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.
I know this regiment, which at that time consisted of two battalions, I simply know it as a typical German regiment, it wore uniforms and they did everything which every other German regiment did. It was tactically put at my disposal, because in the sector of the 264th division no other forces were available for the pacifying of the country, because we then began to extend the costal fortifications and we needed all forces which were available in order to make these fortifications ready before the expected landing would occur.
Q. But, it was sent here, there and everywhere to carry out special tasks; was that right?
A. Not special tasks. In my sector they had to carry out the very same tasks, which I would ordinarily allocate to the reserve, but the reserve were already used to expedite fortifications and as I had no other forces available, the Brandenburg Regiment was committed there and did the very same thing which was done by the reserves in clearing the area of bands, and as I said before, with the help of other forces the rear area of the 264th division on the coast was in actual fact quite clear of large bands.
Q. Well, I am not attempting to question your words on that, General, I am trying to find out the nature of these subordinate units. I noticed throughout the record here that the Brandenburg regiment had been pointed out as to how they carried our reprisal measures and other measures to the extreme and were pointed out as examples that others should follow; it had that reputation didn't it?
A. No, no, I think this must be a misunderstanding. It was mentioned only once today on cross-examination in this report where one division makes the proposal that special units should be established and some of them should be in Italian uniforms or civilian clothes, but otherwise that the Brandenburg Regiment had to carry out reprisal measures, I have said nothing.
Q. No, I did not mean to infer that you had, I am merely inquiring about the history of this regiment. Maybe I am mistaken, but I got the impression that this regiment was similar to the commando or sabotage regiments in the English language; is there any similarity to it?
A. I don't know. All I know is that the regiment was directly under the O.K.W. What orders it received from it, I don't know. but as long as it was under me it did not receive any assignments from me.
Q. Was it composed of German nationals?
A. Insofar as I know, yes.
Q. General, I would like to ask you a few questions about the "Panther" operation. We will wait until after the recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 3:15 o'clock.
( A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Judge Carter.
BY JUDGE CARTER:
Q. I just want to ask you one or two questions about this operation "Panther." As I remember your testimony, you said that these hands that were congregated up in the northern sector of your territory were engaged in blasting the railroads and were committing other acts of sabotage; is that right?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. That was the necessity for your dispersing them or wiping them out?
A. I said that there were two reasons. One was that the railroad line which was vital was interrupted continuously, and these disturbances originated from that particular area. Besides, at that time the right sector of my Corps, which reached the coast, had not yet been occupied. I and my division which was to be and was, in fact, added to my forces had the task to advance to the coast. That was the reason why I had to free this area the Marika-of these strong band forces, in order to fulfill my technical task.
Q. This large band that was located there had gathered together from over a large territory, undoubtedly; is that right?
A. This area was, after the capitulation of the Italians, not occupied for some time, and I suppose the bands made use of that fact and ordered to congregate there because they also received a lot of ammunition and weapons from the Italians in that area, so that they encountered a favorable situation. That was the reason why the bands had to be dispersed and eliminated.
Q. Well, General, the only thing I wanted was your thought on this proposition, that is, if it were known that these bands were committing these acts of sabotage, what justification was there for taking reprisals against the inhabitants of these villages or communities in the neighborhood of where they took place?
Do you understand my question?
A. These acts were carried out by members of the bands which remained in those areas and no reprisals were carried out against the inhabitants of the villages but, instead, against the bands who stayed in that area. That is the same in every battle where we encounter an enemy and it was the same there. The enemy was given battle wherever we met him. There is no talk of any reprisal measures during the operation Panther.
Q. Well, you agree, don't you, that reprisal measures ought to be taken, if they are taken at all, because there is some connection between the population and the doing of the unlawful act?
A. If reprisal measures were carried out at all, then they were carried out because of these sabotage acts. Otherwise, we would have no reason to carry out any reprisals. The cause for these reprisal measures was the fact that the bands committed some act of disturbance, that they disturbed people and in any other case there wouldn't have been any reprisal measures.
Q. Then they should have been taken against some persons who had some influence on preventing their reoccurrence?
A. And if reprisal measures were taken, they were carried out against those people who were in some way connected with these reprisal acts.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Burke, do you have any questions?
