Are you in a position to tell us anything about this, Herr von Besser?
A I must say that in the Croatian area General von Leyser had no personal contact with the agencies of the SS nor did he have any personal contact with the SD. On the contrary, he rejected all these people according to his innermost opinion and attitude.
Where Albania was concerned, where at first I was not his A.D.C., I can only say that there, too, I did not see anything like a collaboration.
DR. TIPP: May it please the Tribunal, I have at the moment no further questions to put to Herr von Besser.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You may cross examine the witness.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. FULKERSON:
Q Herr von Besser, I believe you executed an affidavit for Dr. Tipp on the 17th of October. Is that right?
DR. TIPP: May it please the Tribunal, I object to this question as a precautionary measure because this affidavit was never introduced by me. It is not a subject in this procedure and it has not been made a subject of direct examination by me.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I think the question is proper. The objection is overruled.
A I have executed one affidavit.
Q In which you set out a good deal of what your testimony here for the last day has been.
A Yes. That is right.
Q I was particularly struck by the fluency with which you were able to answer Dr. Tipp's questions. Would you mind telling me this: were you testifying spontaneously or were you on an occasion reading from a prefabricated script that you had already prepared?
A For the testimony which I have made here I did not read from anything.
Q I notice you produced a sheet pf notes from your pocket when you first began to testify and that you seemed to refer to them rather closely as you went along.
A It is true that I made a few notes just to support my memory.
Q Do you have any objection to me seeing the notes?
DR. TIPP: May it please the Tribunal, that has not been customary here at all, that the prosecutor wanted to see these notes. I assume that Herr von Besser has no objection to the prosecutor seeing these notes but it has not so far been customary in this proceeding. He may ask whether the witness has made any notes and the witness has answered this question in the affirmative. The prosecutor has further asked what kind of notes they were and this question has been answered, too. I do not believe the prosecutor has a right to look at these notes which the witness has made, as he said, to support his memory.
The witness is under oath. He has to be responsible for what he says and how he says it and I believe a further clarification of this point is no longer necessary. I, therefore, object to this way of questioning.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The objection is overruled.
Q Do you have any objection to my looking at the notes personally?
A Yes, certainly, go ahead.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. TIPP:
Q Herr Kobe, before we start this examination, following up an incident which occurred during the examination of Herr von Besser, I would like to put a few questions to you.
A Please go ahead.
Q First of all, will you please tell the Tribunal how you came to appear as a witness here for General von Leyser?
A I read in the newspaper that my former commanding general, General von Leyser, had been accused of war crimes, and later from a comrade I learned that certains matters were concerned here also which took place in Croatia. Since I myself realized that everything was in order down there I thought that I should have to report myself in order to discuss and clarify certain problems of importance here, at least where my divisional area was concerned. For this purpose I obtained your address here, Dr. Tipp, and I wrote to you and gave you a general survey. Consequently you contacted me, and the correspondence which followed led to the fact that I was called here as a witness.
Q Before your being examined here did we discuss all the matters to become subject of this examination?
A Yes, we discussed all these problems.
Q Did I, on that occasion, suggest or dictate any answers to you?
A No, the answers which I intend to give are based on the pure truth only. That is a matter of course. After all, I am under oath here.
Q In preparation for your examination did you make any notes, Herr Kobe?
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Sauter for the Defendants Lanz and von Geitner.
May it please the Tribunal, I would like the Tribunal's attention for just a few moments...
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You have it, Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: Because this is a question of fundamental importance.
Up to this date in the proceedings which have been held here before the International Military Tribunal and before the American Tribunals it was not customary for the Prosecution to ask to have a look at the notes which a witness has made for himself. Of course I completely comply with the ruling of the Tribunal without, in any way, criticizing it. I am obliged, as a German defense counsel, to point out the danger of this procedure by the Prosecution. During the days of the International Military Tribunal, and during the trials before the American Tribunals, we were repeatedly told that the Defense should maintain exactly the same position as does the Prosecution, but up to this date I have never seen that a German defense counsel considered it correct or tactful to ask, here in the Courtroom, to look at notes made by a witness of the Prosecution. I am convinced that no representative of the Prosecution would have agreed to us defense counsel's looking at notes and papers of an incriminating witness. The Tribunal has made a ruling for this particular, specific case, but I have to point out the consequences of this ruling because we defense counsel find the Defense extremely difficult. In future cases we would have to assume that the Tribunal consent to the Prosecution's looking at all notes here in the Courtroom of a witness called by us. I believe this makes our defense extremely difficult, and, if what took place here just now becomes known in public, and if every witness called as Defense witness to this witness-stand has to count on a repetition of this, or on the fact that he had to show everything which he has in his pockets to the Prosecution so that they might check up on it, this will make it, for all practical purposes, impossible for us to get one more future witness to Nurnberg or to get an affidavit from any further witness. I take the liberty, Your Honors, to point out these consequences. They are very serious.
