With regard to this Draza Mihailovic ordered attacks and acts of sabotage to be carried out as much as possible if their authorship could not be determined or could be ascribed to the Communists.
"Because of the reprisal measures as well as because of the larger and smaller enterprises against them, even the Tito movement was able to get a foothold in the Serbian area only slowly, and was not able to develop into an effective striking organization-penetrating beyond the Croatian area -- until 1944. Through the measures of the Commanding General and Commander, the extensive ravages and devastation which can be seen in the Croatian area because of the fighting of the Tito bands in 1942-44 were avoided in the Serbian area.
"The suppression of open rebellions in the Serbian area, which was successful until the middle of 1944, certainly saved the Serbian people considerable losses in life and property."
The affidavit is signed by the affiant and it has been duly sworn to and certified.
I shall further submit from Geitner document book 2, Geitner document 53, which is on page 62 of the English text and page 62 also in the German document book. This document No. 53 will be offered under Geitner exhibit No. 63. It is an affidavit executed by the same affiant as the previous one, Dr. Scheller, and he here deals with the military character of the DM organization. I recommend the details of this document to the judicial notice of the Tribunal. I don't want to......
MR. FULKERSON: I object to the admission of this affidavit on the ground that the last paragraph of it shows that this affiant is a resident of Nurnberg. I did not object to the first one because.......
THE PRESIDENT: What is the page?
MR. FULKERSON: The page in English is page 65.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if we are to follow our previous rulings, is there any question as to this man being a resident of Nurnberg?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Under our previous ruling I believe the objection will be sustained.
DR. SAUTER: Then I shall call the witness to the stand here after the Christmas recess. It will lose us about one half day, but I cannot help it if the prosecution insists on objection.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter for the prosecution to decide.
DR. SAUTER: Then I shall examine this witness after the holidays on the witness stand here.
MR. FULKERSON: If your Honors please, I was not present when General Geitner was on the stand and I know very little about the documents and the evidence concerning him, therefore, I would like to stand on my objection now. If it appears later that the objection is purely technical, I will be glad to withdraw it and against any others which I decide to make as I don't want to prolong the trial.
THE PRESIDENT: You have made the objection, DR. Sauter will have to start getting the witness here and it takes a certain length of time. The ruling will stand, but neither Dr. Sauter or the Tribunal is responsible for the fact that the work of the prosecution has been divided.
MR. FULKERSON: Very well, I stand on the objection.
DR. SAUTER: I would like to suggest that we retain exhibit No. 65 for this document for the moment, because I anticipate in view of the contents of the affidavit the prosecution will not maintain its objection. I think it would be expedient for the moment to maintain the exhibit No. 65.
THE PRESIDENT: We will maintain that number and you may proceed with the next exhibit.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you, your Honor. This brings me to Geitner document book 4. I would like to first make a few remarks. This document book Geitner No. 4, which contains documents from No. 81 up to and including 110, I would like it to be considered as one complete entity. The contents of this book is concerned with compilations concerning the activities of the insurgents within the area of the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia, covering the period from June, 1942 to April, 1943.
That is the contents of documents 81 on page 1 of the document book which I shall submit later. Further there are excerpts from the war diary of the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia and of the Military Commander Southeast covering the period from June, 1942, until May, 1944, that is document No. 82 up to and including document 105. Further, the third part of the document book consists of two orders concerning the rejecting of reprisal measures and these facts will become apparent from documents 106 and 107. The fourth part of the contents comprises relief measures of the Military Commander Southeast intended for the population of Belgrade, that is going to be document 108 and the last part of the document book will consist of two affidavits of the defendant von Geitner, concerning daily reports and reports concerning orders, war diaries, etc. Those will be documents 109 and 110, two affidavits, if I may anticipate that which we discussed in detail earlier. These affidavits serve the purpose to give the defendant von Geitner a chance to comment on unimportant details which are immaterial for him.
