We submit that this problem is not raised here because the defendant von Weichs was present through the entire prosecution's case. His counsel was at all times able to cross examine any witnesses that were heard against the defendant von Weichs.
We believe that the only real objection that there can be against the granting of this motion would be the one the court would not have the opportunity to observe and evaluate what is called by the text writers "demeanor evidence." We submit, however, that this question cuts both ways -- that is, the element of surprise involved in cross examination which would be denied to the prosecution.
We also submit that the question of demeanor evidence is of less importance in this case than the ordinary case because here the court understands the witness only through an interpreter. The question of demeanor evidence is also for the most part important when it compares the demeanor of one defendant or witness with another but it is, of course, impossible to compare the demeanor of the defendant with the document. This case in behalf of the prosecution is 99% documentary.
I would like to cite this one quotation from Wigmore "On Evidence" regarding demeanor evidence. Wigmore says:
"No one has doubted that demeanor evidence is highly desirable if only it is available, but it is merely desirable; where it can not be obtained, the requirement ceases. There is no essential part of the notion of confrontation. It stands on no better footing than other evidence to which special value is attached and just as the original of a document in case of a prepared witness may be dispensed with in case of unavailability so the demeanor evidence may be dispensed with in case of necessity."
THE PRESIDENT: I take it, Dr. Laternser, Mr. Fenstermacher, that the statements that you had made now constitute any action on your part which you might wish to make.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: That is right? your Honor. We thought it could be done more briefly orally than in the case of a memorandum.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, we don't know how many books you have there or how long you intend to talk but will you mate it as brief as possible without restricting yourself on such questions as you think are of importance?
DR. LATERNSER (Counsel for defendants List and von Weichs): Your Honors, I will also be brief but I must be a little longer in order to object in the proper manner to this very surprising statement made by the prosecution.
My Colleague Gawlik wishes to say something. I shall therefore interrupt for a moment, Your Honor.
DR. DAWLIK: (Counsel for defendant Dehner): Your Honors, may I interrupt, I would like to ask permission for General Dehner to be absent from the session this morning and would ask that he can be sent down to Room 75 in order to prepare his case.
THE PRESIDENT: Your request will be granted.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honors, as I already said, I am rather astonished at the motion of the prosecution. The prosecution wishes to introduce too many innovations in the legal sphere and seems to forget the basic principles of a criminal procedure.
The suggested procedure cannot be carried out, quite apart from the fact that the prosecution isn't at all justified to make such a motion. It is a matter for she defense to decide whether a defendant appears on the witness stand or not. How can the prosecution make a motion stating that the defendant von Weichs should be examined in writing. How does the prosecution know whether or not I am putting him on the witness stand? How can they have a justification for making this kind of a motion?
Your Honors, you will remember that Field Marshal von Weichs was taken to the hospital in order to keep him capable of being examined. His state of health, however, in the meantime, has become considerably worse.
At the beginning of November he suffered a heart attack with suffocation symptoms which have resulted in a tear in the lung and since then he has been in bed and I am told that he should, or he must, remain there for another two months.
I am told that I cannot and must not discuss matters concerning the trial with him because if he gets another attack death is a very likely consequence. Therefore, I have only been telling him about the trial in outline, and have not discussed any detailed questions with him.
The American doctor has also sent a note to the Tribunal dated the 25th of November and states therein: 1. the condition has greatly deteriated; 2. his lung condition has the effect of overburdening the heart; and 3. the condition of the heart has become much worse; and, finally, 4. Field Marshal von Weichs will never be in a position to appear in the courtroom.
Your Honors, from this expert opinion of the American doctor, it can be seen very clearly that the defendant Field Marshal von Weichs is incapable of being examined or -- I used the term "Verhandlungsunfaehig" -- that means incapable of taking part in the proceedings. That means, therefore, that he is not in a position to appear before the Tribunal.
What is the importance of this fact according to Ordinance No. 7? The answer is simple. In the case of a defendant incapable of taking part in court proceedings, these proceedings are not permitted to take place.
Article No. 4-D of this Ordinance No. 7 states -- I quote:
"Every defendant is justified to be present in the main proceedings with the exception that if a defendant is absent for a time proceedings may take place if, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the interests of the defendant are not being impaired by this and with the further exception contained in Article 6-C.
