Official Transcript of Military Tribunal V, Case VII, in the matter of the United States of America against Wilhelm List et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 1 December 1947, 0930, Justice Wennerstrum presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom take their seats, please.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal V.
Military Tribunal V is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if all the defendants are present in the Courtroom?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the Courtroom with the exception of defendant von Weichs who is in the hospital.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Mr. Fenstermacher.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Thank you, your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) Defendant Hubert Lanz BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q General Lanz, before the Tribunal adjourned last Wednesday, we were discussing the question of your obedience to orders which you received from your military superiors. Certain of the orders which you received from higher offices you obeyed and others you testified you disobeyed. Will you tell us what criterion you used in determining whether or not you would obey orders of your superiors?
A Frequently, one found oneself in a position where it became difficult to decide whether to obey the superior order or whether to obey one's conscience. Therefore, one had to decide of course on obeying to the best extent possible from case to case how one wanted to act.
Q Is it true that you obeyed those orders which you wanted to obey and you disobeyed those which you did not want to obey and that the question of their coming from a superior was immaterial to you?
A I believe that to put it that way is not quite correct. I think one cannot make general comments about the subject; it would always depend on the particular situation in which one might find oneself. To give a basic attitude is not possible for me because that would give a wrong picture of the whole complex.
Q Now your Ic Lenthe was a lawyer and the division subordinate
A He was a lawyer, that is correct.
Q And the division had a court and the army group had a court, did it not?
A That is correct.
Q Did you ever ask either Lenthe or the division and army group judges whether or not orders which you had received from your superior officers were unlawful or not?
A It is quite possible that I discussed the subject with the captain of cavalry, Lenthe. The orders which were received and certain doubts which might have arisen on the basis of those orders in some cases concerned with the sphere of work of the Ic. Our discussions of these things with the divisional judge - I do not remember at the moment but it is quite possible that I did that during such time where I had no court of my own. I endeavored immediately after my arrival in Greece when I organized my staff to get a court right away so that I would be advised. However, despite the constant pressure on my part, I only managed to et a court at the beginning of January of 1944.
Q You didn't have to be a lawyer or a jurist, did you General Lanz, to know that the Commissar and Commander Orders and the ten-toone and fifty-to-one hostage orders were unlawful, did you?
A I think the things weren't quite as easy as they are being described here now. Whether a hostage order one-to-ten can quite generally be called illegal I have very grave doubts about that. One could dispute that fact and argue it. The exaggerated analysing in judging these orders only arose here during the trials in Numberg.
At the time, concerned, circumstances were somewhat different and therefore the problems were judged and thought about in quite a different way. This is what I want to say, basically. I have mentioned before that even the Allies issued orders with a certain ratio; furthermore. I would like to say, on principle that we had to maintain the point of view that orders which came from the OKW had been screened principally because this agency had after all, all experts which it could possibly want so that we could not see any reason off hand to regard such orders coming from the highest agency as being suspicious of illegality.
Q There is nothing in the German Military Penal Code, General Lanz, that says that an inferior officer might assume that orders from his superior officers are lawful, is there?
A That is not provided, that is correct, out the contrary is not provided either.
Q You knew that the Commissar Order was unlawful. Didn't that make you suspicious that other orders coming from OKW were similarly unlawful?
A Of course, this lead to certain misgivings. I admit that, but I still was in no way justified to regard all orders coming from higher agencies as unlawful.
Q What is the meaning of paragraph 47, General Lanz, if you were permitted to assume that all orders coming from your superior officers were lawful?
THE PRESIDENT: Paragraph 47 of what?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: That is of the German Military Code, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought so, but it might be well for the record to have it if several other things bear a similar number.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I'm sorry, Your Honor.
BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q What do you believe that paragraph 47 of the German Military Penal Code means, General Lanz, if an inferior officer by your testimony is permitted to assume that all orders coming from his superior officers are lawful?
A I think that paragraph 47 had the purpose to prevent that an obvious crime or offense was committed, let us say theft or rape or perjury or murder or something like that. Such an obvious crime or offense was to be prevented by this paragraph. It was supposed to be prevented that such an obvious crime was ordered by a superior officer to an inferior officer and that this inferior officer was forced to commit this crime or offense. That is where I see the reason for paragraph 47.
Q You don't believe that the Commissar and Commando orders which provided for the execution of captured prisoners of war had to do with an obvious crime?