MR. FULKERSEN: May I say a word, if Your Honors please?
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I don't think it's necessary. In answer to what Dr. Sauter has said, the ruling of the Court is based on the proposition that when a witness uses notes, that is a privilege that we have accorded him, but on cross-examination the Prosecution has the right to find out the nature of those notes.
It goes to the credibility of his evidence and to the credibility of the witness also. The ruling doesn't mean that if he has some paper in his pockets that he hasn't used the Prosecution can compel him to produce it. That is the effect of the ruling. Notes and papers used by the witness to refresh his memory can be requested by the Prosecution. The objection will be overruled.
JUDGE BURKE: There's one member of the Tribunal who does not agree. I beg to disagree with that ruling, and I wish the record to show it.
DR. SAUTER: May it please the Tribunal, I do not want to delay the continuity of this proceeding, but may I put one question to the Tribunal? Does this point of view, which has been expressed here, apply only to the Prosecution, or does it also apply to the Defense? In other words, what interests me, and I believe also my colleagues, is the following question: If a witness of the Prosecution appears here am I also entitled, with the consent of the Tribunal, to ask him to produce such notes in this Courtroom as he may have made for the Prosecution, so that I or my colleagues might check these notes and make them subject of future actions against anybody--possibly against the witness? Or does this ruling apply only to the Prosecution? In that case I believe my colleagues and I would like to know the ruling for future instances.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The ruling applies both ways. If the Prosecution witness uses notes you are entitled to inspect them and interrogate about the source of his knowledge, whether he's reading something or if he is testifying from his own memory. That's a matter which applies to the Defense just the same as to the Prosecution.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor,...
JUDGE BURKE: Just a moment. The Prosecution's case apparently has been concluded.
DR. SAUTER: I shall not omit, in every single instance where the Prosecution might call any future witness, to cause the witness, in the same manner as has been done here, to produce his notes. Also, in future trials I shall use this ruling of the Tribunal as an example.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You may proceed, Mr. Fulkersen.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. FULKERSEN:
Q I notice here only Pages 13 through 18. Did you have twelve additional pages, twelve pages that you used yesterday which you didn't bring here today?
A I haven't them on me.
Q Would you mind later on in the day getting those other twelve pages and letting me have them please?
A I don't see any reason for this.
Q Then you object to producing the other twelve pages?
A Yes, I object to that.
Q Why?
A I personally feel--I would like to put it this way--that this is a criticism of my person. If my words are not believed that these notes merely are intended to support my memory, doubtlessly in order to bring a certain continuity to my testimony, I could have done without these notes because I had sufficient time to think about the problems and about the notes, and I assure you I would not have needed the notes. I, as a legal man, would show up pretty poorly were I not in a position to say in a logical sequence, without these notes, such as I put it down in these notes in a dialectical sense here. Furthermore, the Prosecutor has sufficient opportunity to cross-examine to check whether or not I am in a position to answer all those questions which he intends to put to me quickly, logically, and fluently.
Q But the Prosecution is not in a position to see whether you were, in fact, testifying spontaneously or whether you were just reading a script of questions and answer that you had prepared before you came in Court, unless you give us what you were reading from.
Then, you still object to letting us have that?
A I still object.
Q I have no further questions, Your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Any further questions by counsel for the Defense?
DR. TIPP: Dr. Tipp, Your Honor.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. TIPP:
Q I have one question to put to you, Herr von Besser, and it is the following: Were the questions--to put it better--were the answers which you gave here dictated to you by me?