This then brings me to document 108 in Geitner document book Correction, it is document 81 in Geitner document book 4 on page 1 of this document book and this will be offered under exhibit No. 66. This document 81 contains mainly very careful surveys of the amounts of sabotage acts and raids committed by the insurgents, covering the period from June, 1942 until April, 1943. One may ask, why when working out this survey we restricted ourselves to this particular period of time. The explanation is quite simple, it is because the war diaries sent to us from Washington contain exact figures only for that period, that is the period covering June, 1942 to April, 1943. During the subsequent period from May 1943 these figures were mentioned in the war diary only in the 1-c situation reports to higher agencies and these 1-c situation reports, that is the report written by the official who goes under the heading 1-c, have not been sent to us from Washington, therefore I was not in a position to include the 1-c reports in my survey.
I would have done that, of course, if I had received these reports with the others because then I would have been in a position to make a survey over the whole period of time without any gaps.
If your Honors please, I do believe we can assume that the figures for the later months, which could not be considered in this survey, will be on the same level if not higher.
Document No. 81 is intended to prove that at that time when General von Geitner came to Belgrade, the raids and sabotage activities of the insurgents in Serbia had reached such an extent that it became necessary to apply severe counter measures on the part of the Germans in order to protect the peaceful civilian population against murder, plundering and destruction which were carried out by the bands. This survey is further to prove that a dreadful battle of everyone against everyone would have raged in this area had not stringent measures on the part of the Germans prevented it.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, please. I think this would possibly be a proper time to adjourn and we will continue with your presentation of documents Monday morning.
The Tribunal will be in recess until Monday morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, Monday, 22 Dec. 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 22 December, 0930, Justice Carter 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, you will ascertain as to whether or not 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: Do you have some matter to present?
MR. FULKERSON: Yes, if your Honors please, when we closed Saturday, or Friday, Dr. Sauter was in the middle of presenting Document No. 81, which is the first document of Geitner Book IV. It is an affidavit which Dr. Sauter made himself, and, as I understand, he isn't through presenting it. In any event, I would like to object to it on several grounds. First, the affidavit was made by Dr. Sauter and, so far as I am able to tell, was sworn to before himself and purports to show a series of tabulations and certain conclusions drawn from documents, the conclusions having been drawn by somebody else, who isn't named, and the documents from which those conclusions are drawn only being indicated in the most general way. I am aware that we are not bound here by the technical rules of evidence, but when a document violates not one but almost all of the rules which are supposed to protect the probative value of documentary and oral evidence, for that matter, it seems to me that the court should feel itself bound to -- not to ignore them completely. Now, for example, the best evidence rule is violated flagrantly. Not only is the document from which these various conclusions are drawn not introduced evidence, but it hasn't even been indicated with certainty what these documents are.
Secondly, we have no way of knowing from this affidavit now these conclusions were drawn, what types of acts are included in this tabulation, and it seems to the Prosecution that, simply from a standpoint of probative value, this document is a probative nullity, and it is noted that the contents of it are properly included, if they are to be properly included anywhere, in argument rather than in a document which purports to set our facts.
THE PRESIDENT: We will hear your statement, or any statement you may make, Dr. Sauter.
I wish to announce that Judge Carter will preside at this day's session and at least the preliminary of this particular question will rest with him.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honors, I would like to make the following statement to the objection of the Prosecution. In this document 81, which is the first document in Geitner Book IV: I have given the Tribunal an exact and careful compilation of all surprise attacks and sabotage acts which the insurgents carried out in the period of time indicated in the documents. The purpose of this tabulation was to prove to the court that at the time when General Geitner came to Belgrade the activities of the partisans where sabotage acts and surprise attacks were concerned had already reached such an extent that without severe counter-measures taken on the part of the Germans it would not have been possible to cope with the situation. The documentary information for this tabulation was taken from the War Diaries -- that is, War Diaries which were sent to us from Washington by order of this court. Of course, I was only in a position to do it in this way -- that is, by collaborating with my colleagues and studying the War Diaries from the first to the last day; and, in compiling from these Diaries the figures and amounts of sabotage acts and surprise attacks which occurred within a certain period of time, all this was compiled by us in Document No. 81. The court needs an affidavit concerning the fact that the compilation was done in the way that I have just indicated, and that is the affidavit which can be found on the same page on the first page of Document No. 81.
