A When, on the 6th of December 1943, the 173rd Reserve Division reported the incidents to me by way of the communication of 6 December 1943, I demanded explanations from the Sector Leader of the police in order to be able to follow up this matter through the channels to me, that is, the Wehrmacht channels. This communication complied with the usual forms of politness, but in spite of this it was an unusually serve one, in view of the fact that it was addressed to a non-subordinate agency. There have to be very severe and stringent reasons if one addresses such a communication containing such reproached to a unit which is non-subordinate and which furthermore was under Himmler's protection, this is proof of the fact that the Corps Headquarters disapproved of the section very strongly, if such an action really took place.
Q Witness, could you have done more as a consequence of that report of the 173rd Division?
A I was in no position to do more than I did.
Q Can you answer the question of what was done as a result of this communication by the SS Police Sector Commander Esseg?
A I can no longer recall what was initiated by him because I went on leave soon afterwards, but it is possible that while I was on leave the matter was further up. It is possible that one of the other witnesses whom we hope to get here to testify can give us more details.
Q This brings me to yet another incident. I am showing you the daily report of the 8th of December 1943, Document NOKW-658, Exhibit 375, contained in Document Book 16 of the Prosecution on page 35 of the English text and on page 85 of the German text, under paragraph 2-D.
THE PRESIDENT: The page, please?
DR. GAWLIK: Page 34 of the English text.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Under paragraph 2-D, it is reported that the villages Pistana, Logocac, Drenovac, and Rejenci were burned down by police forces.
was the destruction of these villages carried out by troops subordinated to the 69th Reserve Corps?
A No. As it is expressly stated here, the police was not subordinated to me.
Q And what about the Panzer Grenadier Training Regiment, did this Regiment participate in the carrying out of this reprisal measure?
AAlthough it says in this report that resistance was offered in these villages during mopping up operations of the Panzer Grenadier Training Regiment 901, I believe that preceded the incident by one or two weeks. At the time when the villages were actually destroyed by the Panzer Grenadier Regiment was no longer stationed in that area. By that time it had moved much further south, approximately 150 kilometers to the southeast. This is where the four villages are located (indicating), and at the time when the destruction of these villages took place, the Panzer Grenadier Training Regiment was approximately in this district. Therefore, that regiment cannot be concerned at all with the destruction of these villages, which can also be seen from the document.
DR. GAWLIK: If it please the Tribunal, this becomes apparent from Document Berk 6, page 84 and 77 of the German text which is not contained in the English document book. The English text is contained in Document Book Rendulic, Rendulic Document 125 in the first supplement on page 72 of the English text.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Before these villages were destroyed, General, were you informed?
A No.
Q Would you have been in a position to prevent these villages from being destroyed?
A That likewise would not have been possible.
Q This brings me to yet another incident. I will confront you with Document NOKW-710, Exhibit 377, in document Book 16 on page 42 of the English text and page 94 of the German text.
This is an entry in the War Diary concerning village Smedlica. Did you sign this entry, General?
A This entry into the War Diary was not signed by me. Why that wasn't done, I can no longer tell you today.
Q Can you give us your comments on the question of whether or not this villages was destroyed at all?
A The War Diary does not contain any entry dealing with the destruction of the village. If that village had been destroyed, I am sure an entry would be available. Furthermore, as can be seem from this very brief entry, the village was knows as a band strong point. The village was fortified and consolidated for defense purposes. Details concerning this fact could most likely be found in the endosure of the War Diary which, however, unfortunately was not submitted. The destruction of this village, of this band stronghold, if it was carried out at all, was done for forceful military reasons. It is expressly stated, further on, that the destruction was to take place after a consultation with the competent Croatian authorities. Whether these authorities actually agreed is not stated here, nor it is said what further action was taken.
Q This brings me to another document. I will show you document NOKW-1430, which is Exhibit 370 Document of the Prosecution. It is contained in Document Book 15, on page 54 of the English text and page 82 of the German text. This document deals with the operation "Brandfackel" (torch). Did the 69th Corps carry out this operation Brandfackel?
A No.
Q Was the First Cossack Division subordinated to the 69th Corps in January 1944?
A No, at that time the Cossack Division left in November and was completely gone in December 1943.
Q Who carried out the operation Brandfackel?
AAnother Corps, certainly not, my Corps.