A Paragraph 47 can be brought in connection with such an affair if one maintains the attitude that this is killing of prisoners of war. If that fact is presumed as given, then undoubtedly paragraph 47 can be brought in connection with this.
Q What were the consequences of disobedience of superior orders in the German army during the last war, General Lanz?
A This question cannot be answered in a general way. If I am to answer it, I have to answer it generally. The consequence of disobedience was punishment.
Q Nothing happened to you other than retirement for a few months following your disobedience of a Hitler order in Russia. Isn't that true?
A It is not wrong what you are saying but after all one cannot know that beforehand.
Q Was your salary discontinued?
A No, it was not discontinued.
Q You weren't court-martialed?
A No, I wasn't court-martialed.
Q You weren't discharged dishonorably from the army?
A No.
Q No reprisals were taken against your family?
A No, not in that case. But again one couldn't know that beforehand.
Q General Lanz, can you name a single German general who was ever court-martialed or executed for disobedience of a superior order on the grounds that that order was unlawful?
AAt the moment, I remember General Count Sponeck. He, in the Crimea near Feodosia, did not obey an order to hold a position. Instead.
he withdrew. There is a, certain similarity with my own actions near Charkov. This general was later sentenced. I don't know the details because I didn't see the files; for a long time he was detained in the fortress Germersheim and later on he was shot.
Q Sponeck disobeyed a tactical order of Hitler, isn't that so? He retreated in the face of the Russians that landed on the Kerch peninsula.
A I assume, that, yes. That was similar with my own action near Charkov.
Q Sponeck didn't disobey that order because he considered it unlawful? He simply considered it unwise from a military standpoint?
A I can't give you his reasons because I can't imagine what kind of point of view he had at the time. I didn't discuss it with him.
Q Now Sponeck was tried by a court-martial and sentenced to death but the verdict was commuted to six years' imprisonment, was it not?
A I am afraid I can't tell you that in detail. I didn't see the verdict. I only know about it from hearsay.
Q And after being in prison for a few months, he was released, was he not? And executed only later in connection with the 20th of July Putsch?
A I never heard that he was released. Therefore, I cannot say that with certainty. You have probably got better information than I have.
Q Isn't it true, General Lanz, that Sponeck was executed in connection with the attempt on Hitler's life and not because of disobedience of the Hitler order?
A That again I cannot tell you: I have no detailed information why he was shot. All I know is that he was shot. That is what I was told in Germersheim but I may be mistaken.
Q How you talked about General Ferdinand Heim, also, isn't it true
A Yes.
Q Isn't it true that Heim was dismissed because he disobeyed a tactical order at the time the Russians penetrated the Rumanian lines at the end of 1942?
And not because he disobeyed an order on the grounds of its being unlawful?
A That may well be possible. To the best of my knowledge, he was treated in a very unpleasant manner in connection with the events of Stalingrad.
Q There was no court-martial against Heim, was there?
A To the best of my knowledge, he was dishonorably discharged from the Wehrmacht and for sometime he was in the prison or penitentiary in Moabit in Berlin.
Q He was later restored to the army, was he not?
AAbout approximately two years he spent in prison; then he was brought to a hospital because he was sick and then he wan discharged from the hospital. Later on for quite some time he was at home to the best of my knowledge and later on he succeeded to be rehabilitated and got a new assignment.
Q Someone can't say that he was executed for disobeying a superior order?
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me just a minute. It seems to me you are questioning the witness on matters which necessarily will have to be hearsay on his part and matters of which he has no personal knowledge. Can we limit it to something about which he has some definite personal information?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Very well, Your Honor.
BY MR. FENSTERMACHER:
Q Do you know, yourself, General Lanz, the details of General Hoeppner's dismissal from the army?
A I don't know the details. I only know that Hoeppner wan chased away, if I may put it that way, in a very unpleasant manner again, but I don't know the details.
Q Do you know why he was executed?
A I can't tell you that either with certainty.
Q Was it in connection with the 20th of July Putsch, do you know?
A I believe that the picture is this, around the plot of 20 July, or as of an earlier time, in connection with the Roehm plot, the opportunity was used to eliminate all people who, at any time, showed a negative attitude against the system or acted in any way against it. I don't think it is correct to say that all these people were executed because of the events of 20 July. I rather think that this opportunity was used just as the Schleicher affair, which was on the occasion of the Roehm Putsch to eliminate these people. I think that is the proper way of showing it.
