Q Well, where was the division when you left it?
AAt that time we were in the Welchew sector.
Q Exactly where is that located, General?
A That is east of Petersburg.
Q Well, had the division been in the vicinity of Petersburg or Leningrad all the time from October until August when you left it?
A No, in about December my division was taken from the Petersburg sector and I had the sector south of the Ladega Lake and there I went through the winter battle and after this winter battle, that was in the area of Rukascha, after that my division was then in the Welchew sector.
Q Well, all these sectors which you mention actually were in the vicinity of Leningrad; weren't they?
A Yes, all in the area of Leningrad.
Q So that the activities of the division during the whole time from October until August was concerned with the siege of Leningrad?
A No, until December I was active in the encirclement of Leningrad and afterwards I came away south of the Ludega Lake and I had nothing to do with the Leningrad front, but the eastern front and Leningrad was behind and had nothing immediately to do with the outer peripheria of Leningrad.
Q Well during this period, general at least we can say this, can we not, that your division did not make any sweeping advances such as it had done during the period from June to October?
A No, of course it was more or less a war of position.
Q It was static more or less?
A Yes.
Q And then the reasons that you have advanced here as to why prisoners of war could not be screened don't apply to that period; do they?
A No, then of course we were remaining still and we were not marching continuously.
Q But, General, I believe you testified that during the time that you were with the division that no effort was ever made to carry out the Commissar order?
A No.
Q Well, I am going to hand you document NOKW 2207, which consists of excerpts from the war diary of the 269th Infantry Division from 16 September to October 31, 1941, I want to offer this as prosecution exhibit 611. Will you please turn to the first page after the title page and read aloud slowly the part marked in red pencil?
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
DR. TIPP: I don't want to object, Mr. President. I just want to ask that in the future discussions, the discussions about these documents should wait until I as counsel for the defense have had time to see the document. I must have the opportunity to see first whether I might hat have to object because of technical reasons and I can't do that if I haven't seen the document first. It is just a request, not an objection.
Q. Would you read it please, General?
A. This is an evening report of the 28th September 1941, 2000 hours. The Signal Battalion of the 269th Division reports: "Special occurrences: 1 female Commissar shot. One woman who was in contact with Partisans, likewise shot." In the Russian troops the Commissars were men. This was a woman, who in some way behind the front had been active, and there must have been some kind of a reason for the fact why the Signal Battalion shot her, but I can't say what it was from this, and therefore I must assume that a Court Martial had taken place, and she was shot, but one cannot say from this that this was a prisoner.
Q. But one can see from this that it was a Commissar, and further a female Commissar?
A. Yes, who had probably taken part in some kind of enemy activity. Otherwise the incident wouldn't have happened.
Q. If there hadn't been some special significance attached to the fact that she was a Commissar, why did they mention the fact that she was. Here, for example, immediately following that entry is a remark that a woman who was in contact with the Partisans was also shot. They make a distinction between the female Commissar and the person who was simply helping the Persians. What is your explanation for that?
A. That is exactly proving that she had done some illegal thing.
If she had been in connection with Commissars, of course that is a sign again that she had been fighting against us, and the Partisans were illegal and it showed she had been found guilty of doing something against the German Army.
Q. The Commissars were illegal?
A. I said the Partisans were illegal. They had been fighting behind our front against the German Wehrmacht, and since this woman here was probably in connection with them she was probably found guilty of acting against the German Wehrmacht. Her guilt had been proved.
Q. You, of course, are surmising that there was a Court Martial and are surmising she was in contact with the Partisans; there is nothing here that shows that, is there?
A. In my opinion this does prove that, because it states here the women who was in contact with the Partisans. It says that here.
Q. General, the first sentence said: "One female Commissar shot." That is one person. The next sentence says, "One woman in contact with Partisans, also shot." Now, I don't see here any connection between the two. As I see it they are making a distinction between female Commissars and people who are helping the Partisans. You don't see that distinction?
A. Yes, I realize what you mean. I didn't understand it properly. That is the same, and there must have been some reason for the fact, that this female Commissar done something or another against the German Wehrmacht, but I can't see that from this document here. I must know first of all what happened.