I myself executed this affidavit. The Prosecution asserts that this document does not comply with the rules of evidence of this court. I am not quite sure about what he means by this statement. What he might possibly object to is that in this affidavit I have not certified my own signature, but I would be inclined to think that formalities would not take first place to the extent that I myself should have to certify a signature which I gave in an affidavit executed by myself. The Prosecution further maintained that, if I understood correctly, one could not check the documents from which this compilation was taken. In answer to this I would like to point to the introduction which is contained on page 2 and where it is stated that "the evaluation of War Diaries of the Commanding General and Military Commander of Serbia produces the following," these, then, are compilations taken from the War Diaries which we received from Washington.
Now I would like to answer to the last objection made. How is one to prove whether or not this tabulation is correct? I myself have sworn under oath the correctness of this compilation. For many weeks we studied these War Diaries. If the Prosecution has any doubt left as to whether this compilation is correct, I can only advise them to do the same as I have done -- that is, sit down for weeks and study these forms, diaries, and, as I have done, make certain excerpts, and then the Prosecution will be in a position to make statements in the courtroom to the Tribunal as to whether or not this tabulation is a correct one. In my opinion there is no other way to deal with this matter. For all practical purposes, we hold the opinion that this tabulation is of importance, of extreme importance, for the evaluation of the whole problem.
MR. FULKERSON: In addition to the other unusual features of this affidavit, I would like to point out one other thing to the Tribunal. So far as I know, all of these defendants have said that reprisal measures were not taken for German losses either in property or in lives which were incurred in combat, that reprisal measures were only taken for sabotage raids, etc.
It is impossible to tell from this tabulation here whether it includes all German losses, however incurred, or exactly what the classification made by whoever compiled this was.
DR. SAUTER: This objection has nothing to do with the formal admissibility of this exhibit. This new objection refers to the probative value of the document. It will be the decision of the court to state what probative value this document will have, but the formal admissibility I don't believe is touched by this objection at all. I would therefore like to ask for this objection of the prosecution to be overruled.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Dr. Sauter, what do the figures on the column underneath the term "Appendix" indicate? On page 2.
DR. SAUTER: The last but one column?
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: All the figures contained on page 2 are figures which become apparent from the War Diaries. The War Diary contains continuous reports and most of those reports have appendixes. For instance, copies of orders, all reports which came in, etc., and these appendixes are numbered in sequence, in numerical sequence, because otherwise one would be in no position to insert where the individual page belongs; and I have included this sequence, this numerical sequence, in the last but one column so that he who wants to chock my compilation can find immediately where the correct page is to which the report in question refers. That is the idea of this column.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Well, are those appendices not exhibits that have been offered in evidence?
DR. SAUTER: No, they are numbers of individual pages in the War Diaries which I have looked through and on which I have worked. If your Honors please, you will have to imagine that you have a book and the pages run from 1 to 376, let us say, and the War Diary is quite a similar book; it is numbered in numerical sequence, and, so that one can find the page immediately to which the report refers, I have given the number of the page in this column under discussion.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Then the point ---
DR. SAUTER: It is for the evaluation of the court of no importance whether this column is here or not, but if, for instance, in your judgment and opinion, you want to check on a certain report, then all you have to do is refer to the page to which the report or communication is contained and you can find that page in the left column. Anybody can make use of this column. Who believes that what I said is wrong, they can take the same trouble I have taken and check up then stand here and say that either what Dr. Sauter has sworn to is correct or they will have to say that what Dr. Sauter has sworn is not correct, and then whoever says that has to prove it and bring evidence. I would consider that a fair way to conduct the trial on the part of the Prosecution.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I understand that, but what I am trying to find out is: Is this a recapitulation of exhibits that have already been offered in evidence, or does it include some that have not been offered in evidence?