Q When was it that General Hoeppner was dismissed from the army?
A To the best of my recollection it was at the beginning of the Russian campaign. I may be mistaken on this. I have not prepared myself to answer these questions, nor have I any information about it.
Q I believe you stated at the time of the evacuation of the Jews from Corfu you addressed a letter to the Army Corps E against the evacuation because it was militarily unwise and ethically and morally in violation of your principles?
A That is approximately correct, the way you put it.
Q Will you look now at this document, please, NOKW-1915, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 626.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I suggest, Your Honors, this be paginated page 1 through page 10.
Q Would you turn now, General Lanz, to page 6 of the document which you have (page 4 of Your Honors' Document) - this is a communication from your 22nd Mountain Corps Headquarters to Army Group E, dated 18 May 1944. Subject: "Evacuation of Jews from Corfu."
Enclosed is submitted a copy of the report from the Island Commander Corfu dated 14 May 1944, according to which the SD at Joannina intends to evacuate the Jews on Corfu.
Corps Headquarters considers the intended measure only expedient if the evacuation is carried out suddenly together with immediate and complete removal, since otherwise the disadvantageous effect emphasized in the attached report would be unavoidable.
Transportation space is presently not available for such a number of people.
You appear here, General Lanz, to base your protest against the evacuation solely on military matters?
A It may well be that when launching this protest about which I just have this document now, and I have no documents proving what I discussed with the Army group itself, it may well be that in the case present here I launched this protest in a military form. That is quite possible.
Q The report which you enclosed in this report to Army Group E is dated 14 May 1944, and it is from Col. Jaeger to your headquarters.
It reads:
Q On 13 May 1944 SS Obersturmfuehrer von Hanowsky reported to the Island Commander with an order from the Reichsfuehrer SS to send away the Jews from Corfu.
Since this measure depends on the amount of shipping space furnishedit is a matter of about 1800 - 2000 Jews - this was requested from the Admiral Aegean. A full answer has not been received up to this hour. In the meantime the SS Obersturmfuehrer has departed."
Then the report continues with a discussion of the details involved in the proposed evacuation, and at the end of paragraph 7 is a summary:
Corfu is a military outpost. It cannot be desirable to evacuate the Jews at the price of a loss of morale of the troops, effective strengthening of enemy intelligence work, stirring up band activity, and a loss of ethical prestige in the eyes of the population. The latter would be because the unavoidable brutalities would only have a repulsive effect. In addition there is the inability to carry out this operation quickly and painlessly.
Did Colonel Jaeger ever discuss with you the question of the nonavoidable brutalities that could have occurred?
A I would assume that we discussed these problems, and that we were of the same opinion, because what is expressed here is also my own opinion. I wanted to prevent the event, but if it was unavoidable and I ask you to remember the circumstances which prevailed at that time, then the action was to be carried out in one "ge" and as quickly as possible, if it was unavoidable. That was both our opinions.
Q Would you look now, please, at page 3 of the document which you have (page 2 of Your Honors' Document), which is a file note to the Jewish question, signed by Colonel Jaeger. You will note on page 4 of this document, General Lanz, that under 29 May 1944, there is a notation that field gendarmes from Joannina arrived on Corfu, 1 officer and 8 men strong, and that in the afternoon the Island Commmder, after personally inquiring with SS Obersturmfuehrer Burger and Sergeant Guenter from the Secret Field Police, decided on the rooms in the East Citadel in which to assemble the Jews. It is true, is it not, General Lanz, that troops which were subordinate to the island commander did the rounding up of the Jews on the island?
A I cannot give you any statements from my own recollection, because I don't know.
Q This "1 officer and 8 men strong" were not the actual sufficient forces to do the rounding up of about 2,000 Jews, were they?
AAt the moment I cannot find anything which bears out what you say that the troops were committed for this purpose.
Q Well, who did the rounding up if it wasn't the troops subordinate to the Island Commander?
A It might well have been members of the SS who were brought along by the Obersturmfuehrer.
Q Weren't these Field gendarmes, "1 officer and 8 men strong" part of the SS Detachment?
A That is possible. I can't say anything about it offhand. I have no other information than this document in front of me. It is also doubtful whether the Jews were rounded up.
Perhaps they were asked to report in a certain room in a certain building. That is also possible. I don't know, so I could not make any statements about it. I mention that merely as an idea.