This provision, therefore, states the basic principle that the defendant is entitled in being present in the main trial. A trial in the absence of the defendant is, according to this provision, only possible if the defendant is only temporarily absent and through this, in the opinion of the Tribunal, his interests are not impaired.
Field Marshal von Weichs, however, is no longer only temporarily absent. The American doctor furthermore stated quite clearly that he will never again be in a position to appear in the courtroom. Therefore, the temporary absence has now ceased and it has become a permanent absence.
A trial against a defendant, however, who because of no fault of his own, is absent from the proceedings, is not proper. I could give with regard to this principle of law which can also be seen in Ordinance No 7 a survey of all foreign laws all of which contain this fundamental basic principle. Since this basic principle is also a fundamental principle in American law, I don't need to go into this; but I would like to add this: already in Roman laws there is a foundation for this and since that time it has remained unchanged. Proceedings against a defendant who is absent from no fault of his own cannot take place.
The trial against Field Marshal von Weichs who is incapable of appearing on trial would contravene the fundamental principles which are contained in all foundations governing legal proceedings. The correctness of this point of view can be seen from the observation of the rights which Ordinance No. 7 provides for the defendant.
According to Article 5, the defendant can be examined as a witness for his own case. According to Article No. 11, he for his part can make a statement before the Tribunal. A defendant who is incapable of standing trial, cannot avail himself of these rights.
I am very astonished that the prosecution as a substitute suggests that the defendant should be interrogated in writing. Such a procedure is completely inadmissable and does not comply with Ordinance No. 7. Nothing is stated about this in Ordinance No. 7; that proceedings can take place against a defendant who is incapable of being examined if the interrogation is made in writing. According to this law, which is valid also for the Tribunal, the only question to decide is whether the defendant is capable of taking part in a proceeding or not.
If he is not -- and that is what I maintain -- then proceedings cannot take place.
Apart from everything else, a deposition would not fulfill, the purpose. Therefore, the prosecution with its motion wants to continue proceedings against a defendant who cannot defend himself adequately; and, according to proper proceedings this decision would even transgress against a ruling of the International Military Tribunal. The INT, in the case against Goering, on the 14th of November 1945, discussed the question as to whether proceedings should be taken against the defendant Krupp, who was also incapable of taking part in the proceedings. At that time the IMT refused to take proceedings against Krupp in his absence although in the statute which existed at that time the proceedings in the absence of the defendant was provided for if the justification for such proceedings seemed necessary.
In the session dated the 14th of November 1945 the following was laid down and for this reason, Your Honors, I have got the books here.
Your Honors, I just noticed that the discussion on this point was rather longer than I thought. Therefore, I will not read all this discussion with regard to the defendant Krupp into the record but I would like to ask the Tribunal before it makes a decision on this matter to take judicial notice.
THE PRESIDENT: I might state, Dr. Laternser, that all three members of the Tribunal have read these proceedings, not in anticipation of the matter that is presented here but in connection with their study of the IMT case, so they have knowledge of this Krupp incident.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honors, I would just like to point out to the Tribunal that on the 14th of November there was a special discussion about an identical case concerning the question of how an absence caused through no fault of the defendant affects the continuance of his own case.
These arguments are contained in Document Book II; page 1 and following. The IMT at that time ruled that it was contrary to justice, if proceedings are taken against the defendant who is absent through no fault of his own.
This decision, Your Honor, did not remain an isolated case in Nurnberg. In the case against the jurists, the proceedings against Dr. Engert, Engert, were discontinued because of his state of health, and the same was the case in the I. G. Farben trial concerning the defendant Brueggemann.
May it please the Tribunal, a just decision can therefore, only be made if the defendant has sufficient possibility to defend himself. How can one expect this if Field Marshal von Weichs is so ill that he is prevented from ever appearing in the courtroom?
If every state has laws which prevent proceedings being taken against such a defendant, then in Nurnberg, too, the prosecution must comply with such a basic principle. It is in contradiction to justice, to continue proceedings against a defendant who is not capable of defending himself adequately. Therefore, I request, first, that the motion without legitimate basis, made by the prosecution for a written interrogation of the defendant Weichs, should be rejected and, secondly that furthermore the proceedings against Field Marshal von Weichs should be discontinued because he is not capable of taking part in the trial.