A I, as a legal man, am completely aware of the meaning, first of all, of an affidavit, and I am also fully aware what it means to me to give testimony on the witness-stand on oath before this Tribunal, which is all in public. It's, therefore, to me a matter of course even assuming that I would have read these things from prepared notes, that I did not speak under any pressure or under any leading questions of the Prosecution, or even worse that they had been dictated to me.
Q I have no further questions.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The notes that you have taken from the witness should be returned to him now. (THE PROSECUTION RETURNS NOTES IN QUESTION TO WITNESS) Are there any further questions?
If not, the witness will be excused.
(WITNESS HANS JOACHIM von BESSER WAS EXCUSED)
DR. TIPP: I would like to call the next witness for General von Leyser, the Witness Gert Kobe.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The Marshall will call the witness.
(GERT KOBE, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:)
You will raise your right hand and be sworn. I swear by God, the Almighty and Omiscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(THE WITNESS REPEATED THE OATH.)
You may be seated.
A Yes, I made some notes in order to support my memory.
Q Is it necessary that you use these notes during your examination?
A No, not necessarily, but it would be a little better because then the examination could continue clearly and logically.
Q Do you have any misgivings that these notes are given to the Prosecutor after your examination?
A No, none.
Q Then, after we have cleared this formal question I would like to start with the factual examination. The Tribunal knows who you are, witness, but I would like you to give us, again for the record, your first name and surname.
A. My name is Gert Kobe.
Q. Will you please spell your surname?
A. (SPELLING) K-0-B-E.
Q. I would like to ask you to pause a little longer between question and answer.
When and where were you born?
A. I was born on the 28th of February 1914 in Bettingen near Wertheim on the Main River.
Q. Please give us your present address.
A. My present address is Domaene Lune near Rothenburg, Hannover.
Q. What is your profession at the moment?
A. I am a farming trainee.
Q. And what was your former profession?
A. I was a professional officer.
Q. What was your last rank in the Armed Forces?
A. I was a Lieutenant Colonel in the General Staff.
Q. A little slower please. Make a longer pause.
Were you a member of the Party or any of its formations?
A. No.
Q. Please give the Tribunal a brief outline of your military career.
A. On the 1st of April 1932 I entered the Reichswehr as an officer candidate. After I had been to the military academy, on the 1st of October 1934, I became an officer. On the 1st of September 1939 with my active regiment, of which I was Company Chief, I entered the war, and I participated as such in the Polish campaign. During the French campaign I was regimental adjutant in the same regiment, and soon afterwards I became aide-de-camp to the 50th Division. With this unit I participated in the Greek campaign and in 1941 I participated in the first part of the Russian campaign. Towards New Year of 1942 I became Battalion Commander in my old regiment. Soon after that, however, in the spring, I was called to Berlin to the training course for General Staff Officers. After that I became Ib of the 383d Division, which was stationed between Kursk and Orel in Russia.
As Ib I had to deal with the supplies of my division. In November, 1942 I became the leader of the Courrier Air Liaison, and I was transferred as such to the OKH. After about four or five months I was made Ia of the Xth Army Corps near Lake Ilmen in Russia. When the Russians advanced an army group was organized in order to prevent this advance, which became a break through eventually and I was made Ia of this army group. After we had solved the task assigned to the army group was dissolved in December, 1943. I, was called to the 392nd Division as Ia, which was just about to be organized.
Q. Could you tell us please, witness, where this division was organized?
A. In Doellersheim near Vienna.
Q. You told us you were made Ia of this division. How long did you remain in that position?
A. Until about the 11th of March 1945.
Q. Would you briefly tell the Tribunal what your further assignments were during the war?
A. I then became leave representative of the Iaf, who is assistant of the Ia in the Staff of the Commander in Chief West. I was there when the war ended.
Q. You were taken prisoner of war, Herr Kobe?
A. Yes, after the troops were demobilized -- I believe at the beginning of July, 1945.
Q. And in the meantime you have been released from capivity?
A. Yes, on the 4th of December we were dismissed.
Q. We will now return to the subject of your testimony. There are a few questions which I would like to put to you concerning the position of a Ia with a division. First of all, will you tell us briefly what are the tasks of the Ia for a division.
A. A divisional Ia is mainly a tactical assistant to the divisional commander. Furthermore he has to deal with the position of the enemy, and the Ic helped him in this.
He was also responsible to the divisional commander for the supply of the division. For this purpose the Ib was at his disposal, who was the second staff officer in the division.
