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?
A My initials are not there so I am sure that I did not see it at the time.
Q Let me draw your attention to the report contained under 2-d. What can you tell us about that?
A Of course today I cannot remember these many reports which used to reach me. I deduce from the wording of this report that without any doubt the Communist courier mentioned under paragraph 2-d was shot in combat. The wording seems to leave me to feel that this was not a reprisal measure. The words, "during reconnaissance activities," make it clear beyond any doubt that we were concerned with a combat action here.
Q Now, another case; let me show you the daily report of 24 August 1943 which is Document NOKW-1758, Exhibit 549, contained in Volume 24, on page 251 of the English and page 184 of the German text. In that daily report it says under the heading, "Croat 1st Mountain Brigade", that two persons who belonged to a certain detachment were shot.
Did the 1st Croat Mountain Brigade come under the 69th Reserve Corps?
A No, they were not subordinate to me.
Q Can you tell us whether the incidents mentioned in the report amounted to a reprisal measure?
A These two individuals to whom reference is made here were, I presume, shot in combat as after the detonation there was an engagement with the bands.
Q Another incident: let me show you Document NOKW509, which is Exhibit 340, contained in Volume XIV, on page 36 and 37 of the English and page 22 of the German text.
Who applied to the Air Force Commander in Zagreb for the destruction of the villages mentioned in the report by an air raid?
A I don't know.
Q In the period of time when you were Commanding General of the 69th Reserve Corps, did you get to know anything about this incident?
A I can no longer recall this incident nor do I find any reference in the whole of the war diary to this affair.
Q Can you tell us anything else about the document?
A This document has no date to begin with. Therefore, the document does not make it clear when the incident reported in the document occurred, particularly not whether it occurred during the period of time when I was in command of the Corps.
Q Can you tell us whether these villages were destroyed by the Luftwaffe?
A I do not know because I cannot find any indications in the war diary.
Q Another incident: let me show you the daily report of 12 November 1943 which is Document NOKW-658, Exhibit 375, in Volume XVI, on page 27 of the English and page 67 of the German text, the report mentions under III-b that 9 bandits were shot.
Is that a reprisal measure?
A The wording of that report makes it quite clear that 9 bandits were shot in battle; it says during a reconnaissance operation on Punitooci.
Q Now, I want you to look at the daily report of 16 November 1943, contained in Document NOKW-658, Exhibit 375, in Volume XVI, on page 29 of the English and page 71 of the German, the shooting mentioned under III-e of 24 bandits and a Cossack who had deserted.
Is this a reprisal measure?
A It is not. Here again the wording makes it perfectly clear that the partisans and the deserter were shot in combat The previous sentence says quite clearly that 12 bandits were captured. That shows that the bandits who were captured by the German troops were treated as prisoners of war.
Q Well, that brings us to the end of our discussion of Count 3 of the Indictment. Let us now discuss Count 4. Once again I shall hand you Document NOKW-509, Exhibit No. 340, in Volume 14, on page 18 of the English and page 13 of the German text. I would like to draw your attention, in this connection, to paragraph 7 of the order dated the 15th of September 1943.
Witness, why were the areas mentioned in paragraph 7 to be evacuated?
A For purely military purposes, to safeguard these militarily so important areas.
Q Do you know what type of labor allocation was intended?
A No, the Army was going to give us an order to that effect. As far as I know nothing further was done in this respect.
Q Let me show you a letter by the LXIXth Reserve Corps, dated the 23rd of September 1943. This is Document NOKW-509, Exhibit No. 340, in Volume 14, on page 19 of the English. Is this a complete document?
A No, it is not complete.
Q Can yon tell us why it is not?
A It is a copy. There is no signature.
Q Would you please repeat that sentence?
A The last part of the document is missing.
Q Has it been signed?
A There is no signature, as I said before. It is not even certified.
Q Is it part of an original document?
A It is a copy.
Q Does it bear your initials?
A I cannot find any initials on this document.
Q Did you issue this order?
A This order was issued by my Chief of Staff.
Q Where were you at the time?
A On the 23rd of September I was on leave.
