This is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 631, your Honor. This is a report, General Speidel, from you as Military Commander in Greece dated the 14th of April, 1944. Would you look at page 10 of the original document, page 2 of the English and German copies? Under labor commitment you state "In March and up until 6 April 1944 a total of 1424 workers were sent to Germany. In the first quarter of 1944 a total of 2499 new workers were conscripted for the German armament industry." What did you mean by using the word "conscripted?"
A First of all, the word "levy" and then the word "contract" and I would like to state that these terms fall into the sphere of sending labor to Germany as I have mentioned. There are in Germany "labor exchanges" e.g. for commercial employees -- that is offices where workers are engaged on a voluntary basis and are sent to places of employment through the labor exchange and the word "contracted" merely means that they are after that under contract, and I don't believe that this says anything else than what I said when I discussed the subject before.
Q Do you not believe that this indicates that the workers were recruited by force for the German armament industry, I take it?
AAccording to the German wording, that word "contracted" means merely that from that time on the persons concerned were under contract. That I don t doubt in the least.
Q Now you spoke yesterday afternoon about total war and its consequences. Were you suggesting that a Military Commander may take any means at all in order to achieve security and that the laws of war should play no part whatever in the decisions that he might make in order to achieve the pacification of an area to which he has been assigned?
A No, I don't think you understood me correctly there. I only tried to clarify a fact which comes under my own experience and that is that the last war was characterized by totalitarianism and by the fact that all forces were mobilized. I believe that is not only something which I stated but it is a generally recognized fact.
Q In other words, military security may not be achieved by any means, legal means must be used?
A I don't understand what that question is driving at in this connection.
Q What I mean, General Speidel, is that you are not of the opinion that a Military Commander who is assigned an area to pacify and to make secure, may take any measures which he decides upon without restriction or limitation?
A Nobody can be unrestricted when choosing his means. Their very nature restricts them. A restriction in choosing one's means can be implied in their extent or through the laws of war, written laws or unwritten laws, whichever case may apply. What I wanted to express was that the concepts of war and the concepts of a pacification and securing accepted so far were out of date as a consequence of the development of technique and of totalitarianism; one through bomb attacks on localities which were not military targets, and the other expression which I used was the waging of war of the whole of the population against an occupation force. I mentioned these two examples to express that in the meantime the usages and laws of war had superseded tho formal provisions of international law because there was nothing stated in international law about airplanes bombing or even about atom bombs and that is how I would like to see my statements understood.
Q You are not yet ready to say that there are no longer any laws of war, though, are you?
A On the contrary, it is my opinion that never before it was so necessary to formulate laws of war as clearly as it is necessary today and that never before the means of war were such as they are now that one can easily misuse them.
Q You spoke of the difficulty of a German general when he received certain of the orders which we have concerned ourselves with in this proceeding. You pointed out that on one hand he faced a court martial by the German authorities and on the other Nuernberg. Do you not believe it would have been much better for the Wehrmacht for Germany and for the Greek and Yugoslav peoples if more generals had chosen the route of the court martial when they received certain of these orders from their higher headquarters?
A Mr. Fenstermacher, it is difficult to judge upon such a thing today in retrospect. At that time we faced a task which we had to solve, not just because we wanted to solve that particular task but for an ulterior purpose, and I don't believe that anybody was afraid of a court martial if his conscience forced him not to carry out a certain measure which he might have considered contradictory to law or contradictory to international law, but in our case there was no instance where we considered an order contrary to law, or contrary to international law.
Q You don't consider the Kommando Order or the Commissar Order in violation of the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners of war?
A Concerning the Kommando Order, I would like to state that I can't judge because I don't know what conditions initiated this order.
Concerning the Kommando Order, I would like to state that I myself under direct examination gave my opinion to the effect that I had severe misgivings concerning this order. However, lest I be misunderstood, not on account of a contradiction to international law but because of its effects on the future, for the Kommando Order was seen from a certain aspect as a reprisal measure. It was a counter-measure directed against a measure by the enemy which we might consider wrong and in violation of international law. But if as a consequence of the Kommando Order which is like a so-called reprisal measure, the opposing side would take reprisal measures again, and this would have led to a conduct of war and to usage of the laws of war which would have made the concept of a prisoner of war impossible altogether.
Q. You don't know of a single German General do you, General Speidel, who ever allowed himself to be court martialed because he believed that orders from his superior agency were unlawful?
A. I don't know of any such case and one in the normal case of events would not learn of such a case, because that would be kept strictly secret. These cases which were reported here during the trial were most of them new to me.