Q. You, as Ia, did you have the authority to issue your own orders?
A. No, I did not have such an authority. If I had to issue any orders this was done by order, or rather as a deputy in the absence of the divisional commander.
Q. If I understand you correctly, witness, these were always orders of the divisional commander.
A. Yes, that is right. This can be seen from the form in which these orders were signed, and this whole matter can easily be made clear from our regulations for the General Staff Service.
Q. Witness, these regulations for the General Staff Service, is that the so-called "Red Donkey"?
A. Yes, that's the first part of it.
Q. You, as Ia, did you have anything in particular to do with questions of jurisdiction?
A. I had nothing to do with this. The Court Martial advisor of the division was immediately subordinate to the divisional commander as the jurisdictional authority.
Q. Now, to the proper commitment of your division. Will you please tell the Tribunal the exact designation which your division had?
A. My division was called the 392nd (Croatian Infantry Division).
Q. If I understand you correctly just before you said that this division was newly created on the maneuvering field Doellersheim hear Vienna?
A. Yes.
Q. When end where was this division committed?
A. The division, as of the 2nd of January 1944, was sent by train to Zagreb, and from there it was given the task to occupy the area which for sometime had not been occupied. This was in the area between the Croatian Frontier near Fiume and Karlovac.
That is further south, along the Adriatic Coast. This area was to be liberated and held.
Q. To whom was your division subordinate during that commitment?
A. The division was subordinate to the XVth Mountain Corps.
Q. And who was, at the time, Commanding General of the XVth Mountain Corps?
A. General von Leyser.
Q. What was the personnel of this division, witness?
A. The division consisted of one-third Germans, who were mostly officers or non-commissioned officers, and the remaining two-thirds were Croatians. They were the men. All officers were Germans.
Q. Was this division a Croatian Army unit, or was it a German unit, Herr Kobe?
A. No, it was a German unit. That can be seen from the number -392nd Division.
Q. Now, another question as to the constellation of your division. You said that, for the most part, the men were Croatians, if I understood you correctly. How did your division get replacements for their men? Were you entitled to recruit Croatian inhabitants for the armed service, or how was this done?
A. Our replacements were sent to us via the replacement depot for all German Croatian divisions, which also was situated neav Vienna. It was rather far to get there and it was dangerous and we would rather have got our replacements from the area where we were fighting, in order to be able to commit these people in their own home areas and then it would hot have been necessary for us to cope with the problem of this long distance.
Q. From what agency, witness, were the Croatians recruited for military service and sent to the replacement depot near Vienna?
A. That was purely a Croatian matter. The Croatians had their own military districts who dealt with this, together with the responsible German authorities in Zagreb.
Q. You said just now that the division would have found it better to get their replacements from the areas where the division was committed. I suppose by this you mean that the division would have liked to train its men itself, is that correct?
A. Yes, you understood me correctly, and I would like to add that many people volunteered in our area.
Q. Did you at any time take steps to get permission to commit, directly, those Croatian inhabitants with the division? In order to clarify this question I would like to add something, Herr Kobe. When I say "you", I do not mean you, personally, as the 1-A of the DivisionI mean the division, generally, or, rather, in particular you divisional commander. Just so you know what I mean.
A. Yes, of course.
Q. My question, then, was whether at any time the division at tempted to get permission to recruit and train their own men?
A. Yes, I believe at one time we made such a request. That was after we had discussed the matter properly with our Croatian liaison officer.
Q. To what agency did you address this request, or this paper?
A. We could only do this through official channels to the 15th Corps.
Q. Could the 15th Corps, on their own, decide about this request, Herr Kobe?
A. I do not know but I do not suppose so.
Q. Do you remember what decision was made as an answer to your request?
A. No, I do not know that any longer. In any case, I do not know that at a later time we actually did carry out recruitments or training.
Q. I beg your pardon, your answer was not quite clear. Do you mean that at a later time you did make any recruitments, or that you didn't?
A. No, we did not make any recruitments.
Q. One further question. For the first time just now you mentioned the Croatian liaison officer, that is your liaison officer. May I ask you, Herr Kobe, whether such a liaison officer was constantly with the staff of your division? I would also like to make it clear to us what the connection was between your division and the Croatian civilian and military authorities.