DR. SAUTER: From the War Diaries which I have used here there have been several excerpts; in earlier presentation of evidence of the Prosecution which have been submitted, but only some. These documents which have been submitted at an earlier time are also contained in this compilation. The War Diaries which I worked on, however, contain other excerpts as well. If your Honors please, I can only answer your question by this: partially the War Diaries from which I have taken these excerpts have been presented at an earlier time and partially they have not yet been presented. The Prosecution has presented whatever seemed to them expedient for incrimination of the defendant, and I have used another system. I have studied all reports and taken this compilation from all reports, irrespective of whether it is favorable or unfavorable for the defendant.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: We will receive it for what it is worth.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, if the Tribunal please, this Document 81 which has cost us so much time contains on page 2 a tabulation or surprise attacks and sabotage acts dating from the period of the 26th of June to 15 November 1942. For this period of time -- that is, for approximately four and one-half months -- there are, for the Commander of Serbia, 1907 surprise attacks and sabotage acts committed by insurgents. That is, 14 surprise attacks every day, weekdays and Sundays. On page 3 you find the continuation of this tabulation applied to the following month -- that is, from the 16th of November 1942 to the 15th of April 1943. If you might ask why this tabulation on page 3 has been separated from the preceding statistics on page 2, I can answer this question by stating the following: During the period of time covered on page 2, the Military Commander for Serbia was responsible for Serbia and Croatia. Therefore, the figures mentioned on page 2 cover both those areas, Serbia and Croatia, whereas the figures on page 3 only refer to the Serbian area, no longer to the Croatian area. If you study page 3, you will find that during the period of time from 16 November 1942 until 15 April 1943 in the Serbian area alone, without Croatia, if you add it up, there were 1782 surprise attacks and sabotage acts. If you work out how much that is, concerning every individual day, you will have an average for every day, Sundays and weekdays, of 12 to 13 acts of sabotage and surprise attacks committed. Concerning other periods of time mentioned in this document, we could not make a similar compilation because we had no information for this. The information for the subsequent period would have been contained in the Situation Reports of the ic that is the intelligence officer. That is, in the reports which the 1c officer passed on to higher agencies. And those Situation Reports made by the 1c were not sent to us. from Washington. At least, they were not given to us, and therefore we could not evaluate them. The whole this Document No. 81 has been submitted, as already mentioned, so that the Tribunal, when examining the question whether in connection with such a gigantic figure of sabotage acts and surprise attacks, it was necessary to take reprisal measures on the part of the Military Commander in Serbia and, if so, to which extent it was necessary.
Furthermore, this document was submitted so that the court may be in a position to check as to whether or not the assertion of the defendants is correct that only a small percentage of the sabotage acts and surprise attacks was retaliated by so-called reprisal measures. On page 4 of this first document in Geitner Document Book IV, your Honors will find a statistic concerning the German and Allied casualties which occurred in the period mentioned -- that is, from the 16th of June 1942 be the 15th of November 1942.
This compilation for the period mentioned, that is for about ten months, results in a total of 2,891 dead, 4,040 wounded German soldiers and 4,892 Missing. We, if your Honors please, assert that this last figure, that is 4,892 missing German soldiers consists almost exclusively of soldiers who are dead. These 4,892 German soldiers disappeared without leaving any trace, they never returned to their unit, they did not come home and the defendants are convinced that the band members murdered them. This then was document No. 81, Geitner 81, which was presented under exhibit No. 66.