Q. You talked at some length yesterday of your own interest in Greek classicism and Pan-Hellenic studies and I believe at one point you compared yourself to Lord Byron, the English poet and your interest in classical Greece. I wonder if you recall these lines of Marathon:
"The mountains look on Marathon And Marathon looks on the sea;
And musing there an hour alone, I dreamed that Greece might still be free.
For standing on the Persian's grave I could not deem myself a slave."
Do you know these lines?
A. I know these lines and they speak right from my heart. Anybody who has stood on the battlefields of Marathon or anyone who has looked down from the Akrepolis of Athens realizes this and the Hellenic in me made me a foreigner among my contemporaries of that time, but the tasks of the war had to be solved as hard as they were for me. I therefore tried to bring together the tasks of the war and my love for Greece, but of course there was at certain times a difference between two duties, that is duties and reasoning.
Q. Byron died while he was fighting for the liberation of Greece against the Turks?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. You also made a reference to the spirit of Goethe; I wonder if you know these lines from "Faust"?
"Yes! To this thought I hold with firm persistence;
The last result of wisdom stamps its true;
He only earns his freedom and existence, Who daily conquers them anew."
A. I am grateful to you, Mr. Fenstermacher, for quoting me the lines which are nearest to my heart from the second part of Goethe's "Faust".
I can only agree with you completely in those lines.
Q. Do you believe that these lines sum up, at least from the Greek point of view, the attitude of the Greeks toward the German occupation?
A. By this same right, I demand that the demands of Goethe be applied for the German people, who at this time fought for their liberty during the World War.
Q. I have no further questions, your Honor.
JUDGE BURKE: Dr. Weissgerber, do you have any further questions?
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WEISSGERBER:
Q. If it please the Tribunal, I would like to first of all have Mr. Fenstermacher agree to clarify a number of passages in documents, which Mr. Fenstermacher quoted during cross-examination and which I could not find exactly in the document books.
Mr. Fenstermacher quoted from document books 17 and 19 and he read a number of passages there where I believe he referred to police reprisal measures. Mr. Fenstermacher said that he was only mentioning these passages to the Tribunal without discussing them in detail, but I would be very grateful if Mr. Fenstermacher could give me these passages briefly, which I did not know.
JUDGE BURKE: I wonder if we couldn't save the time of the Tribunal if at the end of the session you and Mr. Fenstermacher could possible reconcile any misunderstandings with regard to the passages?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I would be glad to do that your Honor.
JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed with another matter.
BY DR. WEISSGERGER:
Q. General, I would like first of all to follow up exhibit 631, which was the last document with which the prosecution confronted you. It is the situation report of the Military Commander Greece, dated 16 March until 15 April 1944. Mr. Fenstermacher discussed with you sub-paragraph (d) and I don't believe there are any questions about this paragraph, but I would like you to also look at paragraph VII, where it says:
"Upon instructions from the R.S.H.A., the sudden arrest of all Jews, with the exception of those living in mixed marriages was carried out in the period from 23 - 25 March 1944 by the SD offices; evacuation to Germany carried out for the most part already."
Did you know anything about that event at the time, or was the intention told to you before the evacuation was carried out?
A. It is completely new to me and I see it here for the first time.
Q. You tell us you read it here for the first time?
A. In the documents here.
Q. I see. What is it that is now to you in this context?
A. It is now to me that from 23 to 25 March there was apparently a second action which took place, while I only know the one that took place in September and October 1943.
Q. Were you in touch officially with the R.S.H.A.?
A. No.
Q. General, is it known to you how and through whom the deportation of Jews from Salonika was carried out?
A. I never heard anything about it.
Q. In connection with the evacuation of the Jews from Salonika was at any time the name Ruenner, I spell it, R-u-e-n-n-e-r or Wislicency, did these names become known to you?
A. I never heard the first name, the second probably I heard, as I remember it because it has a foreign sound, but I don't know in which connection I heard it.
Q. General, do you know when the first evacuation of Jews from Salonika was carried out?
A. No, I don't know that. I believe I remember that afterward I was told. It was in the beginning of 1943.
Q. I shall submit to the Tribunal excerpts from the records of the International Military Tribunal, which show clearly that this whole anti-Jewish action, dating from the year 1942 onwards, that is at a period of time when General Speidel was not in Greece at all was carried out by a special staff of the Reichs Security Main Office, the R.S.H.A. on direct order by Hitler and Himmler.
