A I discussed these ideas with higher agencies but of course I was very strongly reprimanded.
Q In this connection, I would like to refer to two passages of documents contained in Speidel Document Book No. II. One is an affidavit executed by one Hermann Boedecker which I have already offered as Speidel Exhibit 12 which is Document Speidel No. 22 and the passages which would like to quote here is on page 30 of Document Bock II. This is a passage towards the middle of the page and I would like to read it here.
"During the war the German Reich had an embassy in Athens, consequently General SIEIDEL, in this field too, was unable to exert a decisive influence. It is true that he would have never been able to make his opinion prevail against the Nazi bosses for, General SPEIDEL, as I have always noticed, was of the opinion that it would be advantageous if one could come to an agreement with the resistance movement in order to reinforce their units, after this had been accomplished, and use then for security measures in the Greek area. He was even considering the view that then the German Wehrmacht would be gradually withdraw completely from the Greek territory. For this reason he was in favor of agreements with the troop commander of that time and at present Minister of Security, ZERVAS. For the same point of view he favored a reinforcement of the Evzone-units."
The second passage of a document is one contained in an affidavit executed by one Dr. Ernst Kirsten which is in Speidel Document Book II and Document No. 23. This document can be found on page 35 of the Speidel Document Book II. This affidavit of Dr. Kirsten will be offered as Speidel Exhibit No. 25. Dr. Kirsten is a lecturer at the Philosophical Faculty of the Goettingen University and during the time when General Speidel was in Greece the affiant was also in Greece. He had occasion to get to know General Speidel close, since as a scientist, he frequently accompanied him on his military trips when he visited culturally important places of the country. Concerning the question of the country.
Concerning the question of importance here, Dr. Kirsten says on page 37 of this document, these are the six last lines on page 37-
"Members of his staff, therefore, considered his sudden transfer from Athens as a disciplinary action by his superiors for his criticism of the occupation policy. It was also known that Speidel had long pointed out that it was impossible to hold the German positions in Greece, obviously without being heeded, and that he had initiated the mediation of Archbishop Lamaskonos, whose dignity as a person and official he emphasized towards the anti religion national socialist opposition and whom he respected. Speidel always openly voiced his doubts in the possibility of a German victory, wherever that was possible.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Pardon me, the Tribunal will take its morning recess at this time.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You may proceed.
BY DR. WEISSGERBER:
Q. General, up until now we have discussed the fundamental problems in rather great detail: the organization, the chains of command and questions of competencies, especially with regard to the Higher SS and Police Leader, evaluation reports, development of the situation and, in individual questions, those cases which you in the year 1943 are charged with in Document Book XVII of the prosecution so that 1943 is now mainly concluded and we have now arrived at 1944.
Here at the beginning I must discuss two basic orders which reached you at the beginning of 1944. The first is the service regulation of the Military commander Greece as contained in Document Book XVII of the prosecution. It is Exhibit No. 423 on page 124 in the English and page 89 in the German.
Would you please comment quite briefly about this service regulation?
A. This service regulation came in a certain sense post festum, five months after the creation of the post of military commander Greece. Until then there had been no service regulations for him but I worked on the basis of individual directives which mostly came to me by teletype from time to time. The service regulation is dated the 21st of December, 1943 but actually it could only have reached me during January 1944 because under paragraph 2 there is a supplement dealt with according to which the OKW had only worked it out on the 1st of January 1944. Therefore, this service regulation could not have reached me before the 1st of January 1944.
The reason for this delay in the drawing up and issuing of this service regulation can I think be found in the struggles which took place behind the scenes in the supreme leadership about the position of the military commander Greece.
I myself only heard about this fighting from hearsay. Anyway, it didn't worry me very much but the documents themselves are a confirmation and also, through an exhibit which is also charged against me by the prosecution and that is why I must mention this exhibit here. It is contained in Document Book XVIII, exhibit for the prosecution No. 431, German page 13 and please, Dr. Weissgerber, would you give us the English page?
Q. The English page is page 10 in prosecution Book XVIII, Exhibit No. 431, page 10 in the English.
A. This teletype reproduced there was a dispute about the subordination and that now the OKW, if I remember correctly, on the 8th of January 1944, decided that the subordination asked for by Army Group F of the military commander of Greece would not come under Army Group E.