Q Did the 69th Reserve Corps have any jurisdiction over the units which carried out the Operation Brandfackel?
A No.
Q Why then was this teletype which I showed you sent to the 69th Corps for information?
A Because it was customary that neighboring corps informed each other of such incidents.
DR. GAWLIK: That brings me to the end of Count II of the indictment, and it brings me to Count III of the indictment, 12-B of this Count of the indictment.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. What was your official rank before the Russian Campaign started?
A. Before the Russian campaign started, I was Divisional Commander and as such commanded the 106th Infantry Division.
Q. For how long were you the Divisional Commander of the 106th Infantry division?
A. I was Divisional Commander as of December, 1940 until 1 November, 1942.
Q. For how long were you committed in Russia?
A. I was in Russia from July 41 until March 1942.
Q. I shall show you document N.O.K.W. 1076, which is exhibit 14 of the Prosecution. It is contained in Document Book 1 on page 49 of the English text and page 34 of the German text. This is the order of the O.K.W. dated 6 June 1941 and it concerns directives for the treatment of political commissars. Did you receive this order, General?
A. No, you mean the order from 6 June and 8 June?
Q. Yes. Was this order passed on to the regiments subordinate to you?
A. Not to the best of my knowledge.
Q. Within your area of your division ---
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me. One time the witness said "No" and then he said "Yes". At one time, General, you said "No" and then you said "Yes", you received it. Now which is correct?
THE WITNESS: No.
DR. GAWLIK: I think there must be a mistake somewhere I don't think the General said "yes." That should be seen from the German record.
THE PRESIDENT: You did not receive it?
THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Was this order passed on to the regiments subordinate to you?
A. No.
Q. Within the area of your division, that is the area of the 106th Infantry division in Russia, were political commissars ever treated according to the directives given in this document?
A. No instance is known to me where a commissar was treated in accordance with the directives of the Commissar Order.
Q. As Divisional Commander or as Commanding General in France, did you ever receive the orders mentioned, did you ever pass them on or carry them out?
A. That was not possible alone for that reason that the commissar order was only valid for the east.
Q. As Commanding General in Croatia did you ever receive the orders mentioned, did you ever pass them on or carry them out?
A. No.
Q. If the Tribunal please, in this connection I would like to submit from Dehner Book 11, document Dehner No. 13 and this will become Dehner exhibit 11. This is an affidavit executed by Richard Wahl, it is dated 5 October 1947. Wahl states the following in this affidavit. I beg your pardon it is document book 2, page 22:
"From the activation of one 106th Infantry Division until in July 1941 I was in General Staff Office of this Division. I no longer know whether at the beginning of the Russian campaign the Division received the commissar order, but I know for certain that the 106th at the beginning of the Russian campaign gave orders to subordinate troop units for all prisoners, that is, also commissars, to be sent to the prison collecting centers, according to regulations. From these collection centers, according to international law, these prisoners were transferred to the POW camps. I never heard that during the Russian campaign a commissar was ever shot in the area of the 106th Division. I had official and personal contacts with all troop units of the Division, and I would certainly have heard about it if any such shooting had taken place."
I shall further submit from Document book Dehner 1, from page 10 of this document Dehner No. 5 and this will become Dehner exhibit 12. This is an affidavit executed by Ludwig Steyrer, who made the following statements:
"From the time of activation of the 106th Infantry Division in December 1940 until April 1942, I was the Commander of the artillery regiment of the 106th Division, which was on active service in the east."
I shall skip the next paragraph and further down it says:
"During the period of my service with the 106th Division in Russia, I never saw or heard of a case in which a commissar had been shot."
In this connection I further offer from document book Dehner exhibit No. 3 from page 50, document Dehner No. 17, which will become Dehner exhibit 13. This is an affidavit executed by Richard Ruoff, retired General and the affidavit is dated 14 November 1947. Ruoff made the following statements:
"During the Russian campaign I was Commanding General of the 5th Army Corps, and Commander in Chief of the 4th Panzer Army. General Dehner was Commander of the 106th Division and was my subordinate."
In the next paragraph it says:
"During the period when General Dehner belonged to my Corps, the Commissar order was not put into effect at all, as far as I can remember. Those commissars, who were captured, were not dealt with in accordance with the Commissar order, but were handed over to the Army for further interrogation."