Now, General, would you like to look at the two following sentences of this document where it says:
"Property of the Jews of Greek citizenship handed over to the Greek State (ministry of Finance) property of Jews of neutral citizenship handed over to the representatives of the states concerned, property of Jews of Italian citizenship handed over for the present to the former Special Plenipotentiary of the Foreign Office for the purpose of appointing a trustee administration."
Do you remember that measure?
A. No, not at all. I only knew of the measure which took place in September 1942 but concerning this one here I know nothing.
Q. If it please the Tribunal, that will bring to a rather long chapter. Do you want me to start with the questions now?
JUDGE BURKE: I had been observing that situation with some interest myself, so we will continue the hearing tomorrow at 9:30 o'clock.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 17 December 1947)
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 17 December 1947, 0930, Justice Wennerstrum presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
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 except the defendant von Weichs who is in the hospital.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed with your re-direct examination.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION DEFENDANT SPEIDEL BY DR. WEISSGERBER:
Q. General, the prosecution has yesterday discussed with you the strike decree issued in June, 1943. Was there a military necessity for this strike decree issued in June, 1943?
A Undoubtedly, there was a military necessity to issue this decree. The continuous and extensive strikes which took place in spring, 1943, had indicated that danger. It had become apparent that these strikes had not been instigated for economic reasons but had instead a definite political purpose and took place under communist direction. As a consequence, we had received an order from higher level according to which strikes were threatened with severe punishments and above all those strikes which bore a political character.
On the basis of this order, but above all on the basis of my own observations and knowledge of the situation, I then issued the socalled anti--strike decree which we discussed yesterday. This decree threatened severe punishment in case of strikes, possible reprisal measures, without, as I said yesterday, establishing reprisal ratios in the scope of this order.
Q This anti-strike decree was publicly proclaimed so that the population could know about it?
A Yes, it was.
Q During cross-examination, the prosecution has maintained the point of view that you had worked out certain directives according to which your deputy acted when you in 1944 during your illness could not look after the affairs in the Southeast and went to Germany on leave. Is it correct that you worked out such directives?
A No, I did not work out any directives for any specific cases nor did I leave any behind. It was not necessary to do either one. My deputy, if I remember correctly, had been for more than a year the chief commandant of the Sub-Area Headquarters Saloniki and knew all orders which were valid for the area so that it was not necessary to leave behind specific directives. It was a matter of course that he would act in accordance with those orders which were valid at the time.
Q What was the position of your deputy?
AAs I said, he was commandant of the chief administrative sub-area headquarters Saloniki, 395 in Saloniki. He was in turn commanding General Army Group E.
Q This man General Pflugradt who was your deputy, had he received the same orders that you had received?
A Yes. He had received them from me, because, as commandant of the chief administrative sub-area headquarters, he was subordinate to me.
Q Has he in his capacity as Commander Saloniki-Agean received any orders immediately from the Army Group?
A I couldn't tell you because I don't know which orders he received from the Army Group. In this particular case, that is of no specific importance.
Q Did you give any particular instructions to General Pflugradt before you left for Germany?
A No, I didn't do it personally. It was not necessary because my departure came about rather suddenly and it was not possible for me to inform my deputy before I left.
Q From certain entries in the War Diary, dating from the period of time when you were absent from Greece, I gather that your deputy ordered reprisal measures which were more severe than the two reprisal measures which you had ordered. Did you have any influence in any way on the measures taken by your deputy, either immediately or indirectly by instructions which you had given to your staff?
A No. As I said before, I left no instructions behind for my deputy because it was not necessary to do this. If he deemed it necessary to take such measures, I am in no position to voice an opinion because I don't know the situation at the time and the reasons or the motives which moved him. I did not know the military necessity inherent in that situation and therefore cannot judge it. At the best, those instances prove how restrained I was myself in carrying out these measures.
Q Did you feel responsible at any time for measures taken by your deputy or by a third person during a period of time when you were absent?
A No, that idea never entered my mind because if a deputy takes over my tasks, he also takes over the responsibility together with the task and I did not feel burdened at all with any responsibility covering that period of time.
DR. WEISSGERBER: Your Honor, I have no further questions to put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions on behalf of defense counsel? Any on behalf of the prosecution?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: I have no re-direct, Your Honor - that is recross.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any members of the Tribunal who wish to ask any questions? Judge Carter?
JUDGE CARTER: Nothing.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Burke?
JUDGE BURKE: I have no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I have none. You may be excused, General Speidel.