This brings me to the next document Geitner 82, which is contained on page 6 and following and this will be offered under Geitner exhibit No. 67. This document No. 82 at page 6 of Geitner document book 4, together with the subsequent documents up to No. 105, that is on pages 6 through 56 of Geitner document book 4 forms a consecutive entity. From the heading you can see that those again are copies from the war diary of the commanding general and commander in Serbia from July, 1942 until May, 1944. These again are copies from documents, which were received from Washington. That is copies from documents which undoubtedly were compiled during the war during the period mentioned and we feel there can be no doubt about their authenticity and probative value. From these entries in the war diary, the defendant von Geitner tried to prove that not only the part of his commander, but also on the part of the chief of staff von Geitner everything was done in Serbia to protect the civilian population wherever possible from the hardships of war and from the activities of the partisans. Everything was done to mitigate their suffering and to prevent famine. Furthermore General von Geitner wants to prove through these documents -- from document No. 82 through 105 -that he made use of every available opportunity to effect a decrease and modernization of reprisal measures, although he was not competent for this problem and finally these documents prove, in General von Geitner's opinion, which is why I submit them, that he waged continually a severe battle against the Higher SS and police leader Meizner and against Obergruppenfuehrer Neuhausen.
He did this in order to achieve a uniform and peaceful administration.
I only want to read a few brief excerpts from these documents, but I would feel obliged if the Tribunal wherever possible would take judicial notice of the whole of these documents, so that the Court may understand General von Geitner's efforts and the whole policy in his administrative activities.
In document No. 82, Geitner exhibit 67, we find first of all on page 6 under 14 July 1942, the following entry. It concerns the deportation of captured band members into prisoner of war camps. I shall read the entry:
"The Commander decided that the four Chetnik officers...." then follow the names, "Are to be sent to a prison camp in Germany. They are strongly suspected of having murdered the Commander of their battalion, Major Ignatovic."
The defendant points out that actually there was an order from Hitler that people of that sort were to be shot after Court Martial, but he and his Commander maintained a different point of view and accidentally this entry happens to be an example for this deviating opinion of General von Geitner and his commander.
On this same page, if I may draw the attention of the Tribunal to this, we have an entry of 21 July 1942, that is on page 6 of document book 82, which says:
"Envoy Benzler with the chief..." I might interpolate here, chief means chief of staff and that was von Geitner, the defendant von Geitner. To turn to the entry again: "...Further discussion points: press conference, military and civilian propaganda..."Now the most important sentence: "The return trip of Serbian prisoners of war from Germany."
The defendant von Geitner, in submitting this passage, wants to prove that he personally interested himself in this return transport of Serbian prisoners of war from Germany although he was not responsible for this particular problem.
In the next document, which is document Geitner 83 on page 8 of Geitner document book 4 and which will become Geitner exhibit No. 68, I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal in particular to the entry under the date of 4 August 1942, page 8, Geitner document book 4, document 83, Geitner 68. This entry shows that the defendant concerned himself with the protection of the population against excesses. In this he wants to point to the assertion of the prosecution which is entirely wrong and which gives a picture that the defendant had nothing else to do than to initiate the shooting of hostages. To ready the entry, it says:
"Oberintendanturrat Seelinger sees the Chief". (This was the defendant von Geitner). "Discussion about request of Bulgarians that troops be fed by rebel villages as punishment."
And now the opinion of General von Geitner which he states here and I quote:
"Measure doubtful, because with unlimited application Bulgarians would be living off Serbia. Decision after conference with Gen. Hinghofer: Such reprisal measures require permission of Commanding General and Commander of Serbia."
The defendant, in submitting this passage, wants to prove that he wanted to keep the reprisal measures away from the tasks of the Bulgarians in order to avoid injustice.
The next paragraph, again under date of 4 August, is of interest concerning the attitude held by the defendant von Geitner and I would like to read this paragraph:
"Re: report that the Bulgarians captured 3 Englishmen and shot two of them, the chief......." Whom we know is the defendant von Geitner, "directs the Deutscher Vereindungsoffizier, German Liaison Officer, that in such cases prisoners should under no circumstances be shot."