I am further going to show you, General, the teletype of the 3rd of November, 1943, which is contained in document N.O.K.W. 568, exhibit 375 in Document Book 16 of the prosecution on page 22 of the English text and page 54 of the German text. In paragraph 11-E we have an entry, a report stating that a supply commissar and one bandit were shot. Was this a political commissar within the meaning of the well-known Commissar order of the 6th and 8th June, 1941?
A No, this is a supply commissar; he is designated in that way in the report.
Q Was this supply commissar shot in accordance with the Commissar Order of the 6th and 8th of June, 1941?
A No.
Q On hand of the documents which were were submitted, can you comment on the question why this supply Commissar was shot?
A I would feel inclined to assume that he was shot during combat. At least, he defended himself with his weapon in his hand, which becomes apparent from the fact that 34 bandits and band suspects were arrested, whereas two further bandits were shot. One of them was a supply Commisar. At least, those two defended themselves and deviated in their behavior from the behavior of the others. Otherwise there was no cause to treat the two persons shot differently from the 34 persons who were captured.
Q Who carried out this shooting?
AAs the report bears out, Croatian troops of the VIIIth Mountain Regiment carried out this shooting.
Q How does this become apparent?
A It says here in the daily report on the 3rd of november 1943 "surrounded and searched by the IInd and IIIrd Battalion of Mountain Regiment VIII," and this regiment was part of the Croatian force.
Q Was this regiment subordinated to you?
A No.
Q To whom was it subordinated?
A The regiment was subordinated to the Croatian Ministry of Armed Power.
Q This brings me to Point 12-H of Count 3 of the Indictment and in this connection I would like to show you Document 0-81 which is Exhibit 225 of the Prosecution. This is contained in Document Book IX on page 28 of the English text and page 41 of the German text. This is the Commando Order.
During the time in which you served as Divisional Commander of the 106th Infantry Division was one commando order ever carried out within the area of this division?
A No.
Q If your honors, in this connection, I would like to offer from Dehner Document Book I from page 4 of the German and the English text, Document Dehner No. 2 which will become Dehner Exhibit 14. This is an affidavit executed by Albert Kempner dated 23 September 1947, and this statement reads:
"From May 1942 until 31 August 1943, I was Regimental Commander in the 106th Infantry Division. During this period, particularly as long as General Dehner was Commander of the Division, the Commando Order was not carried out within the area of the division." While you served as Commander of the 82nd Army Corps was one Commando Order ever carried out?
A No.
Q As Commanding General of the LXIX Reserve Corps in Croatia, did you receive the Commando Order?
A To the best of my knowledge, I did not receive the Commando Order in Croatia.
Q Was this order ever carried out within the area of the LXIX Reserve Corps?
A No.
Q That brings me to 12-1 of Count 3 of the indictment. In this count, General Dehner is charged with having on or about the 11th of September, 1943, as Commander of the LXIX Reserve Corps, passed on and carried out an order to shoot one staff officer and fifty men of each division of the surrendered Italian army, or one officer and ten men of each division. The prosecution has submitted as evidence for this two orders issued by Keitel, dated 9 September 1943, and 15 September 1943. These are documents NOKW-898, Exhibit 317, contained in Document Book XIII of the Prosecution on page 27 of the English text and on page 18 of the German text; and NOKW-916, Exhibit 323, contained in Document Pork XIII of the Prosecution on page 42 of the English text and page 29 of the German of the German text.
General, I am going to show you these documents now, As Commander of the LXIX Reserve Corps, did you receive the Keitel Order of 9 September 1943?
A No, I couldn't have received this order because I was on leave at the time.
Q And what about the Keitel Order of the 15th of September, 1943?
A This order also falls into the period when I was on leave.
Q For how long were you on leave at that time?
A I was on leave until the 26th of September, 1943.
Q Did the LXIX Reserve Corps receive these orders and pass them on?
A Not to the best of my knowledge. On the basis of the distribution list, I believe I can state that the Corps never received these Orders.
Q Were Italians soldiers shot within the area of the LXIX Reserve Corps?
A No.
Q Were there any Italian troops at all in the area of the LXIX Reserve Corps?
A While I served as Commanding General of the LXIX Reserve Corps, I did not know that any Italian troops were in my area at all. From the War Diaries which we received from Washington, I notice now however that a small economic group of a few men, a few Italians, were stationed within my Corps area. Most likely, this group was not subordinated to me. Larger groups units were certainly not stationed within the Corps area. Otherwise, I would have known about this,
Q In this connection, General, I am going to show you Document NOKW-052, which is Exhibit 335 of the Prosecution. It is contained in Document Book XIII on page 136 of the English text and page 106 of the German text.