DR. WEISGERBER: If it please the Tribunal, I am now going to present the balance of the documents which I have not so far offered during the examination of my client. That will be, first of all, from Document Book Speidel I, the affidavit by university professor Gamilschek, on page 21 and 22. That is Speidel Document Book I and this document will be offered as Speidel Exhibit 75 - I beg your pardon - it will be Speidel Exhibit 54, Your Honor. This is an affidavit by Dr. Ernst Gamilschek, Professor at the University of Tuebingen, and he is one of the best known European professors. I recommend this document to the notice of the Tribunal.
The next document, Document No. 13 in Document Book I, this is an excerpt from the Journal Colloquium which contains an article which contains part of a speech of the British Fieldmarshal Montgomery.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, I object to the admission of this document in evidence. We don't know whether it is a correct excerpt from this journal; at best it is hearsay. Fieldmarshal Montgomery is not available to us for cross-examination to explain any of the circumstances surrounding his statement and in any event it is the kind of argument that could best be made in the form of a brief. I submit that it is improper to receive this as evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
DR. WEISGERBER: If it please the Tribunal, from Document Book Speidel II, I have no further document to offer but there are some to offer from Document Book Speidel III. I would like to offer Speidel Document No. 46 on page 29 of Speidel Document Book III and this will become Speidel Exhibit No. 54.
THE PRESIDENT: This exhibit should be Exhibit 55, should it not?
DR. WEISGERBER: Yes, that is correct, Your Honor - 55.
This is a communication originating with the Commander of Southern Greece, dated 11 January 1943. In paragraph 2, this document shows that the Railway Security Staff Larissa had been organized and that this Railway Security Staff which was mentioned yesterday by my client was subordinated to the Commander-in-Chief Southeast for operational purposes and territorially subordinated to the Commander Saloniki-Agean. In order to prove this fact, I an offering this exhibit.
The next document to offer will be Speidel Document No. 52 in Speidel Document Book III, page 50. This document will receive Exhibit No. 56. It is a report of the Military Commander Greece and I am having reference to paragraph 3 of this report which states the following, and I quote:
"As naturally the troop is better informed of the enemy position than the various commands, the latter are if possible to receive all incoming information on the enemy from the troop every day and to obtain the data necessary as the basis for their actions as well as for the Ic reports."
This is submitted in connection with the statements made by my client concerning the channels of reporting, and finally I am offering from Speidel Document Book III, Document No. 61 on page 95 of Speidel Document Book III which is an excerpt from the Military Penal Code and it deals with Article 47 of the Military Penal Code. This document will be offered under Exhibit No. 57 and it is the well known commentary by the university professor Dr. Erich Schwinger. I recommend this document to the judicial notice of the Tribunal. I do not intend to read it.
I am also offering Document Speidel 52 as Speidel Exhibit 58. This is on page 104 of Speidel Document Book III and it is an excerpt from the commentary of Dr. Rittau concerning the Military Penal Code and this excerpt also deals with Article 47 of the Military Penal Code and it contains the commentary by Dr. Rittau on this particular article.
I don't intend to read this document either, but I recommend it to the judicial notice of the Tribunal.
If it please the Tribunal, this brings me to the end of my presentation of evidence in the case for my client General Speidel. As already mentioned during the course of the examination, I see myself forced to present a number of documents at a later date. It is not possible for me to present them at this time because these documents are still expected to arrive from abroad and have not been received yet. I would like to reserve for myself the right to present these documents at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT: That privilege will be given you.
DR. WEISGERBER: If it please the Tribunal, through the objections of the prosecution concerning the documents which I wanted to present in connection with the hostage shootings in Reutlingen, I see myself forced to bring evidence for this incident by calling witnesses concerning this incident to the witness stand here. I could not possibly anticipate that I would be forced to do this because it only arose from objections by the Prosecution. These are witnesses Frauelein Mathilde Eglob, and the witness Carl Neher. I have made a motion in writing to be permitted to call these two witnesses, and I would like to ask the Tribunal to grant this motion when it has been received.
And finally, I would like to announce the following, if it please the Tribunal. I had intended to call university professor Karl Schmidt from Tuebingen as an expert for questions of law; for some time I have been in touch with Professor Schmidt but besides holding his position as professor for international law at the University of Tuebingen he is a very busy man. Therefore, he has up to this date not been able to tell me whether he will have the time to appear before this Tribunal in this court.
According to the last communication which I received yesterday, he has agreed to this. I have made a motion in writing for permission to call this witness and I would like to ask the Tribunal to grant this application as soon as the communication concerning it has been received.
This brings me to the end of the presentation of evidence in the case of General Speidel.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
THE PRESIDENT: The matters to which you make reference, Dr. Weissgerber, will receive the attention and consideration of the Tribunal when they are received. I take it then that subject to the matters, which you have brought to the attention of the Tribunal, that you are now closing your case with the reservations you have made.