Therefore, the subordination remained as before. I mention this episode because it seems to me to be the reason for the late issue of the service regulation and in the meantime several points of this service regulation had been overtaken by events. For instance, paragraph 4 which talks about security tasks, a problem which in the meantime had been cleared up; and, therefore, the service regulations had a basis which no longer existed in fact.
The service regulation talks about things which are well and clear and the subordination under the military commander southeast was set down and in this first paragraph there is contained the following sentence which explained why I made reports which I discussed before. Here it states that military commander southeast and also Army Group E, be continuously informed concerning all essential affairs and measures within his sphere of command: that is Greece.
With regard to the other paragraphs, I need only say the following. Paragraph 6 shows the organization of the staff and here the Higher SS and Police Leader is personally included but in practice that was never effective because he was and remained in the outside office and in the same way as the military economic staff which also received its orders from a quite different agency -- namely, directly from Belgrade and Berlin.
Just a short word about paragraph 7. Here it states with reference to the Administrative Area Headquarters 395 in Salonika that this was subordinate to me to carry out my tasks but at the same time it was available to Army Group E to carry out combat duties. Therefore, we have the double subordination which I mentioned yesterday of this office Salonika-Aegean whose appearance I described with the term, the head of Janus.
And finally with reference to the fortress of Crete, it states that the Commandant of the fortress Crete is subordinate to me only in matters concerning the military administration. As far as basic affairs are concerned which require a coordinated ruling for the entire Greek area -- that is, economic measures, questions of currencey, soldiers' pay, et cetera -- this had to be regulated in a standard manner for all the troops in Greece. Otherwise, I had nothing to do with Crete and since it was in no way subordinate to me I never visited it which I would have liked to do very much, rather less for official reasons than for historical and archeological reasons.
To summarize these Service Regulations they sanctioned a condition which was already existing and gave individual points about events which had already become out-of-date.
Q. General, I would like to discuss briefly paragraph D in figure 7, where it mentions troop units, supply and security troops, and other units which were subordinate to you by special orders. What troop units were under you?
A. As I stated yesterday, the Security Battalion 596.
Q. Otherwise no troop units?
A. No.
Q. About the same time -- that is, the beginning of 1944 -- the so-called Loehr order, dated the 22nd of December 1943, must also have reached you. This is prosecution Exhibit No. 379, contained in Document Book No. XVI, page 47 of the English, and page 98 of the German text.
A. This so-called Loehr Order has already been discussed so often here that I need only give one very short comment on it because it must be known. The most important thing was that it rescinded all reprisal ratios existing up till then and put the reprisal measures on a new basis. With this also, the Felber Order, which I mentioned yesterday, was also rescinded -- which had been valid for about two months. The order also regulated the differentiation between troop reprisal measures and other reprisal measures, and, finally, the organization of the Military Commander was included in the reprisal measures insofar as the Sub-area Administrative Headquarters were to participate through the troops. The order probably arrived around about the turn of the year. Probably it was the beginning of January. It also arrived in my office at that time. This can be seen from various other documents, but I am honest enough to admit that I personally haven't the slightest remembrance of this order. As a result, I also cannot say what additional things were ordered It may be that it has some connection with the fact that exactly at that time I was sick, and for a time I was in bed -rather ill -- until I was sent to a hospital in Germany.
Up to that time, of course, I had the complete responsibility, even if I had not yet given up the command. So that is how I explain how it is that I personally do not remember this order.
Q. You were talking about an illness. Could you state when you were taken ill and how long this illness lasted?
A. I don't know the exact time, but it was the end of December 1943, or the beginning of January 1944, and it was a condition of exhaustion influenced by the climate. I was in bed with a high temperature, and it was a very unpleasant condition. Finally, in spite of everything, I could not conjure up any energy; so the doctor sent me to a hospital in Germany -- and this was done with some force.