Q Will you look at one final document, General Lanz, NOKW-1919, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 627. Would you turn, General Lanz, to page 3 of the document (and you have a page 3 in Your Honors' document) , it is an evening report 18 January 1944, from your 22nd Mountain Corps to Army Group E. The report reads:
About 0300 hours, the security force (2 German men, 6 men of the Albanian Militia) was surprised in an attack along the newly-constructed bridge east of Delvine. The Albanian Militia was scattered, 1 German soldier was missing. The bands destroyed the bridge by igniting it with incendiary bottles. Parts of the 6th Company, 724th Jaeger Regiment were set in march from Delvine to the place of the surprise attack. At the last bridge explosion, reprisal measures were made known to the mayors of the surrounding localities, in event of a repeated case. As reprisal measure, destruction of the locality of Pace and shooting of the male inhabitants were ordered.
Do you recall that incident?
A I don't remember this incident, because around that time I had been on leave for seven days, on the 11th of January I left, as I have stated on direct examination.
Q When did you return from leave?
A I returned on the 25 February, and then at the beginning of March I was ordered to go to Hungary with my staff for two months.
Q If you had heard of such an incident as this would you have investigated it?
A I assume that I would have done that, if the facts had been reported to me in a manner that would lead to doubts concerning the correct conduct of the troops I would certainly want an investigation. That is what I stated on direct examination.
Q If you had seen nothing but this report would it have aroused your curiosity as to what had actually happened and cause you to investigate the matter?
A It may well be that I had given an order to clarify the circumstances. Generally speaking, I would investigate such events which were not quite clear to me and events where I suspected the troops of incorrect conduct. That would always depend on the manner in which these things would reach my knowledge. On many occasions these problems were orally reported to me, and it depends on how such a report is worded - I mean how I am informed of it.
Q General Lanz, you stated that the 10 to 1 and 50 to 1 orders which General von Stettner issued, were not known to you at the time?
A I believe that is what I said. In any case I don't remember such orders.
Q Do you happen to know where General von Stettner is today?
A To the best of my knowledge General von Stettner is supposed. to be dead. He is supposed to have been shot or hanged by Tito. That is my information. I suppose you have better information than I have.
Q During the year which you were in command of the 22nd Army Corps in Greece, you were subordinate to Army Group E, who was in turn subordinate to Army Group F, is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Who was commander of Army Group F during that period?
A To the best of my knowledge that was Field Marshal von Weichs. Whether he was all the time I can't tell you offhand, but on the whole he was.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Q And who was General von Weichs Chief of Staff during that period?
A To the best of my knowledge as of August 1943 or as of the beginning of September 1943, it was General Foertsch who was the General Foertsch who was the General Chief of Staff.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions by any other defense counsel?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
DR. SAUTER (For Defendant Lanz):
Q General Lanz, I would like to follow up the last question concerning the last document which was submitted to you. This is Document NOKW 1919, which became exhibit of the prosecution, exhibit 627. It is the last document submitted by the prosecution. This document concerns the evening report of 18 January 1944, and the prosecution apparently saved this document to the last document, because this is to show a further reprisal measure with which you are incriminated. You told us that you were on leave at that time, up to and including 25 February 1944.
DR. SAUTER: In this connection I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention to an affidavit which we have submitted long before we saw this last document. This was contained in Document Book III for Lanz. It was Document 92. It was submitted as Exhibit No. 21. This is an affidavit submitted by a former corps adjutant and personnel expert, Max Prollius, who confirms under oath here that General Lanz's statements of today are correct. He was actually absent from 11 January to 24 February, 1944, on furlough to Germany. From 7 March until 4 May 1944 he was in Hungary as a result of an assignment there. General Lanz's statements in this connection have therefore been proved by this document, and that is what I wanted to point out to the Tribunal.
Q Witness, during the course of these proceedings a similar order has been discussed, the hostage order of 3 October 1943 which is Court No. V, Case No. VII.
contained in Document Book IV of the Prosecution as Document 112. (I may in this connection say that this is the only hostage order with which the defendant Lanz has so far been charged by the Prosecution.) This hostage order, which is the hostage order where General Lanz is incriminated, concerns the arrest of 40 hostages, because of sabotage acts on telephone communications near Arta. In order to clarify the reasons and causes for this hostage order I would like you, General Lanz, to answer briefly the following question; for what reasons and for what purposes did you, at the time of the order cause 40 hostages to be arrested; and if you don't understand the question in this formulation I can put it differently. What, in your opinion, of that time, made it necessary to arrest these hostages or made the arrest expedient?