Were the 400 bandits mentioned in this document --Italians?
A No, they were band members who wore Italian uniforms. In any event, they had no connection or contact with the Italian Staff. As has been mentioned, repeatedly, it happened frequently that the bands wore German, Italian or Croatian uniforms. Apart from this, it becomes apparent from the formulation of the report that these were not Italian but bandits.
Q In this connection, I would like to direct the attention of the Tribunal to a document which I have already offered as Dehner Exhibit 10. This is Dehner Document No, 16; it is contained in Dehner Document Book III Document No. 16; it is contained in Dehner Document Book III on page 48. On this page, I would like to refer to the entry of the 26th of February 1943 where it is stated-- Document Book III, page 48, entry of the 26th of December, 1943-- "Headquarters suggested to the Army that distinguishing badges for all German and Croat troops fighting on our side in any operations be introduced. It has become necessary to use such distinguishing badges because bandits who have German and Croat uniforms in their possessions have frequently misled our troops with them."
Q. General, I am again going to show you Document NOKW-509, Exhibit N. 340, from Document Book XIV, on page 15 of the English and page 11 of the German text. This is an order of the Second Panzer Amy, dated the 15th of September, and it was passed on by the Corps Headquarters by order on the 19th of September. In this connection we will discuss Paragraph II-2 of this order.
General, did you receive this order of the 15th of September from the Second Panzer Army?
A. As I have stated before, I did not.
Q. Who passed this order on?
A. This order was passed on at the time by my Chief of Staff. I myself was on leave.
Q. And who was the responsible deputy while you were on leave?
A. The responsible deputy during the period of my leave was the highest ranking divisional commander, Major General Brauner.
Q. And who is responsible for the passing on of this order?
A. My deputy.
Q. When did you hear about this order and, therefore, about this particular paragraph?
A. I cannot tell you about this with any certainty today, but I would assume that after I returned from leave my Chief of Staff told me about this order.
Q. Did you have any possibility of revoking the order contained in Paragraph II after you knew about it?
A. The order had, by that time, been passed on to the units concerned, and it was in force.
Q. According to the Paragraph II-2, and in this connection. Paragraph II-b of the order of the 18th of August 1943, which is Document NOKW-509, Exhibit No. 340, contained in Document Book XIV, on page 13 of the English text and page 14 of the German text. In accordance with this order were band members in German uniform not treated as PW's?
A. To the best of my knowledge these provisions were not carried out with my corps for all practical purposes.
I believe I can state that during the time when I was the responsible Commander of the LXIXth Corps there was never an occasion on which a band member in German uniform was shot without a court martial because he wore a German uniform or the uniform of a country allied to Germany.
Q. On the basis of Paragraph III-3 of the order of the 18th of September 1943 did you ever order that no prisoners were to be taken or that member of one populace captured in the combat area were to be shot?
A. No. Never.
Q. Is it known to you whether one of the divisional commanders subordinated to you ever issued such an order?
A. Nothing of that kind is known to me.
Q. Is it known to you whether any other local officer took such a measure?
A. That is not known to me either.
Q. How were bandits treated who wore a German uniform or the uniform of power allied to Germany?
A. I know from my own observations that partisans in German uniform were sent to a German PW camp. In February 1944 I myself saw in Zagreb how a group of captured partisans -- about 20 persons in all, amongst them some women, -- were delivered to the prisoner collecting centre. All these captives wore German uniforms. They wore German coats, German caps, and they were in change of German soldiers who were far worse dressed than the captives they led. The German uniforms of the prisoners must have originated from a raid on a railroad line on a train in which German personnel on leave were traveling. These Germans going on leave were well-dressed in uniform and were then captured. In Brcko I saw captured partisans in 14 December 1943. They also wore German uniforms -- German coats, German caps, and German trousers. They were delivered the prisoner collecting centre just as regular PW's.
Q. As a general proof of how captured bandits were treated by the troops of the LXIXth Reserve Corps I Would like to submit, in this connection, from Dehner Document Book II, from page 23 of the German and page 23 of the English text Dehner Document No. 14, which will become Dehner Exhibit No. 15.