A. Yes. We had to deal with several liaison officers. There was the military liaison officer; he was constantly with us; and he was the Croatian Domobran Colonel Saska, the representative of the Croatian Armed Forces. Then we had constantly with us a representative of the Croatian Armed Forces. Then we had constantly with us a representative of the Croatian government, a plenipotentiary. The first one of those State Secretary Markovic, who later on played an important part in the public life of Croatia.
The second one of these was a Croatian Colonel, whose name I no longer recall; and the third one, who stayed with us for the longest period, was the Croatian Lieutenant Colonel Vilhar. He was......
Q. Just a moment, witness. Could you please spell the name, if you can do it?
A. V-i-l-h-a-r. He was an old Austro-Hungarian officer, a Croatian of course, and was a shoolfriend and close friend of my divisional commander who also was an Austrian. Then, for church affairs, we had a Croatian Divisional Chaplain, a Catholic priest, and a Noslem priest. And, finally, we had constantly close contacts with the Grossgespans chaft, this would about compare with our county and the Grossgespansor Veliky Zupan, as the Croatian expression goes, was, so to speak, the Croatian district commissioner.
Q. If I understood you correctly, Herr Kobe, then you had constantly with your staff, two liaison men of the Croatian staff one officer for the military sector and a representative for the civilian interests of the Croatian State, is that correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. You talked, just now, about the Grossgespanschaft. Can you, from your memory, tell us briefly how the Croatian civilian administration was sub-divided in your divisional area?
A. Yes. When we occupied the area, throughout this district including the islands of Rab and Tab, an orderly Croatian administration was established. In our area we had the Grossgespanschaft Lika Backa, whose headquarters was in Gospic; the Grossgespan, which could be compared with the German District Commissioner, was a Croatian chaplain. Then we had the Grossgespanschaft or Province Vinodol, whose headquarters were in Sinja and before that in Fiume-Sisak; and then we had the Grossgespanschaft or province Modrusch, whose seat was in Obolin.
The District Commissioner of Sinie was known to me personally and I saw a lot of him.
Q. Now we will return to the two Croatian liaison officers. Was the collaboration between the divisional staff and these liaison men close, or was it just a loose contact?
A. No. It was a very close contact and I can say that it was a very good, friendly relationship, which can be seen even from our constellation. Sometimes we ourselves did not know any longer whether we were Croatians or Germans.
Q. Initially, on examination, you said that you were 1-A of your division from December 1943 - January 1944, until March 1945. Was the division committed in the same Croatian area during the whole time ?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. You personally, then, stayed for quite some time in that area and I can therefore assume that you have gained particular knowledge about the conditions and the method of fighting in the Croatia area, is that correct?
A. Yes, my divisional commander and I were alternately almost all the time on trips throughout the area. We wanted to keep up a constant connection with the troops in spite of the large distances and we believed that this could be achieved only by consistently visiting the troops. Furthermore, we wanted to and had to keep up the contact with the population and with the country, because in the final analysis that was the only way in which we could gain a clear picture about our enemy.
Q. You have repeatedly talked of your divisional commander. Perhaps you would give the Tribunal the name of your divisional commander and his service rank and perhaps you would tell us whether he had any particular knowledge or any particular capabilities which made him especially suitable as a leader of such a division?
A. His name was General Lieutenant (Major General) Mickl-M-i-c-k-l, and he was an old active Austrian officer. In my opinion he had extraordinary capabilities. After the World War he had defended Styria his home province against the attacking Yugoslavs and even in those days there was a memorial erected to him in his home country. He spoke the Croatian language and he, as well as I, myself, was particularly interested in the country, in the inhabitants, and particularly in our own Croatian soldiers and we were very fond of them. He was an extremely brave man - I hardly ever encountered a soldier of such extraordinary bravery.
Q. You told us before, Herr Kobe, that your division was a German Army unit and that the personnel of this unit consisted, for the most part, of Croatian inhabitants. A very important question has been touched upon during these proceedings - that is, the question of the indigenous units. We have taken a lot of trouble to clarify the problem of these indigenous units. Since you have been in that district for such a long time, perhaps you could give us an explanation of what one understands, under indigenous units?