Q. And when did you arrive at the hospital?
A. I don't know the exact date, but from the War Diary I saw that on the 23rd of January 1944, I left for Germany.
Q. I now return to the War Diary of the Military Commander Greece, which I have already offered as Speidel Exhibit No. 23, and which is contained in Speidel Document Book III, on page 18, Speidel Document No. 42. There, under the 23rd of January 1944 there is the following entry: "The Military Commander Greece, General of the Air Force Speidel, went on leave on 23 January 1944 for several weeks, for medical treatment and recovery."
Well, then, how long were you absent from Greece, or when did you take up your duties again?
A. According to the same document, the War Diary, on the 17th of March I returned, and on the 18th of March 1944 I took up my duties again.
Q. This is also shown in the War Diary of the Military Commander Greece, It is in the same document, Speidel Document No. 42, Speidel Exhibit No. 23, on page 18. It is a report of the 17th of March 1944, and I quote: "Military Commander Greece, General of the Air Forces Speidel, returned on 17 March 1944 from his leave for medical treatment and recovery."
During your absence who deputized for you?
A. As can be seen from the same War Diary and document, the highest-ranking officer of my area command deputized for me. That was the Commandant of the Main Administrative Headquarters, General Pflugradt.
Q. This is also shown in the War Diary of the MilitaryCommander, from which I have just quoted. This is under the 23rd of January 1944. Therefore, from the 23rd of January until the 18th of March 1944 you bore no responsibility?
A. No.
Q. I now turn to the discussion of the individual cases for 1944. Here I would like to add that already in my Opening Statement I pointed out that in the cases of the reports which came from the office of the Military Commander Greece to the superior offices, that, first of all, one cannot tell which of these reports are charged against you personally by the Prosecution. You have already stated that the overwhelming majority of the reports was about events and measures of other agencies. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct. I repeat once again what I have already said -- that all events and incidents and facts and statements, which occurred in the Greek area and which in some way or other came to my knowledge, I sent on, according to orders, to the Military Commander Southeast in Belgrade. In the same way, I also sent these reports to Army Group E for information. One must imagine this as taking place quite automatically. I would like to stress this again, too, because 99% of the cases were just the informative passing on of those reports from other agencies.
Q. Now, we will turn to Count 1 of the Indictment, paragraph 5q, which is charged against you. This is the event as it is contained in Prosecution Exhibit No. 432, Prosecution Document Book No. XVIII, page 12 of the English, and page 15 of the German text. This is a report of the Military Commander Southeast to Army Group F, dated the 19th of January 1944. Under the heading "Military Commander Greece," it states: "Fifty Communists shot as reprisal measure for murdering two German police."
Would you please explain this point?
A. First of all, this brief report does not show where this event took place and who carried it out. Nor does it show what the connection was for the reprisal measures and who was responsible for them, because this report here is only a passing on by the Military Commander Southeast to his superior offices. That is, it is not an original report; so from this very brief report, as in so many reports in these documents, one can see nothing at all unless other reports give some explanation about it. In this case the explanation is possible, through another report, which was probably the basis for this report here. This basic report is contained in the same document book -- Document Book XVIII, Prosecution Exhibit No. 437, page 49 in the English text and page 54 in the German text. There it is stated in a Daily Report of the Military Commander Greece, dated the same day -- the 19th of January. This report gives the explanation, The heading is "SS Police Regiment No. 18," and the text of the report is: "Operation 'Zifas' Mountains -- up to now 5 arrests; one armed bandit shot to death. As reprisal for murder of two policemen in Wrasdamites." I am spelling it: W-R-A-S-D-A-M-I-T-E-S -Wrasdamites. "Fifty hostages shot to death."
This report can be explained in this way: The Zifas Mountains, Chalkis, and as well as Wrasdamites, are situated in the band fighting area, which belonged to the Higher SS and Police Leader. This area was Boetia. In addition in this report the Regiment 18 is expressly mentioned. In this connection I would like to recall what I said yesterday -that the Higher SS and Police leader in the band area Boetia, which was given to him by Army Group E, carried out his war against the bandits independently. This report, therefore, is merely the automatic passing on of a report about a particular event from a combat area to the superior office for its information. Whether I personally saw the report at that time I don't know. Probably I did not see it because the reports went quite automatically onwards; so that is the explanation of this case.