This is an affidavit executed by Dr. Bruno Seuser, and the affidavit is dated the 14th of October 1947. The affiant make the following statements: "From the middle of December 1943 until March 1944 I was physician in chief of the German field hospital in Vinkovci in Croatia. General Dehner was at that time corps commander in Vukovar.
When I reported to Dehner on 16 December 1943, he said to me among other things: "You have to treat wounded partisan prisoners in the field hospital exactly like our own soldiers" which we would have done even without this order. Besides the wounded partisans whom we treated in the field hospital, were no uniforms but were all clad only in miserable civilian clothing, in particular without shoes, in spite of the winter, only rags wrapped around their feet, without any insignia which would designate them as members of a regular army.
General Dehner had full understanding for the Croatian and Serbian population. The troop commanders often complained that they were not permitted to use any retaliatory measures against the partisans and that the partisans were treated with too much leniency by the corps.
I remember other corps to the effect that partisan prisoners had to be treated humanely, like prisoners of war.
"I do not believe General Dehner to be capable of committing crimes against the Rules of Warfare and crimes against Humanity. He treated everybody, also Croats and Serbs, kindly and with friendliness."
This brings me to some other incidents connected with Count 3 of the Indictment. In this connection, General, I will show you the teletype of the 24th of September 1943, which is Document NOKW-685, Exhibit No. 375 of the Prosecution. It is contained in Document Book XVI, on Page 7 of the English text and Page 16 of the German text. In Paragraph II-a it was reported that 18 band members were executed and 40 hostages were taken.
Was the execution of these 18 band members and the arrest of the 40 hostages based on an order issued by you, General?
A. No, I did not issue an order for this.
Q. Were these measures carried out by troops subordinate to you?
A. No.
Q. Who carried out these measures, General?
A. These measures were carried out by units which were subordinated to the Higher SS and Police Leader, Kammerhofer.
Q. During the period of time when these measures were allegedly carried out were you in command of the LXIXth Reserve Corps?
A. At that time I was not in charge of the LXIXth Reserve Corps because I was still on leave at that time.
Q. And who was the responsible Commander of the LXIXth Reserve Corps at the time?
A. Major General Brauner, who had repeatedly been mentioned. He was the ranking divisional commander.
Q. In this connection I shall show you the teletype of the 9th of September 1943, Document NOKW-658, Exhibit No. 375, in Document Book XVI of the Prosecution, on Page 12 of the English text and Page 30 of the German text.
In this connection we will deal with the statements made in Paragraph "c" of this document.
Did you sign the document just shown to you?
A. No, this document was not signed by me. The same as the other teletypes. It is only in typewriting, "Corps Headquarters, the LXIXth Reserve Corps."
Q. Does this document bear any initials of yours?
A. I can't see an initial anywhere.
Q. Were you informed of this document which has been presented by the Prosecution?
A. I cannot remember today that I was, but I can only say that I initialed every document which was shown to me. From the fact that this particular document does not bear my initials, I can conclude that this particular teletype was not submitted to me.
Q. On the basis of this submitted document can you comment on the question whether these measures were carried out by the 187th Reserve Division?
A. From this submitted document it does not become apparent with absolute necessity that the measures mentioned in the teletype of the 9th of October 1943 in Paragraph II-c were carried out by units of the 187th Reserve Division. I assume with certainty that these measures were carried out by Croatian units or by Police units because reprisal measures were, as a matter of principle, carried out by these agencies.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: We'll take our usual adjournment at this time, until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned at 1635 to resume session at 0930 Thursday 19 December 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Wilhelm List, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany on 19 December 1947, 0930, Justice Wennerstrum, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: All 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 court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant von Weichs who is in the hospital.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Gawlik.
ERNST DEHNER - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. GAWLIK Counsel for defendant Dehner:
Q General, the last thing we discussed yesterday was the teletype letter of 9 October 1943 which was Document NOKW-658, Exhibit 375, in Volume XVI, on page 12 of the English and page 30 of the German text. In particular we were dealing with paragraph "c" of this teletype letter and the statement as contained therein.
Now, from that document are you in a position to tell us whether these measures were carried out by the 187th Reserve Division?
