Any consideration will be interpreted as weakness of the German troops an is a mistake."
Q Thank you very much, Witness.
DR. LATERNSER: The Prosecution should not be allowed to ask this question because in re-direct examination he can only touch upon points which arose in the cross-examination; therefore, I object to this.
JUDGE BURKE: The objection is made rather belatedly. You may proceed.
MR, RAPP: Your Honor, since the Court did not, at this time, rule on defense counsel's objection--however, defense counsel maintains that this particular phase has not covered during the cross-examination, I would like to call the Court's respectful attention to the fact that I intend to go on this particular phase, provided the Court sees fit to sustain the defense counsel's objection. Inasmuch as we believe yesterday this point was brought up by defense counsel when the witness stated that measures taken by the German Army were taken under duress and as a direct outgrowth of measures taken first by the German Army.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The objection of the defense counsel is over-ruled and you may proceed.
MR. RAPP: Very well, your Honor.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, this document which I have just shown to you was dated the 27th of April. That is in the same month in which the German Wehrmacht invaded the Balkans. Is that correct?
A Yes, but I would like to point out that under figure I of this order, the comment to the measures by the German Wehrmacht are set down.
Q Thank you. Witness, in connection with the same compiles I would like to show you a final document, NOKW-1198 Exhibit 5, Document Book 1. Witness, what is the date of this document?
A The document is dated 28th April 1941, from the Army.
Q And how do you recognize this document? Can you please describe it?
A It's an Army order of the Commander in Chief of the 2nd Army, signed: Freiherr von Weichs, and the order is passed on to the General Command, already mentioned -- 11 -- signed Kortzfleisch down to the companies.
Q Would you read through the order briefly, Witness, before I put a few questions to you about it. Have you looked at the order enough, Witness?
A Yes.
Q This order, is it the fundamental order by reason of which the regulation by Kortzfleisch was issued?
A Yes.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Just a answer please!
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, the Witness is now asked about something which happened in 1941. At that time he wasn't in the Balkans. Also, in addition the question which was just put not a question which refers to facts but one about something which asks for an opinion of the Witness. This can not be done in the direct-examination. I would like the question to be rejected.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: If the Witness has personal knowledge of the matter he may answer it; otherwise he would be stating a conclusion. It would be incompetent.
MR. RAPP: Very well, your Honor; we accept the Court's ruling in this respect. If the Court permits I would like to make, however, one comment which has no bearing on this particular decision. The defense counsel calls to the Court's attention the fact that this Witness was not in this area at that time. I would like to call to the Court's attention the fact that this Witness has never been a member of the OKW. Yet defense counsel proceeded to talk to him at great length. He has not been in the area in 1943 in January, he came to the Southeast sometime in August; yet he was talked to during the defense cross-examination.
We submit, your Honors, that if the defense chooses to cross-examine the Witness during that period for which the witness is not, in our opinion at least, qualified to testify, then the witness becomes the witness of the defense, or if your Honors wish, an expert witness. But in this particular instance we submit we should have the right to inquire from the Witness on the same basis that the defense has now.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Your relationship to the witness is somewhat different from that of the defense. You called him as your Witness. You may, within reasonable rules interrogate him upon such matters as you consider material. The bounds of the defense are somewhat broader. They may cross-examine him upon any matter of which he is presumed to have knowledge. If the Witness has personal knowledge of the question which you have asked he may answer; otherwise his answer would be a mere conclusion.
MR. RAPP: Very well, your Honor. Witness, can you, from your personal experiences tell us something about this order? If the Court pleases, I haven't completed my question at all. I'm quite sure that Dr. Laternser can walk back, and he will be very happy when I have finished with my question.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: I think he anticipates that the Witness may answer the question before he has a chance to make an objection. That's how the matter appears to me.
MR. RAPP: That's what I think, your Honor, but I haven't finished it.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Mr. Rapp, ask him the question and before he answers Dr. Laternser will have a chance to make another objection.
MR. RAPP: Witness, don't answer my question, under the circumstances until Dr. Laternser makes his objection. Witness, at that time were you in the area, that is, geographically, of the Commander in Chief of the 2nd Army?
A No.
Q Where were you then?
AAt this time I was in the Warthegau near Litzmannstadt (Lodz).
Q Witness, how long have you been a professional officer?
A For 40 years.
Q This document, which you have before you, is it an Army order?
A Yes.
Q Witness, what's on the second page of this order?
A It's a Corp order, if you mean that.
Q Correct. Witness, do you know whether this XI Corps was in the Second Army?
A I don't know it, but it is to be assumed.