That is all I wish to say with regard to this motion.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honors, may I just say one or two things in reply to Dr. Laternser's argument? First, I submit that the medical question as to whether or not Field Marshal von Weichs is physically and mentally capable of defending himself should rest in the hands of Captain Martin the prison physician, who is in constant attendance of Field Marshal von Weichs, or at any rate on a medical commission and not upon Dr. Laternser or any other layman.
Second, I submit that the citations regarding Krupp and defendants in the Justice and Farben cases are completely beside the point. In those cases the defendants were physically incapable of defending themselves. In the Krupp case, I believe it was based upon the fact that the elder Krupp was incapable mentally of defending himself or understanding the proceedings taken against him. The references that Dr. Laternser has made to Ordnance No. 7, I submit, are similarly beside the point. He has cited Article 4, sub-section D, as Military Government Ordnance No. 7. He has neglected to read the last sentence of that sub-section which states:
"The Tribunal may also proceed in the absence of any defendant who has applied for and has been granted permission to be absent."
Your Honors will recall that there was an application on the part of defendant Weichs to be absent and the application was granted by the Tribunal without prejudice. Regarding the precedent set by him, I should simply like to point out defendant Martin Bormann was sentenced to hang in absentia. There is no question here regarding the right and the duty of a defendant to appear before the Tribunal. We are not seeking to deny him that right.
We are, however, simply saying that there is no question here regarding the right or duty of a defendant to appear before a Tribunal. We do not seek to deny the right of the defendant Weichs to appear before the Tribunal in defense of himself. We are simply saying that when it is a question of his appearing orally or of his appearing by way of deposition that there is no legal foundation for saying that the latter may not be done.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, to reply quite briefly to the last statement of the prosecution, as I have already stated, according to the export opinion of the court physician, the defendant von Weichs is physically not in a position to appear and must remain for many more months in bed. The fact that such a physical condition has of course some damaging effect on the mental capabilities and would therefore have the same effect on an oral testimony, is obvious and I do not have to add anything further.
A defendant in a trial has the right to appear; if he cannot exercise this right, then this results in disadvantages for him, and the prosecution cannot now refer me to Article 4-D of Ordnance No. 7 according to the last sentence of which the Tribunal can also then take proceedings in the absence of a defendant if his absence was granted to him on his own application. The situation has in the meantime changed considerably.
I made the application for the absence of the defendant in order to keep the defendant von Weichs capable of taking part in the proceedings and because I had misgivings with regard to this; but in the meantime this heart attack with a tear in the lungs has occurred and this has completely changed the situation. It is impossible for him to appear.
And then, if the prosecution refers to the case of Bormann in the first trial, the prosecution does not seem to know the correct facts of the case because otherwise such a comparison would not have been made. Proceedings were taken against the defendant Bormann because he himself kept away from the trial or, because what is probably more correct, at that time he was already dead, a completely unsuitable case to compare with the case on hand. One thing is certain that Fieldmarshal von Weichs is absent through no fault of his own and if the prosecution wants to introduce hero in Nurnberg that proceedings should be taken against defendants who are absent through no fault of their own, then I would ask the Tribunal to answer such ideas of the prosecution with a judicial ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: The ruling on the application made by the prosecution and on the motion made by counsel for the defendant von Weichs will be made at a later date. You may proceed with the examination of the defendant Speidel.
DR. WEISGERBER: Your Honor, before I continue with direct examination, I would like to make the following statement. My client last Saturday morning had an attack of fever and had to remain in bed for the last two days. He still feels very weak today but in spite of this he wants to remain in the witness stand as long as his physical strength allows him to.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sure it will be the attitude of the Tribunal to realize this condition which you have brought to our attention and to give consideration to it and if at any time the defendant feels that he wants to or should feel it necessary to retire from the witness stand, if you will indicate to your counsel so that he may present the matter to the Tribunal, we will then give it further consideration.