Q. I understand that you don't think there is any significance to the fact she is simply described as a Commissar, and it is reported that she is shot?
A. No. In this I see the importance that this female Commissar was shot, and this was particularly reported in order to report to the Division what had happened in the area of the Division, and by reason of the fact that this is reported I think something must have been done in order for this to have happened.
Q. And now would this be a reasonable explanation, if a person had read the Commissar order and didn't have the benefit of your explanation that it never was in force, and then looking at this Daily Report where it says one female Commissar shot, without any more details, could he possibly see a connection between the two?
A. I can't see from this report at all that this was a prisoner, but this was a female Commissar, and a female Commissar isn't a prisoner of war. This female Commissar was behind our lines and has done something behind the front, and belongs to a village behind the front. It does not say anything about the Commissar order; but the Commissar order referred only to prisoners of war, and it doesn't say this is a prisoner. I must assume that this is a female Commissar from some village behind our lines, and that she committed some action against the German Wehrmacht and was shot -- But there is not a word which says that she was a prisoner of war.
Q. It is not your interpretation of that Commissar Order that only prisoners of war who are Commissars are to be shot?
A. According to the Order it says that political Commissars who had been captured are to be shot, and therefore, in my opinion, that means political Commissars who are with the troops.
Q. Well, lets leave this for a moment, General; now, the other day you mentioned that the Commissars that were captured by the 269th Division were treated in the same way as the other prisoners of war?
A. Yes, that was what was said.
Q. And now how were the other prisoners of war treated? I mean by that, there has been some talk here of Russian prisoners being used to clear mine fields, and that sort of things was that done in your division?
A. I didn't give any order about that. I can't remember.
Q. Well, you would recall it, wouldn't you, if you had ever given an order or passed on an order that Russian prisoners of war were to be used to clear mine fields, including German mine fields, would you not?
A. First of all there there weren't any German mine fields in our area at all.
Q. All right, then Russian mine Fields?
A. I can't remember of an order of that sort.
Q. Well, I want to refresh your memory, General. This is Document NOKW 2254, which I would like to introduce as Prosecution Exhibit No. 612. Will you please identify it, and read the first sentence aloud, please?
A. This is a teletype of November 3, 1941.
"Reference: General of Engineers and Fortifications with the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, No. 5441 of 29 October 1941.
"Commander-in-Chief of the Army has decided that mines, other than in combat or in case there is danger in delay are to be detected and cleared only by Russian prisoners in order to spare German blood. This is also valid for German mines. This order is not valid for special field battalions. Signed: Army Corps-Engineers 23/41 Secret."
Q. Well, go ahead if you want to read the rest of it.
A. "For this purpose, captured electrical mine detecting apparatus is to be given to the prisoner of war special squads which are to be formed; in case of shortages, German equipment is also to be furnished.
"This order is not valid for special field battalions.
Signature L Corps, Ia, Engineers, 23/41 Secret."
Q. Well, go ahead.
A. "269th Infantry Division Branch Ia, No. 312/41 Secret Division Command Post 5 November 1941.
The above copy is transmitted for your informmation.
For the Division Headquarters The 1st General Staff Officer (Signed) Frh.
von Ledebur."
Distribution:
Engineer Battalions.
Infantry Engineer, Platoons."
Q. Will you give us the benefit of your comments on this, General, now that your memory has been refreshed?
A. This is a letter from the Commander in Chief of the Army. I have just read it, and underneath it states "this order is not valid for special field battalions." What that means, I don't know. It was passed on by us to the Pioneer Battalions, and Engineer Battalions, and Infantry Engineer, Platoons. Of course, I don't remember that any longer. It is probably an order which the Division Ia sent on to the Engineer Battalion. Whether it was carried out, I don't know.
Q. And how is it that you remembered that Commissar Order so well because you say it shocked your conscience, and yet you don't recall this?
A. At that time everyone was speaking about the Commissar Order, and there were so many kinds of orders which were sent around during the fighting and one simply can't remember every single one of them.