Q. I will now turn to the second case with which you are charged in the indictment, and which is set down in the Indictment under Count 1, Paragraph 5r ("r" for "Roger"). This is an incident which is contained in Prosecution Document Book XVIII, Exhibit No.435, on page 25 and Page 26 of the English, and on Page 31 of the German text. This is a report of the Military Commandant of the Peloponnes 45 hostages shot to death in Corinth; 52 in Tripolis; and 44 in Sparta."
Could you please explain this report?
A. Yes, I can. In spite of the fact that it is quite clear from the report that the Combat Commandant Peloponnes ordered and carried out these reprisal measures, the Military Commander Greece is charged with this because he passed on it, although, at the same time, it can be seen that the measure took place at a time when I was not there at all. The whole connection in this case, nevertheless, can be reconstructed quite definitely and clearly, since, with regard to this case alone, 13 reports are in existence, and these are all contained in the document books, Although General Felmy has already discussed this case, it is necessary to consider all the reports in this connection in order to find the reason why the Military Commander Greece has been charged with this measure.
Q. Your Honors, I have summarized all the reports which deal with this incident, and I have included them in Speidel Document Book II, as Speidel Document No. 33, on Pages 64 and 64a. I offer this compilation as Speidel Exhibit No. 26. First of all, I would like to look at the reports in chronological order. The chronological order is set sown at the end of each passage. The first report is the report of the LXVIIIth Army Corps, dated the 11th of March 1944. The second and third reports, in chronological order, are the last one and the one before the last, and they are again dated the 12th of March 1944. The fourth report is second from the end, and it is also, together with report No. 7, the third and the fourth from the end. These are dated the 13th of March 1944.
Here I would like to state that up until this time a report of the Military Commander Greece had not yet appeared. As report No. 8 there appears a report, on the second place, of the Military Commander Southeast to Army Group F, dated 13th of March. In the report dated the 13th of March, which is report No. 9 in this compilation, there appears, for the first time, a report of the Military Commander Greece. It is dated the 15th of March 1944. Nos. 10, 11, and 12 are reports dated the 22nd of March 1944, and these are three reports of the Military Commander Greece. The 13th and last report is contained in the Prosecution Document Book as a Daily Report of the Military Commander Southeast to Amy Group F, dated the 23rd of March 1944.
General, you know all these reports from the prosecution's document books and from this compilation. What can be seen, summarizing from this, on investigation?
A On investigation of the 13 reports there, it can be seen that it concerned an attack on the Peloponnesus dated the 11th of March. The reports are also concerned with the reprisal measures in connection with this surprise attack. Secondly, from the compilation it can be seen that the first reports, namely the ones 1 to 7, are reports and affairs of the 117th Division. Thirdly, the reports which came in later of the Military Commander Greece or then the Military Commander Southeast, are merely again, which I have already stressed so often --- information, but not reports about their own measures. And finally, fourthly, I must state that I personally couldn't have had anything to do with these measures at all because I only arrived on the 17th of March in Greece again, while the event took place on the 11th of March.
Q We now come to the next count of the indictment as contained under paragraph 2; figure 5-W. This is the so-called case Krech. Please turn to Document Book 18, Exhibit No. 439, page 85 in the English and page 83 in the German, Exhibit 439, Document Book 18, page 85 in the English. This is a teletype of the Military Commander Greece, Department IC to the Military Commander Southeast from Army Group E, dated the 30th of April, 1944, and under figure 4 it states the following: "200 Greeks will be shot to death as a reprisal measure for the killing of General Krech and his escort detachment on the first of May 1944. Furthermore, a hundred Communists have been shot by Greek volunteer units."
Do you remember this case?
A When I saw for the first time in the indictment about the murder of a General Krech, I had to ask General Felmy who was this General Krech. When I heard more about it, I remembered that in spring 1944 in Athens I was present at the burial of a General and that was Krech, but I didn't remember any more about it.
Q I will now try to clear up this case on the basis of the reports about the event. First of all, what was the Ic report of the Military Commander of Greece dated the 30th of April 1944 which I have just read about?
A This is a report for information only, as so many others.