A I am not today in a position to answer this question, exactly, because it is very difficult to go back over four years, and to show every individual motive that might have moved me at the time. I would also like to say that as a general rule I did not approve of such measures. I suppose, and I would like to stress the word "I suppose," that that measure was suggested to me. Probably it was even the 1st Mountain Division which suggested it. Again I suppose that was so, and I suppose I was caused to take that measure because one thought that if I took such a measure it would be particularly effective. Since my own attitude towards such things was well-known, but I can only give you this as an assumption.
Q General Lanz -
A The factual reason was, it is quite obvious, to prevent further sabotage acts in an area, which was of particular tactical importance to us. It was my point of view that if I voiced such a threat, which would become common knowledge, I could save victims and sacrifices which are unavoidable if sabotage acts continue, and counter measures have to be taken. I hoped through this threat which was contained in the measure, to save lives. That was the general idea of this measure.
Q Did I understand you correctly to say in this statement that Court No. V, Case No. VII.
you only ordered the arrest of hostages for military reasons alone, because you deemed the arrest of hostages necessary in the fulfillment of your military tasks, is that correct?
A Yes, it is quite correct.
Q General Lanz, you heard that because of this only hostage order with which you are charged there has been an affidavit of a soldier who served in your corps at the time. This affidavit was read here. The affiant is not an officer, but a NCO who worked in the sub-area administrative headquarters in Arta, a certain Konrad Pederanderl. This document is contained in Document Book Lanz IV. It is Document 112, Exhibit 16, and you will remember that this man Pederanderl said on call that the arrested hostages were detained in the administrative sub-area headquarters in Arta, and were not shot, but were later on dismissed by orders of Major Seidel. I would be interested to know whether you, General Lanz, can state with certainty under oath that it is correct that you did not have these people shot, but that on the contrary you ordered that they be discharged, released because the mere order of shooting had already achieved its purpose?
AAt least I can state under oath that I do not know that any one of these people were shot.
Q Witness, on cross-examination it was discussed that these Evzones were serving in the Epirus areas, - Evzona regiments, and the impression was created as though these Evzone regiments worked hand in glove with the partisans. I would like to know the following; to what formation did the Evzones belong? Were they part of the Greek Army, or were they members of the Partisan groups; what were they, where did they belong?
A I am afraid I cannot give you an official statement in this respect because I personally had no official contact with these Evzones. All I can tell you, therefore, is what I know, and that is the following: These Evzones were, to the best of my knowledge, a kind of police troops of the then Greek Government, but there were also Evzones which were on the opposite side--on the side of the enemy. That is contained in a document. Mainly, however, these Evzones were police troops of the then Greek Government. That is my information.
Q What connection did these Evzones have with the German Army-with the German Army, of which your Corps, and you as Commanding General, are a part?
A They didn't have anything to do with me.
Q Were these Evzones formations in any manner subordinate you?
A No, in no manner whatsoever.
Q I may remind you, General Lanz, that last week we happened to hear a document read from Lanz Document Book V, which is Document No. 160 Exhibit No. 125, where the affiant, Gebhard von Lenthe, who was your Ic, stated, and I am reading this one sentence:
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I object to this manner of re-direct examination. I believe it's more argumentation than it is proper redirect examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Overruled.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q I am reading from where the Ic of your Corps stated that "it is possible that the measure of the shooting came from an office in the Corps area which was not under the orders of the Corps--for example, from the Field Headquarters in Messolongion or one of the subordinate Sub--area Administrative Headquarters under it--from the Evzones companies assigned to it--or through any SD office."
General Lanz, can you also state under oath that you had nothing to do with these shootings which were carried out by the Evzones regiment?
A I can state under oath that these Evzones troops were at no time subordinate to me.
Q Witness, on cross-examination it was discussed that certain events took place around the locality of Pogonion. This action is reported in your Daily Report of the 26th of May 1944. I beg your pardon--just a moment. This is contained in Lanz Document Book V, and it is Document No. 164--Lanz Document Book V, Document No. 164. From this report, dated May, 1944, it is shown that because of repeated surprise attacks near Pogonion an action was started against this place, and it is said in the report that the male population was brought to Joannina as hostages. What can you tell us in this connection, in order to clarify the facts for us?