A I believe I mentioned yesterday that no definite necessity seems to exist that the measures reported in this teletype letter of 9 October 1943 under paragraph 2-c were carried out by units of the 187th Reserve Division. I assume with certainty that they were carried out either by Croats or by the police. All reprisal matters were, as a matter of principle, carried out by the Croat police. However, I seem to remember that in Koritna a Croat unit was stationed.
I have mentioned repeatedly before that the divisions reported anything which occurred in the area even if it was carried out by troops not under their command.
Q Can you tell us whether this Communist courier was shot after a court martial?
AAlthough the teletype letter does not contain statements about the fact that a court martial had been convened, but that does not necessarily mean that no court martial was convened for this purpose. One should bear in mind here that this is not a detailed report. It is merely a teletype letter reporting events in the briefest telegraphic style.
The additional remark, "shot after court martial" was left out because it is a matter of course. On the basis of provisions for teletype communications anything superfluous and anything obviously should be left out. Several witnesses have testified to that effect.
Q Were you, after the Communist courier was arrested, informed that the latter was to be punished for having violated the laws of war?
A No, because the Croat agencies and the police never informed us beforehand of any measures they might intend.
Q Now, let me discuss another case. I would like to hand you the teletype letter of 13 October 1943 as contained in Document NOKW-658, Exhibit 375, in Volume XVI on page 14 of the English and page 35 of the German text, and also Document NOKW-079 which is Exhibit 350, contained in Volume XIV, on page 85 of the English and page 62 of the German.
DR. GAWLIK: I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention to the fact that both documents are entirely identical. Here again we have the case where one and the same document was submitted under two different exhibit numbers.
Q General, let me draw your attention to the statements contained under 2-d. Can you give us your comments on this report?
A The bandits mentioned in that paragraph, one of whom was executed because of plundering -- we are concerned with the same event which is contained also in the teletype letter of 9 October on which I have commented before.
Reference is made here to the daily report of 9 October, paragraph 2-c.
Q You said in your examination that if German troops carried out executions at all this was done by the units under your command on the basis of court martial proceedings. Does this contradict what the teletype letter says; namely, that the bandit was hanged on the spot?
A That does not contradict what I said. Court martial proceedings must have been taken because only one bandit and not two were executed. This one bandit must have been incriminated. The expression, "on the spot," does not contradict that because the court martial, which I assume is available for every battalion, convened forthwith and sentenced him.
Q Now, let me discuss another case. Let me hand you a teletype letter dated 31 October 1943 contained in Document NOKW-658, Exhibit 375, in Volume 16, on page 20 of the English and page 59 of the German and also Document NOKW-075, Exhibit 358 in Volume XIV, on page 113 of the English and page 87 of the German.
DR. GAWLIK: Here again I would like to point out to the Tribunal that this is one and the same document offered under two different exhibit numbers.
Q Did you sign those documents, General?
A I did not. I did not sign either of them.
Q Were you informed of this document at the time?
AAs I said before, any document submitted to me, I would initial. The fact that the document submitted by the prosecution does not bear my initial means, I deduce, that that document in any case was not submitted to me.
Q General, let me show you a photostatic copy of Document NOKW-658, Exhibit 375. Are those initials yours which may be found on this document?
A No, they are not my initials.
Q Let me draw your attention, General, to the events reported under paragraph 2-a. Can you tell us whether the shooting of 9 bandits reported there concerns a reprisal measure or any other measure?
A The statements in this teletype letter make it necessary to remember that all statements therein are based on reports made by the Cossacks. As I said before, because of linguistic difficulties, reports by the Cossacks were always very unreliable. I assume that discrepancies were later cleared up. Because of the contents of this very brief report, I am inclined to believe that these bandits were shot in combat. This is also indicated by the additional remark that bandits were given battle. During that battle I should assume that 12 bandits were shot including 9 active people who assisted the bands, 7 of whom were wearing German uniforms.
Q What in the parlance of German units is meant by a man suspected of belonging to the bands?
A What the troops used to mean by a band suspect was a man who actively helped tho bands; that is to say, a bandit who actively assisted the bandits, which also is explained more clearly in the regulation covering band warfare.
Q Another case, General; let me hand you the teletype letter of 3 November 1943, Document NOKW-658, Exhibit 375, in Volume XV, on page 22 of the English and page 53 of the German. Did you sign that teletype letter?
A No, I did not.
Q Has it been signed by anybody?
A It has not.
Q Did you know of this document at the time when you were Commanding General of the 69th Reserve Corps?