JUDGE BURKE: I have no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are no further questions, the witness will be excused.
DR. TIPP: May it please the tribunal, during the course of my evidence for General Leyser, I ask to be allowed to call to the witness stand, the witness Dr. Hans Joachim von Besser.
THE PRESIDENT: Major, you may call the witness.
DR. HANS JOACHIM VON BESSER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will raise his right hand and be sworn.
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Witness, will you first of all tell the Tribunal your Christian name and your surname?
A. Dr. Hans Joachim von Besser.
Q. I would like to ask you, Witness, to make a pause before you answer my question and wait until this question has been answered.
A. Yes, all right.
Q. Will you please spell your surname?
A. B-E-S-S-E-R.
Q. Please give us the date and place of your birth.
A. I was born on the 12th of July 1911 in Berlin.
Q. I believe you will have to pause a little longer yet.
A. Yes, all right.
Q. What is your profession?
A. I am a jurist.
Q. Will you please, for the record, tell us your exact address?
A. Garmisch, Alpspitzstrasse 35.
Q. Were you a member of the Party, Herr von Besser?
A, Yes, since May 1933.
Q. Did you have any office or function in the Party?
A. No, I only paid my contributions.
Q. Were you a member of any of the formations of the Party?
A. Yes, since 1933 I worked in the NSKK. This service was the prerequisite for me to continue my studies. I then became Oberscharfuehrer and after I had finished my studies in the fall of 1934, my service with the NSKK, the National Socialist Motor Corps, finished.
Q. Will you then briefly tell us your education and your career?
A. I studied law in Freiburg Breisgau, and in Koenigsberg. In 1934 I made my first State Examination and in 1938 I was made Doctor of both laws, and in 1939 I made my final law examination in Berlin.
Q. Now, will you briefly, in large outlines, give your military career in the German Armed Forces?
A. Before the war I had taken part in some short training courses to become a Reserve Officer. In the fall of 1937 I was promoted Lieutenant of the Reserve. In 1938 I articipated in the march into the Sudetenland, and in 1939 I came to Kremsgneitzendorf, to Reconnaissance Regiment IX. In this reconnaissance regiment I took part in the Polish campaign. In 1940 I was promoted First Lieutenant and on the 1st of January 1943 I was made Captain, Cavalry.
Q. In which campaigns did you participate?
A I participated in the campaigns against Poland, against Holland and France, as leader of a panzer Reconnaissance squad. In the French campaign I was wounded; that was roughly towards June, 1940. After I had recovered, I worked as an ordnance officer in various assignments. In 1943, I was a member of the staff of the XV Mountain Corps; when General von Leyser took over the command of the corps, I was made his personal ADC.
Q How long did you remain in that position?
A I remained in this position all the time. That is, all that time which General von Leyser led the XV Mountain Corps and later the XXI Corps.
Q Please now give a brief description to the Tribunal of the task of the personal ADC.
AAn ADC constantly accompanies the commanding general. Mainly, he has the task of personally taking care of the general and guarding him.
Q In order to clearly define your testimony from the very beginning, I would like to ask you, Dr. von Besser, were you, as ADC, concerned with any tactical matters?
A I, as ADC, had nothing to do with any tactical matters. I had nothing to do with any top secret matters or any super top secret matters Neither was I concerned with working on or passing on tactical orders. I never participated in any conferences about the situation which took place almost daily in the presence of the General, the Chief of Staff, the Ia and the department leaders of the staff.
Q Witness, do you mean to express by your testimony that during all that period in question here, you were not concerned at all with issuing orders or with any tactical questions whatsoever?
A Yes, that is what I want to express. I had nothing whatsoever to do with anything concerning the issuing of orders. My knowledge of tactical matters could at the best be based on the personal discussions, and quotations made by General von Leyser. Occasionally, I took part in conferences on such trips where I accompanied the General.
Q I would therefore like to restrict your testimony to purely personal matters which concern General von Leyser, to his attitude towards questions concerning the civilian population, etc.