Q Then you want to say that it is the passing on of a report which reached you from the third place?
A Yes.
Q Can one see from the report where it originated?
A Yes, the report bears the heading under figure 3 "Administrative Sub-Area Headquarters Corinth reports." Then follows a report about deportation of Greek families through the bands and under paragraphs 1 and 2, the two previous ones there are set down events and incidents in Athens. Figure 1 is missing in the document, but in the original one can see that figures 1 and 2 bore the heading "Athens," and so it can be seen that the two first paragraphs refer to Athens and the reports 3 and 4 are reports from the Administrative SubArea Headquarters Corinth about events in the Peloponnesus, and the report in figure 4, also reports come from the Administrative Sub-Area Headquarters Corinth to its superior office.
Q Now this report is also not the only report with regard to the Krech case, which has been submitted by the prosecution; looking through all the documents I have found out that the Krech case is mentioned altogether eight times in the reports, and for the purpose of explanation, in Document Book Speidel II, I have in the same way made a compilation of these eight reports.
This is Speidel Document No. 34, on page 65, of Speidel Document Book No. II, and I offer this compilation as Speidel Exhibit No. 27.
General, would you please comment briefly on this compilation according to its chronological order?
A This compilation gives all the documents about this case which are available in the books -- there is the number of the book, the NOKW number, the exhibit number, the page number, and the numbers in brackets are the English page numbers and there is a short statement of the contents of the report and finally the report, the office in which the report originated and the office to which the report went. finally, the last column shows the chronological order of these reports which in themselves in this compilation are set down in the order in which they appear in the documents.
Therefore, I begin with the discussion in the chronological order and would ask first of all that the Tribunal would look at the first report which is dated the 23th of April and which is a report of the 68th Army Corps to Army Group E. Contents report on the death of General Krech. That is the fact.
The second report in chronological order also is dated the 28th of April. This is a Ix daily report of the 68th Corps. The contents of this report are "As a reprisal measure for Krech, intended shooting of 200 reprisal prisoners in Athens as a first measure. As a second measure, the shooting of all men who were found outside their villages within a certain area in the Peloponnesus, and the third measure is the shooting of 100 communists by Greek volunteers."
That is, three separate measures are set down here as intended measures.
The third report is dated two days later, the 30th of April, and comes from the Military Commander Greece, addressed to the Military Commander Southeast. In other words, that is the report which has just been read from Document Book 18.
And the fourth report is simply the rather brief passing on of this report of the Military Commander Greece to the Military Commander Southeast. It bears the same date, the 30th of April, and that finishes with the area of the Military Commander as far as the reports go.
The next report in chronological order is the fifth. This is contained in the War Diary of the 68th Army Corps dated the first of May and the entry states that as reprisal measure for the Krech case, on the Peloponnesus, 335 communists and band suspects were shot.
The sixth report in chronological order is dated one day later, dated the 2nd of May, 1944, and it comes from the 68th Corps to Army Group E. Here the same report is repeated again with the difference that 325 shootings are mentioned.
In the seventh report, that is the daily report of the 2nd of May, 68th Army Corps Ic reports as reprisal measure Krech in Athens, 200 in Athens on the Peloponnesus, 100 were shot by Greek volunteers; and the eight report is merely the passing on of this report by Army Group E to the OKH dated the 2nd of May.
Those are the facts which can be seen from this survey if one regards them in chronological order.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The Tribunal will recess until one-thirty.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
JUDGE CARTER: You may proceed.
BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q. General, before the recess we discussed the case Krech, we have here this compilation of reports which we discussed as contained in document book Speidel No. 2 on page 65. You discussed the details of this compilation before the recess and initially you declared that you do not remember the incidents concerned with the murder of General Krech. Does it help you recollection if you look at this list so that you can give us information as to whether the Military Commander Greece was connected with these reprisal measures?
A. From my own recollection I can only say that as far as the reprisal measures for the murder of General Krech wore concerned, I had nothing to do with them and I can offer proof of this from the documents.
Q. What are the facts you can quote in this connection?
A. I once again turn to this list, which has been puttogether in a chronological manner and discussed by me this morning. I want to say this, the only repeat by the Military Commander Greece in this whole complex is the one which was discussed here this morning.