Q In this connection I would like to show you the order by the Corps Headquarters of the LXIXth Reserve Corps, dated the 6th of October 1943. This is Document NOKW-509, Exhibit No. 340, in Volume 14, on page 21 of the English Document Book and page 15 of the German Document Book.
Did you sign that order?
A The order shows the signature of my Chief of Staff, although it should read "Steinbeck" and not "Mederbach."
Q Why did you not issue this order?
A In that period of time I was absent from the troops for some days at Sarajevo, as the War Diary shows.
Q Did you know about the order?
A It is rather striking that this document has not been signed by me. It was my custom to personally initial all documents that were submitted to me. Therefore, I am inclined to assume that I was not shown this document. I rather think that the Chief of Staff informed me quite generally of the order, without going into details.
Q What was the significance of the orders issued by the Corps on the 23 of September and the 6th of October?
A Those two orders are no basic orders, or orders of great importance therefore, therefore they did not intensify the order that had been issued before. They are merely regulations for the carrying out of the Army order of the 15th of September.
Q Why was the order of the 6th of October issued?
A The regulations by the Division show me that we were concerned with inquiries from the Division concerning the Army order which I just mentioned -- at least I suppose it might have been. This order deals with the intention of evacuating areas and demands that reports be made about this point.
Q Let me hand you now, General, a report made by the Corps to the Army, of the 3rd of November 1943, Volume 14, on page 45 of the English and page 26-a of the German text. It is Document NOKW-509, Exhibit No. 340.
Why was this letter written?
A You cannot clearly see that from the letter. In the last paragraph of the letter reference is made to blunders which will be limited in the future. Evacuation measures to be taken later by the 187th Reserve Division are also mentioned. But you cannot see anything further from this letter.
Q Who was the competent for the evacuation?
A The divisions were competent.
Q Did the Corps have the right to reach decisions in this matter?
A No, the ultimate decision rested with the Army. You can see in the Army order of the 15th of September 1943, in the last paragraph, that this is so. Reports are expected about planned evacuations there.
Q The evacuations mentioned in those two reports -- were they ever carried out?
A No, as late as March I found that everything was in the old state. I saw nothing of evacuations. I believe also that a witness has confirmed this here. The area had not been evacuated. You could see that without any difficulty. The villages along the railway were still inhabited. This becomes clear from a teletype by the Army, where it is recommended that no evacuations should be effected. Then, I also found an entry in the Diary -- I think quite late in March -- which also shows that no evacuations had been effected yet.
Q Were the male inhabitants concentrated in labor camps?
AAs the inhabitants had remained in their villages, they were also in labor camps.
Q Were there in the Corps area any labor camps of the Wehrmacht?
A No.
Q As the Commanding General of the LXIXth Corps, did you have any authority concerning concentration camps?
A No, I had no authority concerning concentration camps.
Q Was there in the Corps area under your command any collecting camps for partisans?
A I don't know what the Prosecution means by that. There were collecting points for prisoners of war which were under the command of the division? These collecting points were run in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Convention. Prisoners were treated in accordance with those conventions. In those camps the partisans were accommodated as a first measure, and then they were sent on to the territorial commanders or the Croats. No such prisoner of war camp was under the Corps directly.
Q Now, let me hand you the letter of the 25th of November 1943, addressed to the XVth Mountain Corps. This is Document NOKW-509, Exhibit No. 340, in Volume 14 on page 43 of the English, page 26 of the German.
Did you sign this document?
A I did not. My Chief of Staff did. By the way it should not be "Mederbach," but it should be "Steinbeck."
Q Did you have any knowledge of this letter at the time?
A I don't think so because It doesn't show my initials.
Q What was the purpose of this letter?
A It was purely an inquiry by the Corps to the adjoining Corps, namely, the XVth Mountain Corps, concerning a possible evacuation and concerning the clearing of the area on both sides of the railway purely an inquiry.
Q What was the purpose of the measures mentioned in the letter?
A Only military security for this most important line.
Q Can you tell us whether these measures were actually carried out?
A They were not. I believe that also General von Leyser has confirmed this.