DR. WEISGERBER: Thank you, your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) Defendant Speidel BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q General, you remember that last Friday, before the recess, we were discussing your knowledge about the Chaidari Camp. You said that you had heard about a police prison or a police camp of the Higher SS and Police Leader and that as a purely police affair this was the exclusive responsibility of the Higher SS and Police Leader. The Higher SS and Police Leader did not tell you anything about the installation and about the management of this camp or this prison. Did I understand you correctly and did I remember correctly this part of your testimony?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q The witness Sontes also mentions on the first of May 1944 200 persons were supposed to have been shot in Chardari. In the report of the Greek government, which was introduced by the prosecution as Exhibit No. 499, it is stated that on the first of May 1944, 200 hostages were shot for a partisan attack on German soldiers in Athens.
Can yon remember this incident and can you explain it?
A I cannot remember it, nor I can I clear up the incident, because I had no insight into the matter and into the measures of the Higher SS and Police Leaders. Also I had no insight into the conditions in Chaidari; but for two reasons I can make a certain guess from all the documents which I have before me today.
First of all, the number 200 and secondly the date, the first of May 1944. Both factors can without doubt be combined with the case of Krech which I have talked about here. But it is only a conclusion made by me today which is not based on any actual knowledge or remembrance.
A That brings me to the end of the subject which I have discussed here in connection with the testimony and examination of the witness Sontes.
And I will now come to another question; this is the Jewish question. General, the prosecution have charged you with having taken measures against the Jewish part of the population in Greece or in Athens and these measures claimed by the prosecution to be crimes against humanity. The prosecution has for its evidence referred amongst other things to Exhibit 422, in Document Book 17, page 118, 119 in the English and page 86 in the German.
This is a report of the chief of the Military administration of Greece for November 1943. On page 118 at the bottom in the English and page 86 in the German, there is figure E, the Jewish problem and tho following is stated in the report:
"The Higher SS and Police Leader has issued a directive dated the 3rd of October, 1943, by virtue of which all Jews in Athens had to report to the Jewish community and in other cities and rural communities to the town halls or to the community offices. Since a large part of the Jews did not report in Athens, for instance, only 1200 Jews were seized of the 8,000 living there.
The Military Commander in agreement with the special Plenipotentiary of the Foreign Office for the Southeast has confiscated their fortune by an order and has transferred it to the Greek State to be administered."
At the beginning, I would like to state that this report starts with words "the Higher SS and Police Leader". It appears that he has concerned himself independently with an operation against the Jews. General, who was competent or responsible for the actions against the Jews in Greece?
A The Higher SS and Police Leader on orders of the Reichsfuehrer SS.
Q What do you know about the incident set down here in this section of the report of the Military Administration dated November 1943?
A With regard to this, first of all, I must relate the incidents which led up to this report. In September 1943, the then Higher SS and Police Leader Strob came to me one day and told me that the Reichsfuehrer SS had given him the order for the Jews to be deported from Athens to Germany. The matter had already been in progress for some time and the next day the transport to Germany would start and he wanted to tell me about this.
I was honestly shocked by this fact; until then I had heard nothing at all about such measures and I know nothing about them. At the same time, it was also clear to me that it would be extremely difficult to prevent this measure of the Reichsfuehrer SS or to limit it in any way, apart from the fact that in my purely official capacity I had no right and no possibility to do this. Nevertheless, I thought about the matter very quickly and thought how I could intervene in some way. To turn to my superior officers in Belgrade seemed to me to be useless because they also couldn't take any decision about it, apart from the fact that at that time, the telephone call didn't only take hours but days until it came through.
And then I wondered whether I should apply directly to the OKW but I turned this thought down too. There were two possibilities; either the OKW knew about this intention and measure of the Reichsfuehrer SS and then the answer would be "Don't you meddle in things which don't concern you," or the OKW would first of all have to talk to the Reichsfuehrer SS and then it would be a long time before they came to any decision, and the transport was all ready to start the next day.
Therefore, I came to what I thought was a very good third solution; I explained to SS Fuehrer Strob that in Athens - it only concerned Athens - the Jews did not play any great part either numerically or financially, or economically, or socially. I didn't know that but I said it.
And secondly, I said that such an action of this kind would arouse considerable unrest in the population because they would not understand such a measure. Therefore, I made him the proposal if he was convinced of my reasons, on his own initiative, he should request the Reichsfuehrer SS to stop this action as regards Athens.