Secondly, in this report by the sub-area headquarters Corinth, it says, "In retaliation for General Krech, 200 hostages will be shot on 1 May." The sub-area headquarters in Corinth thus reports to me its superior officer that it intended to take that measure. Now, had I ordered the shotting of these 200 hostages the sub-area Corinth would have had no cause for reporting to me a measure, which I myself had ordered because after all the sub-area headquarters Corinth was an agency subordinate to me.
Thirdly, if I look at the second report in this chronological order the one by 1c report of the LXVIII Corps of the 28th April. I find therein that two days previous to the report by the military commander that the intended measures are mentioned, because it says expressly "intended". If the military commander had ordered that measure, it would have been quite impossible for that measure to have been reported on to a different agency, where as my own agency was reported to only two days later on April 30th, and Fourth.
Not in this list nor as there any mention in the war diary of any reference to the measure having been carried out namely the shooting of those 200 hostages. Had the military commander issued that order, there would have been in the war diary, without any doubt, an entry to the effect and finally the last point, in that connection, is that the reports, inasmuch as they do not come from the military commander, are much more precise in the details they give concerning the measures than those by the military commander himself. Had I or my agency been concerned with those measures, my agency would have been the one who would have been best informed about it, that is what I meant to say, first of all to explain this compilation.
Q. To clarify conditions, let me ask you this, what was the position held by General Kruch?
A. General Kruch was the commanding general of the XII Division.
Q. Where was his office situated, his headquarters?
A. In the Peloponnes.
Q. And where was it that General Kruch had been murdered by the partisans?
A. In the southeastern part of the Peloponnes in the area infested by bands.
Q. In view of this state of affairs was there any necessity for the Military-Commander Greece to take reprisal measures?
A. To take retaliation measures in the band area of the Peloponnes was up to the commanding officer of the OX division. I explained this morning. General Kruch was murdered in the band area and therefore retaliation measures could only be taken by the troops.
Q. General, you will recall that in connection with the Krech affair, Colonel Papadongonas was mentioned, did you know Colonel Papadongonas?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Was Colonel Papadongonas somehow or other subordinate to you?
A. No - I had no points of contact with him at all.
Q. In the reports discussed it says in reports which do not come from your agency, that the shouting of the 200 hostages was to be carried out in Athens, or have been carried out in Athens, when did you hear about that?
A. I am afraid I could not make any statements from my recollection there, as much as I would like to.
Q. Well, let us suppose that you had been informed before hand, why did yon not take any action and prevent retaliation measures, provided of course that you disapproved of the retaliation measures you thought perhaps might lead to danger, because on 30 April you presumably were aware of these things and on 1 May the execution was to be carried out?
A. From the report by the sub-area headquarters Corinth, which was read out this morning and mentioned just now, all I could gain from this was this one thought, wherein the Peloponnes, on the occasion of surprise attacks by the bands four German soldiers were killed, including General Krech and five had been wounded.
Furthermore this report made it quite clear to me that the commander of the Peloponnes, the combat commander of the Peloponnes, had ordered the relevant retaliation measures. As the report shows, some of the retaliation measures had been carried out and some were to be carried out later. Where and when and by whom, could not be seen from the report as submitted to me, but it could be assumed that they would be carried out in the Peloponnes because after all it was not the first report of this type concerning retaliation measures in the Peloponnes.
Q. Well, Generel, nevertheless I should ask you in view of the state of affairs, would it have been possible for you to take any steps?
A. In this particular case, as indeed in other previous cases, there was no reason for me to interfere, as you call it, and these are my reasons.
First of all, I had no right to do so, to interfere with measures taken by the troop commander, because they were not subordinate to me and had their own superior offices.
Secondly, nor had I the duty to do so. It was not my duty to control and supervise the troops. I did not know what orders applied to them, which they carried out, on the basis of orders issued by their own superiors.
Another point is, it was quite clearly established by an order that retaliation measures were not within the sphere of administrative duties, they were combat measures. I should like to recall here the order contained in exhibit 306 by Army Group E, which I mentioned yesterday.