At that time, as Divisional Commander, in these very dense times when it was a fight for existence or non-existence, or whether we could break through or not, I can't remember every one of these orders. Whether this order was carried out by us too, I really can't remember, because we were in a position only just being built up, and it was in the middle of the winter, and first of all we didn't have any mines at all. This was a matter which perhaps on some other Front had already become necessary, but I really can't remember anything about it.
Q. Where was the Division around the 1 November 1941.
A. In the same area before Leningrad.
Q. It was at that time then---
A. Yes, it must have been about this time.
Q. It was one of the Divisions that was taking part in the encirclement and siege of Leningrad at that time?
A. At the beginning, yes, but as I said later on we were sent East.
Q. I mean at this time, around the beginning of November.
A. At the beginning of November we were in front of Leningrad, yes.
Q. And you say that the Russians didn't use any land mines as part of their defense network in the defense of Leningrad in your sector?
A. We had broken through the usual positions of the Russians, and especially we had advanced so quickly that these positions weren't properly built up. Later on the Russians used many mines, and of course the Front was static, and that was in the absolute front line.
Q. Do you recall that this order was ever rescinded?
A. No, I can't remember. I don't even remember that I remembered this order at that time.
Q. Now, when the officers of the Engineer Battalions and the Infantry Engineer Platoons received this Order I assume that they thought it meant what it said; there is no reason to think otherwise, is there?
A. If they received this order from the Commander in Chief of the Army then they probably assumed that, yes.
Q. And if it was never rescinded they had the right to continue to think that they should use Russian prisoners of war to clear mine fields during the rest of the time, they who were with the Division, so far as you know?
A. Yes, according to this order one must assume that more or less.
Q. And you have described the various movements of the Division between October and August, October 1941 and August 1942; is it your recollection that there never were any mine fields in the vicinity of the during that whole time?
A. Of course we ourselves laid a lot of mines, for instance in the sector -- what time are you talking about?
Q. During the whole period?
A. Then until August we hadn't laid any mines, or at least only very few because the supply in that direction had stopped, and we were fighting a defensive battle all the time, a defense battle which was extremely dense. During such a defensive battle there can be no talk of any clearing of mines.
Q. What time are you talking about now, please, General?
A. In November.
About this time in the winter, until August 1942, and during this defensive battle it is completely impossible on the Front line where we were fighting, to use prisoners to find the mines, and during this difficult defensive battle in the winter, the idea of looking for the clearing of the mines didn't enter our minds at all. In the front lines where we were fighting the most we could do was just to crowd on our way. I do not know how one could have used prisoners to clear mines in such a situation.
Q. That is your conclusion. During this whole time from the 3 November 1941 until August 1942, you never were in a position where you had to clear any mine fields?
A. No, I wouldn't say that, not during the whole period. No, I wouldn't say that.
Q. That is what I asked you, General.
A. During the defensive battle I can't imagine that there was a large clearing of mine fields. I can't remember any.
Q. Did the defensive battles last for 9 months?
A. Well, this defensive battle lasted until the middle or the end of May, and then as I say we were withdrawn from these positions, and came to the Woldhow Sector, and that was a relatively calm sector.
Q. Well, General, lets move on now to the Southeast for a moment.
After you finished describing your activities in Russia during your direct examination you passed on to the subject of the political situation in Croatia. I would like to ask you a few questions along that line, I won't ask you about anything that is too much detail, but the Pavelic was the head of the State of the independent Croatian Government when you went down there, was he not?
A. Yes.
Q. And his political party, his main supporters, were the Ustasha, which I believe you said corresponded to the German Allgemeine SS?
A. I think that is approximately what I said.
Q. And then in addition to the general Ustasha, whom I take it were simply civilians who were interested in Pavelic's cause, there were also the armed Ustasha units?
A. I don't think I understood that properly.
Q. My question was probably too complicated. I will try again. In addition to the general Ustasha you also had an armed Ustasha, a Waffen Ustasha?
A. Yes, but I think you said the general Ustasha was civilian, or something like that. That is what I understood.
Q. Yes.
A. No, the general Ustasha also wore uniforms and then exactly this was in comparison with the SS, there was the General SS and the so-called Waffen SS, and it was similar with the Ustasha. They had the general Ustasha, also they had partly in the localities where they were, and then there were the Ustasha battalions.