A. Croatia was an independent State. It was called Independent Croatian State. This state had its own War Ministry and it had its own armed forces, consisting of Army, Navy and Air Force. Furthermore, it had an independent formation of armed forces, the Ustasha Units. As far as I could gauge it from my area, the Ministry had subdivided the armed forces into divisions and these divisions, according to the service age of the Croatian officers, were either led by a Ustasha officer or by a Domobran officer who was a member of the regular armed forces of Croatia. We had the 13th Croatian division in Karlovac but only a part of this division took part in the fighting in our area. The 15th Croatian division was stationed in Gospic and we were particularly in constant touch with the 15th Croatian division and collaborated with this division. Under these divisions there were Croatian Rifle Brigades, artillery detachments and signal detachments. The rifle brigades were subdivided into regiments, battalions and companies, exactly the same as with the German armed forces. The Ustasha was subdivided into brigades; below the brigade there were battalions and companies, just exactly the same as with the German armed forces.
Q. May I say something, witness: In order to have the whole thing quite clear, when you are talking about Ustasha I believe you mean the Ustasha fighting units, these Ustasha battalions as they are called here in the documents?
A. Yes, they are the ones I mean.
A. I would then like you to continue.
A. Well, I had more or less concluded.
A. All right. If I understood you correctly then, Herr Kobe, you described to us the Croatian Armed Forces that one had to gain the impression that those were properly organized Armed Forces such as every other State has them?
A. Yes, that is exactly how it is.
Q. You were talking about the Croatian Divisional Commanders who were in your area and you talked about the collaboration between you and those divisional commanders.
I would like to ask you whether these divisional commanders were, on principle, and for all times, subordinate to your divisional commander?
A. No. They were under the Croatian General Staff.
Q. Witness, what about the tactical commitment of Croatian units? how were matters regulated there?
A. Can you put your question a little more precisely?
Q. Perhaps I can give you an example of how I mean this. Your division intended to carry out an operation and the commitment of a Croatian unit, a Croatian battalion or even a Croatian regiment seemed necessary to your divisional commander for military reasons. Did your divisional commander, in such a case, have the authority to order directly the commitment of this Croatian regiment or battalion? If not, what was the procedure in such cases?
A. In such cases, as was proper, we would take up contact with the Croatian Divisional Commander and would discuss a plan of commitment with him and ask him how he intended to participate in such a commitment. After such a discussion, the operation would be carried out. For this purpose we had our own liaison officer with the division in Gospic who, when we were not in a position to get there, carried out, these discussions with the divisional commander for us.
Q. In every individual case, as you say, an agreement always had to be reached between your divisional commander and the Croatian divisional commander so that the German division could use any Croatian units for a tactical purpose?
A. Did you say force? There can be no talk about force.
Q. No, you misunderstood me. I said an agreement was necessary so that your division could use Croatian units for the commitment?
A, Yes, of course, out I have to make one reservation here. Of course, if in the depth of night an enemy brigade would appear and attack a garrison, then it was a matter of course that everybody would take up arms and that there would be no discussion of spheres of com petency in such an emergency.
Q. This exception, which is militarily a matter of course, can be omitted in our further observations. There is one question which I would like clarified and I believe you have already answered it, and that is the following: That not on principle and for all times there was a tactical subordination of Croatian units under the German Armed Forces.
A. No, on the contrary. For all times, and on principle, these units were subordinate to the Croatian General Staff. They were, after all, Croatian units.
Q. One more question. You just told us that after your divisional commander and the leader of the Croatian division had reached an agreement, then your division could use Croatian units for a tactical commitment. During the tactical commitment would these units, in a disciplinary and judicial respect, be subordinate to your unit, or how was this question regulated?
A. No, they received their tactical commitment orders from us because, technically, it was not possible to do it in any other way; but, as I have said, they were in no instance subordinate to us in a disciplinary and judicial respect, not even when they were tactically committed with us. That is never the case with allies and it is really never the case in any instance.
Q. Now, to refer back to the question of tactical commitment, Herr Kobe. After that particular tactical commitment had been concluded, what would then be the relationship of subordination of the Croatian unit which had been subordinate to the German unit for that particular commitment?
A. That relationship ceased automatically with the conclusion of the operation but these matters were never put down in writing in any way. These units would return to their garrison and would then receive their orders from their own Croatian superiors.
Q. Did the Croatian Armed Forces carry out their own operations, on their own initiative?