Q Thank you. Witness, the last question which I want to put to you -- you said this morning that several subordinate officers to you, during your absence, deputized for you. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q For instance, General Geip. During your absence, Witness, was your chief of staff, Geitner, also absent always?
A Only once, for a few days in December, 1943.
Q Geitner remained in his position as chief when the other men took over? Is that right?
A Yes.
Q Witness, who, in addition to you, was the best informed personality in your headquarters?
A My chief of staff.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: We'll discontinue at this time for our recess.
(The court recessed at 1215)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session REDIRECT EXAMINATION HANS GUSTAV FELBER - Continued
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I would like to ask to check as to a translation which in my opinion is important. I request that at this stage of the proceedings, because I think it is right, that this be done while this witness is being examined. The translation in question occurs in Document 1010, which is Exhibit 351. This document is in Document Book 14. I request that the following part of the document be checked. It is on page 3 of the German version, and under Roman Numeral I, Figure 2. This Figure 2 reads as follows: "To Commander in Chief Southeast (Supreme Command Army Group F,) are subordinate: two letters "E", - the Military Commander Southeast in all questions regarding the securing of the country." The sentences which I have just read I am asking for a re-translation.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, the only thing I would like to submit to you is to have this particular paragraph not translated by the interpreters here in the Court, but have it translated if agreeable to Dr. Laternser, in the Translation Division downstairs for their rechecking, rather than bother about it here in Court at this time.
JUDGE BURKE: Is there any particular objection?
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I would like to take advantage of all instances or possibilities of translation. I would like to have the interpreters here do it as usual, then if the Prosecution doesn't agree it can be given to the Chief of the Translation Section for a decision. I believe that would be the right way to go about it.
MR. RAPP: I regret that my suggestion was not accepted without veto by Mr. Laternser. The reason to have it not translated at this time is rather obvious. If the translation comes out at this time not agreeable to the defense who are raising the objection at this time, it would be in the nature of his suggestion and may then influence a later translation downstairs.
Therefore, I suggest outside of this courtroom it should be translated and then submitted to us, being the final authority of the Translation Division, what the translation really should be.
JUDGE BURKE: Just a moment please. We will follow the same procedure the Tribunal has followed in the past. If you will pass the document to the interpreters it may be translated.
DR. LATERNSER: I have the sentence and the passages framed in pencil, that is in parenthesis, these particular passages I should like to ask for renewed translation.
THE INTERPRETER: I am sorry, your Honor, I cannot give an alternative to the translation in the document. If I had to translate it off the bat I would have said exactly the same. "In all questions regarding the security of the country," - no alternate suggestion.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I do not want to influence the interpreters in any way, but as I am of a different opinion I would like to make suggestions to them because I believe that the interpreters will translate independently in view because of their oath and I am sure they will be glad to submit themselves to a better suggestion, if they realize that there is a better translation.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I withdraw my objection.
JUDGE BURKE: In the event of any misunderstanding about it it may be translated to the Main Translation Department.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, may I add something to this. I do not want to take up the time of the Court unnecessarily but I know the translations are rushed through, but as this is a very important one to me, and there are reasons why the translation is not considered adequate. May I point out that the word "Sichering" is translated as "security".
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, if defense counsel at this time is being permitted to give his explanation as to why in his opinion the translation is wrong.
Which the interpreter has already said in has opinion is correct. That would amount at this time to influencing the translation of any independent translation in the Translation Division, and I have not heard that the Court has inquired from defense counsel why in his opinion the translation is wrong. Dr. Laternser has offered this statement gratuitously to the Court.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I am not offering anything. I am just trying to bring something under consideration. I am quite sure that if I make this suggestion here the interpreters here will agree with me.
Your Honor, in German there are two words, the word "Sicherheit" and the word "Sichorung" - I can agree that the word "Sicherung" would have to be translated as "safeguarding". According to my opinion for this reason only does it seem important to me, because it is decisive, and this point will be decisive in the opinion of the defense.
JUDGE BURKE: There appears to be a very definite confusion in the system. I am not hearing clearly.
It will be submitted to the main Translation Department for clarification.
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, may I ask to add to this request an excerpt from the record about the proceedings of the last few minutes?
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, we respectfully object to this request from defense counsel, because if that would be done, first of all Dr. Latetnser would put himself into the position of an expert translator and secondly, it would, we believe, influence the supposedly impartial translation of the official translation Branch of this Court, and the entire institution, and if that were to be permitted, and any and all of us may send notes and suggestions to the translation department for any use that they may see fit.