I said to myself, in view of the situation at that time, only a request which came from the SS could have any hopes of being heard. He agreed to the request and I asked him that until then he should stop the measure. Thereupon, on the next day, he told me that his request had been turned down by the Reichsfuehrer SS.
Q Therefore, you tried to stop the carrying out of measures which had been ordered by the Reichsfuehrer SS. Were you basically and fundamentally against this action?
A Yes, of course, I was against this action and that is why I made the attempt to intervene as far as it was possible for me under the conditions at that time. I could never prevent it with force. No one could possibly expect that perhaps I should take some action with the Police Regiment 18 which was subordinate to me at that time, and commit it against its own divisional commander.
Q Well then, I don't understand why you, yourself, as can be seen from this report, ordered the confiscation of the Jewish property. Well then, did you take part in this action, although you were in principle against it?
A In this case, it had a very special reason and here I intervened not to support the action against the Jews but in order to help them. This had the following reason: On one day I was told by the Greeks that the Jewish property, that is the property of the Jews who had in the meantime been deported, was decreasing, that the shops were being plundered etc. I could have said that this was an internal Greek affair and didn't concern me at all; but the Greek who told me added that the SS had participated in this. Now, of course, something had to be done. The statements were not concrete evidence for me but nevertheless in the same hour, I still remember, I went to the special Plenipotentiary of the Reich, Minister Neubacher, because the whole question wasn't a military question for which I was responsible but it was a political economic and financial question and for me, in the final analysis, it was a human question.
We discussed the possibilities of helping here and we came to the decision that all Jewish property should at once be confiscated and at the same time should be handed over to the Greek government to be administered, so that this property would be preserved. Thus, we created a legal basis in order to prevent plundering. At that time we wondered who should issue this order, whether he or I, and I declared myself ready to sign it because I said to myself in this way I am doing a good deed even if I am not legally competent to do this.
So I signed the order. The property was confiscated and the Greek government set up a special office to administer the Jewish property.
Q In this way, you wanted to keep the Jewish property safe or at any rate you thought that in this way, the purpose you were aiming at would be achieved?
A Yes, I thought that was the most correct thing to do and the most humane thing to do.
Q This incident took place in November 1943 or in the period preceding that, but couldn't you have said at that time that these Jews would probably never return to Athens?
A No, I didn't know that at that time. I took it as a matter of course, that one day they would be able to come back again. We knew nothing at all about Ghettos then, let alone about Auschwitz. I only heard about that for the first time in 1945.
Q When I look at the formulation of this report here, the report of the Military Administration in Greece, then I must admit that I really don't understand this formulation if it was your intention to help the Jews. What was the purpose of this method of reporting?
A Yes, I must admit that it isn't so easy to understand but the measure taken by me had to have some reason to be presented to the superior offices and this report was the result.
Q. General, you only talk about Athens. What do you know about the actions against the Jews in the rest of Greece?
A The matter about which I have just ben speaking only concerned Athens and, as Strob told me at that time, the transport of about 1,000 or 1,500 Jews from Athens. With regard to the other anti-Jewish action which took place outside Athens, I didn't know anything at all and only heard later on that already at an earlier period, the Jews had been deported from Salonicka. This took place at a time when I was still Commander for Southern Greece and had no connection, no contact at all with the Commander of Salonicka. Therefore, I only heard about this later on when my attention was drawn to anti-Jewish actions as such.
Q Do you know whether other officers in Athens played some part in this action against the Jews?
A The military offices in no way at all. I only know -- and I discovered this later on too -- that the German ambassador with regard to the first action which took place before my time -- the action in Salonicka, had done everything he could in order to achieve some change in this situation but he had no success at all.
Q Your Honor, at a later time, I will read an excerpt from the record of the trial against Goering in the IMT.
In this trial, it was stated very clearly that with regard to the Jewish deportations from Greece, a special staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS was exclusively active and responsible.
General, did you intervene with regard to later actions against the Jews in Greece?
A I would say no, on the contrary, I had nothing to do with then at all.
Q And now I would like to ask you to look at Document Book No. 20 of the prosecution, Exhibit No. 459 on page 6 of the English and page 8 in the German, Page 6 in the English, Document Book 20 of the prosecution and page 8 in the German. What comments can you make on this document?