The reason for this announcement which you are talking about here--that is what you mean isn't it?
Q Yes.
A It is not signed with my name; it is signed "The Commander Epirus." The reason for this announcement to the population was given in the fact that near this locality frequent surprise attacks had been carried out by partisans on our vehicles and the troops accompanying such vehicles. I know that particular spot quite well. I remember it. Four or five such surprise attacks occurred in a very brief space of time. This was a terrain particularly suitable for surprise attacks. It was at the bottom of a winding road in a thick wood, and despite counter measures we did not stop these surprise attacks. On the other hand we knew that these partisans were congregated in Pogonion or in the vicinity of Pogonion; therefore, we addressed this accouncement to the population of Pogonion which, in my opinion, is quite a justified measure. Approximately two days later, around the 26th of May, Pogonion was occupied by our troops without any fighting. The village was searched, and on this occasion 18 suspects were arrested. I assume that they were arrested by hostages, as had been announced. Supposedly, although it is not contained in the report, these suspects were brought to the prisoner collecting point near Joannina, but I would like to stress "supposedly" because I have no information for this statement.
Q In this connection, if it please the Tribunal, I would like to offer one document which apparently General Lanz is thing of in his statement. This document is contained in Lanz Document Book V, and it is Document No. 164, on page 14 of the Document Book V. It will be offered under Lanz Exhibit No. 141. I am pointing to the last sentence of Paragraph 1 of this document. This is a Daily Report of the 26th of May 1944. The last sentence of the first paragraph reads, and I quote: "Pogonion occupied without contact with the enemy in the course of a mopping-up operation NW of Elia. Eighteen suspects arrested in village." I am mentioning this quotation so that the announcement which was brought forward by the Prosecution as Prosecution. Exhibit No. 622, Document NOKW-1987, and which was not signed by General Lanz personally but boars the strange signature, "The Commander of the German Troops in Epirus," cannot be interpreted in an exaggerated manner.
General Lanz, on cross-examination you were asked about the Commissar Order. You were shown Document NOKW-2241, which became Prosecution Exhibit No. 618. In this document there is a lyrical report of a Private First Class of a Propaganda Company. Do you want me to give you that document again? Do you still have it?
A I remember it fairly well. Thank you.
Q This report describes the fate of the 18,000 Russians, which, in the preceding nights bad sought to burst open the German ring, as that report puts it. It further says, and I quote: "These 18,000 Russians had in front of them the German weapons which were accustomed to talk a severe language. Behind them they had the ns.chine pistols of the Commissars which cracked ruthlessly in the heap whenever an armistice threatened." This document had been submitted by the Prosecution with the assertion that these Commissars had not been treated in accordance with International Law, as they could demand to be treated.
Witness, I would like to ask you now---You, as a General, as a defendant in these trials--do you maintain the point of view that a special International protection should be extended to political Commissars of whom the Prosecution itself states here that "with machine pistols they cracked ruthlessly into the midst of their own peoples?" Do you think that such people deserve a particular protection under International Law, or, if not, what is your attitude towards such Commissars as are described in this report here?
A I believe that in this question one has to differentiate between a legal attitude and an humane attitude. Regarding the humane attitude, of course, the way in which the Commissars themselves acted plays a certain part. Concerning the legal attitude I believe that is not the case. Furthermore, the question is also whether they were Commissars who, at the same time, were soldiers, and, therefore, fell under the provisions concerning prisoners of war, or whether they were Commissars who were not soldiers and, therefore, would not fall under the provisions of International Law.
Q Witness, in connection with this last point I want to ask you one separate question later on. All I want you to do at the moment is to look at, in connection with my question, one sentence which you find in the document in front of you--Document NOKW-2241--towards the middle of Page 2, immediately before and after the line where it says "Page 4 of the original." There the affiant of the Prosecution, whose report has been submitted here against you, General Lanz, writes: "We question further whether she knows that a transport of wounded had been attacked yesterday." Do you have the passage?
A No, I am afraid I haven't it yet. I don't know where at is.
Q It is on the bottom of Page 2 and Page 3 of the original. General Lanz, maybe you would lead from here (TAKING A DOCUMENT TO THE FITNESS STAND)." The reply is new. We question further whether she knows a transport of wounded had been attacked yesterday by the Bolshevists and no one emerged from it alive, with the exception of one. The Russian bayonet had spliced by his heart."