite.
Q. Now Croatia was conquered by the Germans at the time they overran the country of Yugoslavia, isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. So that the German Wehrmacht became the occupant of the whole country of Yugoslavia?
A. Yes, including the Italians in the beginning, of course. They were part of the occupation force.
Q. Now, when the new State of Croatia was set up - the government was set up - it was really a puppet government of Germany, was it not?
A. No, I don't think you could say that. It was a government properly appointed.
Q. But you, as a German commander in Croatia, would not tolerate a hostile Croatian government, would you?
A. Croatia was a friendly state; had it had a hostile government it would have been a hostile country. I and my corps would not have been in a position to establish a pro-German government or dethrone an anti-German government. We had nothing to do with political matters.
Q. Well, if the government had been anti-German you would have disposed of it very promptly, if you had had the force to do it, wouldn't you?
A. I was not the only commanding general in Croatia and what would have happened is that I would have been given directives first by a higher agency. There were three corps in Croatia.
Q. General, was there ever a time when you called on the Croatians for the commitment of the Croatian Wehrmacht or the Croatian Ustasha, that they refused to commit their troops?
A. It never happened in my sector, no. If you mean by that that now and again Ustasha Battalions said they had been given a different order by their superiors, then yes. But otherwise I cannot say that the Croatian government refused to give us troops.
Q. Do you know any instance, whether in your sector or not, whether they ever refused to commit their troops when the German authorities called upon them to do so?
A. No, I know of no such a case.
Q. Well, the fact is that whether or not these troops, the Croatian troops, were subordinate to you or not, they were in fact subordinate to the German authorities, were they not?
A. No, they were not always subordinate, but only in the case of certain operations, other wise while they were stationed in their garrisons, they were under the Croatian Minister of War and the Coratian officers issued orders to them.
Q. But, whenever the German competent authorities informed the Ministry of War what to do with the troops, they always carried out the order; did they not?
A. I am sure an agreement and collaboration existed, because it was a friendly state and I believe this would be customary among Allies, but how the negotiations were made, I do not know, I was not present because I was not the man who was supposed to maintain liaison.
Q. The Croatian, Ustasha and Domobranas as well were armed with the German arms; were they not?
A. With German arms and in some cases also Italian arms, I believe, but mostly German arms.
Q. Now did any of these units have German officers?
A. You mean the Croatian armed forces, sir?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. They did have German officers that trained them?
A. That might have been so at the beginning, but I am not sure.
Q. Now, I would like to ask you a few questions about the S.D. As I understand it, the S. D. was in the nature of a police organization; is that your statement?
A. It was part of the police and was under the SS and Police leader.
Q. And it is your statement that this police leader was not subordinate to you?
A. No, he was not subordinate to me.
Q. But there were times when you committed the S.D. to certain duties in connection with the operations of the German armed forces; did you not?
A. As for instance in the case of the "Panther" operation, the S. D. groups as they called themselves, were at the suggestion of the General plenipotentiary in Croatia, General von Glaese, attached to the advancing troops and units.
Q. This subordination took place by agreement, is that your contention?
A. Yes.
Q. And that you had no rights over the S.D. at all unless by arrangement with higher SS officers?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I would like to ask a few questions about this Cossack division; where did the soldiers come from that composed the Cossack division?
A. I am not too well informed about the details. They were Caucasians, Don Cosacs and some of them were deserters from the Russian campaign who had volunteered and they had been organized into a unit. How it came about and when it happened, I am afraid is beyond my knowledge. All I know is that they at that time came into my corps area.
Q. But, they were not composed of German nationals were they; the first Cossack division was not composed of German nationals?
A. No, no they were real Cossacks, real full-fledged Russian Cossacks.
Q. Did they have German officers?
A. Yes.
Q. And they were fully subordinate to you when they were committed to your territory?
A. Yes, for a certain period of time.
Q. Now, you had two other divisions in your corps, one of which was entirely German, that was the 264th, and then two Croatian Legion divisions, German-Croatian Legion divisions as we called them. This was the 373rd and 392nd divisions. They were Legion divisions which consisted of about 60 or 70% Croatians, the officers were German and so were the N.C.O.'s, the others were ethnic Germans who lived in Croatia.
Q. The point I am getting at, General, is this, when you were taking these able-bodied Croatians into custody, which you say were turned over to the Croatian Government, many of them were subsequently used in these divisions, which you were using in this territory; were they not?
A. From among the able-bodied men, the Croatian Ministry of War or any other agency distributed them to the two divisions, which I mentioned, as well as to their own armed forces.
Q. So that you were in fact recruiting those able-bodied men for German units; is that not right? They eventually reached German units?
A. They remained with the two Croatian divisions and they were led by Germans.
Q. Now, a few questions about this Brandenburg division; was this an SS division or SS regiment?
A. No.
Q. It was a special service regiment; wasn't it?
A. I believe I said before it was directly under the OKW. About how it was organized in detail I am afraid I cannot make state ments.