; all this you will see from my further questions. First of all, I would like to ask you, witness, when did you get to know General von Leyser? When did you first meet him?
A I first met General von Leyser when he arrived in Croatia on the airfield of Banja-Luka. This was in 1943, in October of that year and I fetched him from the airfield. During the course of our first conversations, we found out that General von Leyser knew my family in BerlinSpandau, the family on my mother's side. He had visited the same school as had my mother's brother and he frequently visited the house of my grandparents in Berlin-Spandau. Therefore, we had, from the very first, personal contacts and mutual friends, and this fact I might designate as a basis for our future collaboration.
Q You said, witness, that from the very first, General Leyser and you had personal points of contact. Do you mean to say by this that in a subsequent time there was a personal feeling of confidence between you apart from your official dealings between you and your commanding general?
A I believe I can answer that in the affirmative, and that applied to all that long time which I spent together with the General.
Q I would then like to ask you briefly about General von Leyser's personal attitude towards several problems which have played an important part in the course of these proceedings. First of all, since you, as you said, were a member of the party yourself, I may assume that you discussed this particular problem with General von Leyser. Can you give us your comments about this?
A Yes, of course we discussed this, General von Leyser and I. I learned here for the first time that General von Leyser was a member of the party; that was a surprise to me. I didn't know anything about it, since as a general rule professional officers are not members of the party. We reserve officers did not count as members of the party while we were on active service with the Armed Forces. Furthermore, I know from frequent conversations with General von Leyser that he rejected a number of measures either because they were measures of the National Socialist leadership or they were excesses on the part of the party.
In many points, he was of the opposite opinion and he made this quite clear to the officers of his staff.
Q General von Leyser's personal attitude has now been explained by you, witness. Are you perhaps also in a position to be a little more concrete in your comments by giving us a few specific examples illustrating this attitude?
A I remember quite a number of examples which expressed General von Leyser's attitude. There was, for instance, the abolishment of the military salute or the unjustified favoritism of the Waffen SS. All these things were a cause for him to show his dissenting opinion and he did this with great emphasis.
Q One interpolation, witness. You talked about abolishment of the military salute. Could you tell the Tribunal, in order to clarify this question, what is concerned here? I don't know whether such a specific problem can be supposed to be known to everybody here.
A The military salute was in former times, before this amendment was issued, by raising one's hand to one's cap. After the change, this particular way of saluting was forbidden and from then on the so-called German salute was to be given, which I may assume is known to everyone.
Q Do you still remember, witness, for what specific reason this way of saluting was changed? Otherwise, people might think that this is an immaterial comment of yours.
A I don't remember exactly what the cause for this change was. But it was a decisive measure for every single officer concerned.
Q Are you in a position, witness, to comment on General von Leyser's attitude to some other problems where he was in opposition to the opinion as it was generally desired?
A Yes. General von Leyser was a believing Christian and for that reason he very decidedly rejected the way the youth was brought up and the way it was kept in innocence of all religious matter, which way was at that moment promoted by the party.
Particularly, he rejected everything that had anything to do with the so-called National Socialist Guidance Officers, above all the infusion of politics and fanaticism into all military life.
Q In order not to let this examination become too theoretical, can you give us a few practical examples for this last point which you mentioned?
A Yes. In Knin I received the order by General von Leyser to establish an officer's mess. After this institution was completed, the then National Socialist Guidance officer asked me to include a speaker's rostrum with a flag in this officers' mess, and also a picture of the Fuehrer. At that time, I refused this request because I knew General von Leyser's attitude towards these things exactly. The General was of the opinion that an officer in his daily surroundings which were more than primitive, as it were, should at least find relaxation in this officers' mess. He should, therefore, not be reminded in this officers' mess of the political and military situation which was not particularly pleasant at that time, by these party emblems. General von Leyser was then asked to make a decision on this question since the National Socialist Guidance officer did not accept my ruling. General von Leyser let my decision stand and it then happened, something which was quite unusual, that in this casino or rather in this officers' club or mess there was no Fuehrer picture and the speaker's rostrum which had been requested to be decorated with the flag was also not put up. Today, this fact might seem immaterial but at that time these were questions of principle, not to say vital questions.