JUDGE BURKE: It is the opinion of the Tribunal that the matter with which we are concerned is the truth of the interpretation, which certainly should be made available, assuming the interpreters are competent to do the work which they are performing.
It may be sent to the Translation Division, but merely with the request that it be translated.
You may proceed.
MR. RAPP: Witness, before the luncheon recess, I asked you whether during your absence, your chief Geitner was always absent too, or when you were represented by some other gentlemen whether he then mostly remained in your headquarters. And you answered my question in the affirmative. That is, you said that he remained there with the execution of one stay of yours in 1943 when he was not there.
A.- Yes, it is correct.
Q.- You further said that next to you the chief was the next well informed person in the staff, is that correct, witness?
A.- Yes.
Q.- How closely were you connected with the gentleman, professionally as well as personally -- with these gentlemen who deputized for you occasionally? How friendly were your relations, for instance, with Geip?
A.- I only knew Geip shortly before, during my career I had encountered him only occasionally. General von Glaise-Horstenau who came from the Austrian army, was likewise unknown to me before I came to the Balkans.
Q.- Geitner was much closer to you than those two gentlemen?
A.- Yes, indeed.
Q.- Those two gentlemen -- did they individually -- I mean at different times - did they comment to you about the manner in which Geitner looked after affairs during your absence?
A.- No, this question never came up. This question was never under discussion. I assume that there were no disharmonies anywhere. Otherwise, I would have been informed about it.
Q.- Well, all right. Witness, you were asked by the defense about so-called, I believe, mopping-up operations. Is that correct, witness?
A.- Yes.
Q.- And these spontaneous mopping-up operations took place in connection with reprisal measures. Is that so?
A.- No, I think that is an error. Yesterday I used the expression "spontaneous" in connection with the troops in order to make it clear that through some cruelty which had been committed against the troops in those cases, the troops on their own account, without interference from any higher command or without any order from any higher command, took it upon themselves to get revenge.
Q.- Yes, that is the answer which I have reference to, witness. Now, witness, who did have the right to order reprisal measures in Serbia? what I mean is either in connection with spontaneous mopping-up operations or on the basis of a direct order. Who had that right?
A.- Only the Commander-in-Chief had that right but it is quite possible that in the case of troops where the Military Commander was not present, during the course of band fights, excesses of the troops of this spontaneous nature might well have occurred.
Q.- Witness, before I put the next question to you, two points have to be clarified here, please. You are now talking about excesses. To you, are excesses and spontaneous mopping up operations the same?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Witness, your authority to order reprisal measures -- did you occasionally transfer or delegate it to other gentlemen in the Serbian area?
A.- No.
Q.- Witness, did you have front or combat units under your command?
A.- If I may take the units mentioned yesterday -- if I may include those units -
Q.- You any include those units you mentioned yesterday.
A.- If I am talking about that, then yes.
Q.- Then in other words, these units were subordinate to you for the purpose of combatting bands?
A.- Yes and for other purposes too.
Q.- Were there people under your command -- military commanders of these units which we are discussing now as well as field commanders who had the rank of a division commander?
A.- Such a field headquarters in the framework of a divisional commander did not exist in Serbia.
Q.- How about your units then?
A.- I had only parts of the Bulgarian occupation corps as division like units; only in the summer of 1944 when the Russian danger showed up on the horizon I received active divisions under my command.
Q.- All right, witness. We are now talking about the time or period before this time.
A.- At that time, with exception of the Bulgarian divisions, I had no divisions under my command.
Q.- Did you ever bear in your capacity as military commander southeast or in your capacity as military commander Serbia that a division commander or a commander with the rank of a division commander had the right to order reprisal measures?
A.- Not in the Serbian area, no.
Q.- In other words, my question is something completely new for you, witness? You have never heard anything about that?
A.- No.
Q.- Your Honors, I am now referring the witness to NOKW-172, Exhibit 379, Document Book 16.
(Handed to the witness)
Witness, I believe this order was already shown to you yesterday by the representative of the defense, is that correct?
A.- Yes.
Q.- And I believe you then testified that you had never seen that order previously.
A.- At least, I cannot remember that it passed through my hands.
Q.- All right, witness. Would you like to look at page 2 under (c) and read through these paragraphs?
It says in there: "The revengeful attacks which are directed against the units and its installations may be ordered only by a German commander, at least with the disciplinary authority of a division commander in agreement with the competent administrator subarea headquarters."
Does it read like this in the document, witness?
A.- Yes.