The defendant maintains that here again it can be seen how he acted and how he observed the rules of International Law and how chivalrous his attitude was.
The next passage, which deals with 5 August 1942, contains a statement of a similar type. Here the defendant von Geitner enters in the war diary:
"General Hinghofer decides, as deputy commanding general, that Major Glisic and the Chetnik officers arrested with him are not to be given forced labor after their examination, but are to be sent to a German prisoner of war camp."
The defendant, in submitting this quotation, wants to prove to the Tribunal how he endeavored to observe the provisions of International law and how he concerned himself with a decent treatment of prisoners exceeding the scope of his duties. I recommend the further entires of this document to the judicial notice of the Tribunal. I don't want to read any more of them, they are all in about the same manner.
From Document 84 on page 11, which will be submitted under Geitner exhibit 69, I repeat Geitner document 84, page 11, Geitner document book 4, Geitner exhibit 69, in this document I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal first of all to the entry under the date of 2 September, 1942. This entry refers to applications, the improvement of organization and administration in Serbia. I shall read:
"Chief..." that is Geitner, "Reports to Commander," the commander at that time was General Bader, "Suggestions: 3. Reorganizations of military administration. Elimination of the co-existence of similar agencies which get their orders from Berlin. Clarification of the relationship between police and military offices. " Your Honor, the defendant attached importance to this entry and to the Tribunal gaining knowledge of this entry, because it is not a singular instance, but if you read through the documents No. 82 to 105, that is the entries of his war diary, you will find in every document similar entries, that is entries, which are to show that the defendant von Geitner waged a constant battle -
JUDGE CARTER: The Tribunal will be in recess until the call of the Marshal.
(Due to mechanical difficulties a recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Court is again in session.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You may proceed. Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: If your Honors please, I would like for a brief moment to refer back to Document No. 81. That is the first document in Geitner Document Book IV "28328/7," et cetera. Those figures with "28" are figures put by American officers on the documents when photostating them. This American office puts a number on every document so that later on they find their way around and those are the numbers which are contained in the last column on the left.
The numbers which were given by German officers to the document can be found in the last but one column under the heading, "Appendix"; for instance, in the first entry on page 2 it says, "Appendix 35," and the next says, "Appendix 58, " et cetera. Those are German numbers. The very last one -- that is the very last column -- gives the number by the American photostating Agency.
That was what I wanted to add to the presentation of this document. I shall continue where I was interrupted just now. I was dealing with the entry of the 2nd of September 1942 and I said that this entry under the date of 2 September 1942 is being presented by the defendant von Geitner in order to show that again and again he endeavored to improve the organization of administration. He tried to eliminate the coexistance of similar agencies. That is, he wanted to restrict the activity of the Higher SS and Police Leader as much as possible.
The next entry falls into the same line; that is, the entry also is contained on page 11 towards the middle where it says: "Chief sends teletype Enclosure 3." "Chief" also means the defendant Geitner. "Chief sends teletype to Army Commander Southeast (see enclosure). Report to General Hinghofer that the volunteer unit D-3 is starving. Chief decides to do this in consideration of the inability of the Serbian government to guarantee food supplies for the volunteers."
This goes to prove efforts made by the defendant von Geitner to take care of the volunteers.
Then the entry of the 8th of September 1942 reads:
"Various decrees of the Reichsfuehrer SS attempting to increase the authority of the Higher SS and Political Officers in Serbia at the expense of the Commanding General."
The defendant von Geitner wants to prove by submitting this passage that in his agency one fought all the time to eliminate the excesses committed by the Higher SS and Police Leader.
The next entry dated the 11th of September 1942 is also contained on page 11 and this proved the care taken for the population. The defendant wants to show that he at least did not think of any plan of extermination. I shall quote the entry from the 11th of September 1942:
"The privately owned Serbian hospital Vracar is not to be expropriated in consideration of the prominent work of the owners as surgeons."
A similar entry can be found on the 12th of September 1942 which I shall skip.