A For me it is very clear from this document first that this continuation of the action against the Jews was ordered by the Reichsfuehrer SS, that the SS did not apply at all to the Military Commander in Greece but to other offices and third, the directives of Army Group E were sent to various offices and the Military Commander was not even told about the whole affair even for purposes of information.
Q And now to conclude this chapter, General, what was your basic attitude with regard to the actions of the Third Reich against the Jews?
A First of all, I would like to say the following with regard to this, I am convinced that it was just my attitude with regard to the case of the Jews in Athens that I have proved that I criticized the measures as such very seriously that far and above my own powers I tried to help, sometimes successfully and sometimes unsuccessfully. Secondly, with regard to my fundamental attitude about this policy, I need hardly anything to say. Every man of culture has to reject these methods. I did this strongly at the time without being able to do very much.
Finally there is a third factor, which is of a rather personal nature and which I do not mention very willingly, but since with regard to my very personal attitude about the policy of the Third Reich in this sphere it is rather important, I shall mention it here, although not very willingly. My wife is of Jewish descent and for years the Third Reich turned down my application for marriage. I received it finally as an act of mercy at the end of the western campaign.
That proves any kind of prejudice for me in this case can be excluded.
Q To conclude this subject, I would like to discuss two affidavits. The first is Speidel document No. 31, Speidel Document Book 2, pages 58 and 59. This is an affidavit by Kurt-Fritz von Gravenitz. I intend to give this document Exhibit No. 33. The affiant KurtFritz von Gravenitz was from 1938 to 1944 Councillor of the Legation with the Foreign Office Legation in Athens. In this connection I only intend to read the first paragraph on page 59, which concerns the incident which I have just discussed with my client. I quote:
"The regulation according to which the Jewish property of Greeks was entrusted to the administration of the Greek State was for the purpose of stopping threatening excesses of private individuals."
The second exhibit, which I wish to offer in this connection, is the affidavit by Rosie G. Waldeck, contained in Speidel Document Book No. I, Document No. 1 and this receives Exhibit No. 34.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I object to the admission of this affidavit into evidence. It relates entirely to the acquaintance of the affiant with General Speidel in Rumania. It has nothing whatever to do with any charges brought against the defendant in this indictment.
DR. WEISGERBER: Your Honor, I have offered this exhibit intentionally. The Tribunal when judging the question as to how my client regarded the Jewish question would have to rely on affidavits of this kind because this concerns the fundamental attitude of my client. In addition, this affidavit contains mention of an incident, which I admit took place in Rumania, but is clear proof of the attitude of the SS with regard to my client and as such is of great importance. If the SS attempted to liquidate somebody then this is an incident which without doubt must be taken into consideration here.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: If Your Honor please, we have not made the thoughts or attitude of this defendant any part of the charges of this indictment, his actions are what count and I submit that this affidavit concerns simply his attitude and his attitude at the time he was in Rumania is without any probative value here.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be over-ruled.
BY DR. WE:
Q This is an affidavit by. Rosie G. Waldeck, writer and journalist, living in New York. I do not want to read the whole document, but nevertheless in view of its importance, I would like to read a few passages. From the first first paragraph, I will read a few sentences at the bottom of page one where the affiant states: "I am an American writer and journalist of German-Jewish descent. I saw a great deal of the German "conquerors" during a stay in Europe in 1940-41. There were among them a few who behaved like civilized human beings. General Speidel was one of these few. I feel that it is a moral obligation to bear witness, from my personal observations, to his honorable conduct during a phase of the war with which I am familiar - the German "conquest" of Rumania. From what I saw and heard of General Speidel, then chief of the German air mission in Bucharest, I should consider him the least likely person ever to commit a war crime or, for that matter, any action inconsistent with the highest principles of decency and humaneness."
Then I skip page 2 and continue on page 2a, the fourth line? "However, during the preceding months of increasing terror", this is the end of January, 1941, or page 2 at the bottom, "the various hierarchies which formed the German 'colonial' administration in Rumania were divided in their sympathies and aspirations. The Nazissime Nazis - Gestapo, SS, etc. - were decidedly for the Iron Guard and against anyone who tried to check their reign of terror. These Nazissime Nazis loathed General Speidel and were out for his scalp.