Q Now, I am showing you the order of the 24th of December 1943, Document NOKW-657, Exhibit. No. 376, contained in Volume XVI, on page 19 of the German, page 37 of the English. Did you issue that order?
A I did not. This order was not issued by me. It was issued by my Chief of Staff, Colonel Steinbeck, while I was away on Christmas leave.
Q Because of this order were any civilian individuals sent to Germany?
A No, not as far as I know.
Q The Prosecution have, as far as Count 4 of the Indictment is concerned, submitted Document NOKW-658, in Volume XVI, on pages 35 and 36, pages 22 and 23 of the German, which is Exhibit No, 375. This document does not contain anything incriminating as far as Count 4 is concerned. At least I could not find anything myself. I assume that the document was submitted because the teletype letter of the 16th of September, under Paragraph II f was misinterpreted, which may be found on page 9 of the English and page 21 of the German. Let me ask you, therefore, what is the meaning of the term "recruiting by force?
"
A The term, as used in the teletype, means that the partisans and not the Germans used coercion when they recruited people.
Q Who was it who recruited by force the men mentioned in the document?
A Recruiting by coercion in Croatia was not carried out by German troops, but by Communist bands which becomes clear from some document. I am afraid I don't know the details.
Q The document mentioned just now, if the Tribunal pleases, is Document NOKW-808, Exhibit No. 354, in Volume XIV, on page 80 of the German and page 106 of the English text. In lines four and five of the English text it says there, concerning the activity of the 19th and the 14th Cordon Brigade that the Brigade obviously limited themselves in the territory occupied by them to compulsory recruitment. Another point: now let me show you the letter by the Plenipotentiary of the Croat Government, dated the 2nd of December 1943. This is Document NOKW-509, Exhibit No. 340, in Volume XIV, on page 46 of the English and Page 27 of the German text. Was the labor allocation based on compulsory recruiting of Croat citizens ordered by the LXIXth Corps?
A It was not. The Corps was not connected with this at all.
Q Was this compulsory labor allocation ordered by the troops under your command?
A My units also were not connected with this affair.
Q Who was it that ordered this labor allocation?
A The War Diary which has come in from Washington makes it clear that it was the Reich Main Security Office -- the RSHA 0 which was connected with this business.
Q In this connection, I beg to draw the Tribunal's attention to the document submitted by me in Dehner Document Book III, Dehner Document No. 16, Dehner Exhibit No. 10. It may be found on page 45 of the German and also page 45 of the English.
In particular I wish to draw attention to the entry under the 4th of December 1943. There it says: "The Plenipotentiary of the Croatian State Government with the LXIXth Reserve Corps, Ustascha Colonel Servatzy, lodges a complaint with the Corps General Staff on the conditions prevailing during the construction of the Heinrichs Castle in the FruskaGora. Allegedly irreproachable Croatians from the environs were compulsorily recruited for this work, housed in penal huts and undeservingly treated. The Corps General Staff informs Colonel Servatzy that the Construction of Heinrichs Castle is carried out by the Reich Main Security Office of the SS."
May I remark in this connection that it should be Reich Security Main Office. What was done after this letter?
A The remark in handwriting by my Ia shows that the matter was taken up with the Army, and then it was passed on to the German Plenipotentiary General in Croatia, Glaise-Horstenau, in order to discontinue this business.
Q This becomes clear, if Your Honors please, from the next sentence in this entry, from which I have just real. It says: "The affair will be submitted to the Army in order to stop this through the German Plenipotentiary General in Croatia."
Did you, General, have the possibility to take any other measures?
A I did not; I could not do anything else.
Q Now, I come to a different chapter in my examination, namely, the treatment meted out to the Cossacks. What Cossack units were under your command?
A The First Cossack Division, under their Commanding Officer Brigadier General von Pannwitz.
Q Let me hand you a report by the Reserve Grenadier Regiment 45, of 23 October, and the Combat Report by the Reserve Grenadier Regiment 45 concerning excesses by the Cossacks. This is Document NOKW-509, Exhibit No. 340, in Volume XIV, on Pages 32, to 35 of the English and pages 16 of the German text.