DR. WEISSGERBER: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to proceed now with the presentation of the evidence on behalf of the defendant Dehner?
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for the defendant General Dehner): If it please the Tribunal, I would like to start the presentation of evidence for the case of General Dehner with the examination of General Dehner as a witness on his own behalf. With the permission of the Tribunal I call General Dehner to the witness stand.
ERNST FRIEDRICH DEHNER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will kindly raise his right hand and be sworn.
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Will you please state your full name?
A Ernst Friedrich Dehner.
Q When and where were you born?
A On 5 March 1889 in Hersbruck, I spell it H-e-r-s-b-r-u-c-k.
Q What was your last military rank?
A General of the Infantry.
Q Will you please give us briefly the most important data in your life?
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
AAfter visiting the elementary school for four years in Hersbruck and Ansbach, I attended for nine years the Humanitarian High School in Ansbach and Nurnberg and in this city I passed my matriculation examination in 1908.
Q Will you please give us your military assignments until September, 1939, General?
A On 1 October 1908 I entered the army in order to fulfill my military service there. After two reserve maneuvers in 1908 and 1909, I was transferred into the active officers career. I attended from 1909 until 1921 the Bavarian Military Academy in Munich. After having finished that course, I became a lieutenant in the XIV Bavarian Infantry Regiment in Munich. As a lieutenant I started in World War No. 1, I was wounded and during the war I was promoted to first lieutenant.
After the first World War in 1919, I was promoted to Captain and at that time I was company leader in the Munich Garrison and was later transferred to Regensburg. There I was company leader and regimental adjutant. During this time in November of 1923 my company was committed to defeat the Hitler putsch in Munich.
In 1931 I was promted to Major. At that time I was in the Garrison Muenster in Westphalia and I was a referent in the staff of the Military District six in Muenster in Westphalia.
In 1934 I was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel, I was battalion commander in Muenster Westphalia in Regiment 78 and subsequently for a short period battalion commander in a regiment in Aix-la-Chapelle. On 1 October 1936 I was finally promoted to full Colonel and I was appointed regimental commander of Regiment 87 in Wiesbaden. With this regiment I started World War II.
Q Can you give us details of your commitment for the defeat of the Hitler putsch on 9 November 1923? 4
A I was assigned with my company to clean up the square before the University in Munich and I cleared this square with my company.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Q What were your military assignments during the war from 1939 until 1945?
A With my regiment I started out in World War II and first of all participated in the campaign against France, then I fought with my regiment in Luxembourg, Southern Belgium near Verdun and then returned to Germany.
In 1940 I was promoted Brigadier General and in December of 1940 I was appointed commander of the 10th Infantry division. On 1 October 1942 I was promoted Major General and on 1 November 1942 I was commissioned with the command of the 82nd Corps and one month later I was promoted to General of the Infantry, equivalent to Lieutenant General and was made Commanding General of the 82nd Corps.
In summer of 1942 I arrived in the Balkans and was made commander of the 69th Reserve Division. After that, for several months, I was transferred to the Officers' Reserve. Then I became commander of the military area of Southern France; that appointment I received in summer of 1944.
A few months after I had been in the Officers' Reserve, I became commander of the Replacement staff of Army Group Center. Then I was again transferred to the Officers' Reserve and on 3 May 1945 I was taken prisoner by the American troops.
Q Were you a member of the National Socialist Party?
A No.
Q Were you a member of one of its affiliated organizations?
A No.
Q What was the relation between you and the Party during the time up to 1939?
AAt that time I was no member of any Party, as an active officer I was not allowed to be a member of any Party.
Q What was your relationship to the N.S.D.A.P.?
A My relationship to the National Socialist Party could not always be called a good one. There were a number of differences of Court No. V, case No. VII.
opinion, frictions, difficulties and struggles. I was particularlyopposed to it at the beginning of 1933 and during the period of time when I was Regimental commander.
Q Were you at any time a member of the General Staff?
A No.
Q Did you visit any military academies?
A No.
Q What is your religion?
A I am a Protestant.
Q What was your relation to the Church?
A I was brought up in the Protestant religion and I adhered to this faith in spite of endeavors in officers' circles to convert me to the contrary and I always instructed my subordinates in conformity with this attitude of mine.
Q What was your attitude to the Nurnberg laws?
A I rejected the Nurnberg laws and I stated that frankly and openly. In my opinion these laws were unjust and they contradicted general conceptions of humanity.