On page 12 under the 27th of September 1942 we have an entry which reads:
"The chief" --- that is General von Geitner --- "requests the German general in Agram to prevent the Serb slaughterer Tomic from becoming active now in Bjelovar as agent of Eugen Kvaternik."
This entry has, of course, not been made for this trial here but it is in line with the opinion of those days and the defendant wants to show that at that time he interested himself for the Serbian population where ever he could.
The next document, Geitner 85 in Geitner Document Book IV will be submitted under Geitner Exhibit No. 70. I repeat -- Document 85, Document Book IV, Geitner Exhibit 70. On page 13 we have an entry dated the 9th of October 1942. I quote:
"Chief gives Army Chief following information by phone for report for Brigadier General Warlimont: 1. Speedier carrying out of the plan submitted for the unification of the power of command in Serbia."
This again is a conviction to show the efforts of the defendant von Geitner for the improvement of organization in the interests of the civilian population. General Warlimont who is mentioned here was, as is well known, a high ranking officer in the OKW. He was a collaborator of General Jodl.
The next entry is dated 10 October 1943, and it reads: "On the basis of a confidential agency's report (U.) in which Draga Mihailovic calls for attacks on individual German members of the Wehrmacht and small detachments, an order is issued concerning precautionary measures against enemy attacks."
The defendant tells me that particularly from such entries one can see how he endeavored to take preventative measures against attacks so that afterwards one wouldn't have to take reprisal measures.
The next entry is dated the 11th of October 1942. This is also on page 13 of Geitner Document Book 4. This entry again shows the efforts of the defendant Geitner for improvement of organization. I don't want to read that particular excerpt.
On page 13 under the date of 15 October 1942 we have a entry saying: "Order to Field Intelligence Staff Officer (Ic) to have Vojvode Gordic detained as a prisoner of war."
The defendant von Geitner in submitting this wants to show that he did not treat these prisoners in the way that Hitler and the OKW demanded them to be treated ---- that is to have them put up against a wall and shot -- but that instead he treated them as prisoners of war although they have no claim to this status.
The next entry is dated 17 October 1942 and it shows the intervening of the Commander in Serbia and, therefore, also of the defendant von Geitner directed against excesses committed by the Bulgarians. Towards the end of the entry it is stated:
"Chief Wehrmacht Commander Southeast forwards 7 questions of the Fuehrer concerning the attack on the Lisa antimony plant."
This again is a conviction for the correctness of the statements made by the defendant von Geitner, that Hitler personally demanded explanations in some instances whether reprisal measures had actually been ordered and carried out.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Dr. Sauter, just as a matter of interest, just what kind of a plant was that attacked? That is term that we seem to be unfamiliar with.
DR. SAUTER: To the best of my knowledge, it is a chemical plant. At the moment I am not quite sure what antimony is used for but from conversations with others I heard that for the supply of the civilian population this antimony plabt was of considerable importance.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: General Geitner seems to know. You might ask him and then repeat it to us.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, your Honor. Just a moment, please.
DEFENDANT von GEITNER: Antimony is a metal which hardly exists in Europe, it being used to harden lead -- yes, to harden lead -- for instance, soldering metal, et cetera.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Thank you.
DR. SAUTER: This hardening of lead, as I just hear, is very necessary for a number of industries: for instance, for the motor car industry, so that the bearings where the shaft run should be hardened.
MR. FULKERSON: Your Honor, it is used for making bearings; any kind of bearing that has lead in it generally also has some antimony.
DR. SAUTER: That is what I meant. I thank you.
I would like now to continue with page 13 and in particular I want to stress the last entry. I beg your pardon; I mean page 14 and on this page I would like to draw attention to the first entry under date of 20 October 1942 which reads:
"Phone call Army Strategic and Tactical Planning Staff Officer at Chief's office concerning attack on Lisa antimony plant. Responsibility to be ascertained on basis of Fuehrer order."