Q.- And then in the next paragraph, witness, it goes on. "If an agreement is not reached, the competent territorial commander is to decide when reprisal measures for losses in the air corps, navy, police, and the OT are to be ordered principally by the territorial commander. All other reprisal measures, for example, for German civilians, persons in the service of the occupying powers and in defense are to be ordered by the competent field commander. The units is to support the administration of area headquarters in carrying them out."
These two paragraphs -- were they contained in the document?
A.- Yes, they are in here.
Q.- What are your comments on this?
A.- I believe that the army group, through events some place in the gigantic southeastern area, had seen fit to issue this first summary of a reprisal order, but that the right to order reprisals was limited to someone of at least the rank of a division commander, that is, not to somebody of a lower rank or a lower echelon, that was an order which was valid for the whole German Wehrmacht.
Q.- But, witness, just now you have told us that this is the first time that you heard about this at all, that only a man of the rank of a division commander was authorized to carry out reprisal measures.
A.- No, I am sorry. That must be a misconception of my answer.
Q.- Would you like to answer it again for us then?
A.- In my area there was no department which had the rank of a division commander with the exception of the Bulgarians whom I have to except here because as a foreign unit they did not have the authority to order reprisals.
In my area, Serbia, therefore, a division commander could not order any reprisal measures because during the whole time of my presence in Belgrade there were no troops in the Serbian area up until summer 1944, which were not subordinate to me.
Q. All right, witness. Will you now explain that the reason is for this, because if it had been the way you describe it, what is the reason then for such an order?
A. I have already said previously that probably events had taken place somewhere in the Balkan area, that is not in Serbia, and these events had given the army group reason to want to see the reprisal measures increased, and the explanation for this can also be seen from the second paragraph of this instruction according to which the untilthen-customary procedure has given cause for a new order to the intermediary of envoy Neubacher.
Q. Witness, apart from the fact that you cannot remember having seen this order previously, were you during the preparation of this order-- were you called?
A. I cannot say that at that time the arm group called us in the preparation of any order by the army group.
Q. The contents of this communication -- is that a matter which concerned your sphere of work?
A. Yes, quite. Very much so.
Q. Witness, is this order which we are concerned with here a true order?
A. Without doubt. I assume that.
MR. RAPP: That is all, your Honor.
GENERAL FELBER: Now, now I see here - no, that is only a certification and that is an officer of my staff, Dr. Bode.
MR. RAPP: An officer of your staff, witness?
GENERAL FELBER: If I read the signature correctly then it was Bode.
MR. RAPP: Then in this case the staff did give the order.
GENERAL FELBER: Yes, in that case I cannot doubt it, that the staff did get the order, only I cannot recollect that I have received the order at that particular time, which did not exclude that it really did arrive and was submitted to me. I only remember a different reprisal order-- that one from June.
DR. RAPP: I then repeat, witness, because you personally cannot recollect that you had seen this order previously, not on the basis of the fact that it was signed by one of your officers who certified for the correctness of the copy, we can therefore conclude that your order was received in your headquarters.
GENERAL FELBER: That is doubtlessly so.
PRESIDENT JUDGE BURKE: Is there further cross examination?
DR. LATERNSER: Your Honor, I don't know at the moment and I don't think I am authorized to put any further questions, but I would like to ask you to allow me to do it because now in the re-direct examination, new facts were disclosed. The prosecution did not limit himself to the contents of the cross-examination so that I should have the right to refer and examine the witness as to these newly discovered facts.
PRESIDENT JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. Witness, you said just not that it is possible that you might have received this order NOKW-172, that is Exhibit 379. We will assume now that you or your staff did receive it. Would that for you as Military Commander Southeast -- would that have been an order for you?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you mean to say that through this, the Commander-in Chief Southeast gives you an order in this sphere of reprisal measures?
A. Yes. The lost sentence of the order at which I looked just now reads to the effect, if I recollect it properly now, that all contrary orders are to be altered or rescinded, and furthermore there is a reference to another order by the army group in August.
That is an order.
Q. Witness, now I would like to draw your attention to the following in the preamble to this order. It reads: "In agreement with the Military Commander Southeast, the following instructions are issued."
A. As to this formulation I would like to specify that it is quite possible that these discussions which finally led to the agreement were not carried out with me personally but maybe with my chief or in the frame of a discussion with the envoy Neubacher and other military commanders. Anyhow, it strikes me that this rather important order was signed for Field Marshal von Weichs by his deputy. However, the reason for that may be purely formal. It maybe purely a delay in military channels.
Q. Witness, you said just now that this was a binding order for you. Was it ever possible that an authority could give orders to another commander and put the following in this order? "In agreement with the military commander Southeast."
A. In matters of chain of command, that was not usual, but in this rather difficult object, especially where the envoy Neubacher had to be included according to a new order, I think that is a kind of explanation and communication that this committee of the three people mentioned did agree to issue such an order, and that explains the words "in agreement." But they should not be understood to the effect that this order, in the details of its various paragraphs, was established within the framework of a discussion.
Q. You mean to say then, witness, that the army group could give you an order in these specific matters and although the army group could do so, in your opinion they put into the order and emphasized in the order that the order was arrived at and issued with your consent and agreement?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, what do you understand by the military concept of "securing?"
A. Securing of a country to me means militarily the maintenance of law and order so that there won't be any resistance to any measures of the troops, so that there is no opposition in the country, so that, to put it in more details the Supreme Commander who was responsible for the whole of the area has a quiet and peaceful near area so that he is in a position to carry out his measures.
Q You mean by military securing of a country that includes the preparing of a platform for strategic actions?
A I'd like to say that in a difficult area as the Balkan area I would not like to limit myself to this definition because here the securing was also connected with political aspects.
Q Witness, wouldn't you like to agree with that according to military concepts, under military securing, one understands the establishment needed on order to counter larger enemy units?
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, that question is objected to. We are not interested in the opinion of Dr. Laternser in this matter nor are we interested in any opinion of the witness in agreement with Dr. Laternser's opinion.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: We have allowed considerable latitude on both sides and I'm sure Dr. Laternser will content to confine himself to questions without advancing his own opinions or conclusions. You may proceed.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q Witness, do you not understand by military securing of an area the establishment of the state of preparedness of the troops against an enemy undertaking?
A On the whole in the main aspect that would define the concept of securing.
Q Yesterday, you said that the sphere of the Commander in Chief Southeast and of the Military Commander Southeast coincided geographically.
A Yes.
Q If, in this same area, one establishes two different authorities that makes only sense if there are different tasks and different spheres of work. Therefore, wasn't it thus not the Commander in Chief Southeast who was responsible for the military securing and the military Commander Southeast, and only that would make sense, was responsible for peace, law, security and order; for those two spheres of work which I named just now, are thus clearly separated, aren't they?
A Quite, purely formally I have to acknowledge that, but the conditions and the tasks were of a different nature. The Commander in Chief had the right of issuing directives which allowed him to interfere with matters in my sphere. That is what I called the right of issuing instructions.
Q Witness, you have just mentioned the right to issue instructions. In what respect did the Commander in Chief Southeast have the right to give instructions to you? Please formulate this very clearly so we can at last clarify this matter.
A He had the right to issue directives in all questions of securing law and order in the country, whether these directives or instructions, - they have another name yet, - the service regulations, not directives, - whether these service regulations contained expressions for those departments which probably deviated from the formulation which we talked about just now, without having to mean the opposite. In my opinion, the service regulations should be formulated, whether there under the word security and securing they mean the same or the contrast. I don't think so.
Q In this respect the documents will speak for themselves but what struck me just now was the following: You said just now that the Commander in Chief Southeast did have the right of directing you concerning the security and law and order in the country. Did you intend to put it that way, that you mentioned the word securing together with law and order, or didn't you rather mean to separate it, just like the instructions talk of securing of a military nature on the one hand and securing law and order on the other hand.
MR. RAPP: We object; we believe defense counsel is arguing with the witness.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Objection is sustained.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q Witness, I will formulate this differently now. You said just now that the Commander in Chief Southeast had the right to direct you as Court V Case VII Military Commander Southeast which concerned the securing and the law and order in the country.
Is that correct?
A Yes, that is my opinion.
Q Witness, in the service regulations for the Military Commander, it was written explicitly that those are responsible for the security, law and order?
A I believe this is merely hair splitting which is possibly necessary but security and law and order to me, as a soldier, are the same thing.
Q For you, witness, is the security and securing the same?
A In this connection, as it is used here, yes. As a soldier at least I would not read a difference into these concepts and I have never done it.
Q Maybe that was an error. To me this difference is very important. I have no further questions.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Is there further cross examination? If not the Prosecution may proceed.
BY MR. RAPP:
Q Witness, as a last question, I would merely like to ask you whether the so-called reprisal or retaliation measures were a securing or if you like, a security measure?
A This question I answer in the affirmative.
Q We have no further questions.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Judge Carter, do you care to interrogate the witness?
BY JUDGE CARTER:
Q I'd like to ask the witness a few questions. As I understand it you became Military Commander in Serbia in August 1943?
A Yes.
Q At that time you were in command of the whole of Serbia?
A Yes.