Q. And then these Ustasha units were, of course, fanatical supporters of Pavelic, were they not?
A. I don't know whether they were fanatics, but they supported the Croatian Government. In addition to the Ustasha there was the Croatian armed forces.
Q. But the armed Ustasha was definitely a political unit from start to finish, wasn't it; I mean, it was definitely a party organization.
A. I don't know so much detail about all this, but I should think probably that is what it was. It was kind of a political organization.
Q. And where did the armed Ustasha get their arms?
A. Of course, I can't say that either exactly. I only know that there was a Crotian War Ministry, and that this War Ministry, and that this War Ministry, or I think it was called Ministry for Armaments, or something, that rather this Croatian War Ministry provided the Ustasha and Croatian armed forces with arms.
Q. And this independent state of Croatia was a fairly young affair when you arrive, was it not; it had only been formed in 1941?
A. Yes, it was naturally a rather young state.
Q. And prior to its formation there were not any armed Ustasha units there, were there?
A. I wasn't there before, but it probably didn't exist, because before the state existed of course that didn't exist.
Q. And the same for that matter can be said for the Demebrans, the Croatian Wehrmacht, isn't that true?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. And both of these fledgling armed forces had been hatched after the Germans came into Croatia?
A. This Croatian state had formed itself, but after all for me as a soldier that does not make any difference. I didn't worry about politics. For me it was an allied state, and I had to do my duty as a soldier there.
Q. I am not going to ask anything about the general political situation. I am just talking about the armed forces which were down there.
A. Yes. At that time the Croatian state, of course the state has to have any army, and therefore armed forces were immediately set up.
Q. Both the armed Ustasha and the Demobrans then were organized after the German occupation, we agree on that I believe, and they both collaborated with the Germans tactically from time to time, with the German Wehrmacht?
A. Yes.
Q. And the Germans furnished both of these organizations with arms and munitions and so forth when the need arose to carry out these tactical assignments?
A. The German Wehrmacht did not supply the munitions but tho Croatian War Ministry supplied this. I don't know where Croatian War Ministry got this. But probably it was an allie, they got it from the total stocks available or something like that.
Q. You mean from the total German stocks available?
A. I don't know. I don't know anything about the industrial conditions in Croatia. Whether they had their own munitions factories I don't know.
Q. Well, now, in addition to these units -- that is, Domobrans and the Armed Ustasha -- there were certain other units such as the 373rd Infantry Division and the 392nd Infantry Division which were actually part of the German Wehrmacht but whose men came from Croatia -- that is, whose men were Croatians and whose non-commissioned officers and officers were Germans. Is that correct?
A. These so-called Croatian divisions were German divisions. They belonged to the German Wehrmact and, as I have stated, the officers were Germans and the NCO's were also partly German and the 60% to 70% approximately were Croatians and the others were Germans who had lived in Croatia.
Q. Now, yesterday or the day before Dr. Tipp asked you to comment on a couple of documents. I don't believe I need give the number but I will give you the general gist of them. If you need them for reference I can give you the number.
The first one was a request by the 392 Division to be allowed to draft or conscript Croatians into its own ranks. Do you recall that?
A. Yes, I remember that.
Q. And then that request was refused by the 2nd Panzer Army, as you pointed out in your own document book, about two or throe days later. Do you recall this incident that I am talking about?
A. Yes, I remember that. At that time I said so many volunteers had reported to this Croatian Division and they waited to be soldiers in these Croatian Divisions.
This was, of course, very understandable because these Croatian legion divisions were very good troops and had very good soldiers and, of course, soldiers like to belong to a good unit; and as a result applications to join this division were very many and, therefore, there was this entry in the War Diary that we had passed on this application to the army because neither we nor the army could approve of this application but this was finally a decision to be made by the Croatian government.
Q. Well, perhaps we would clarify all this if we did look at the document. This is Document NOKW-1445. It is found in Book XVI, page 99 of the English and 144 of the German. It is the entry for January 19.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, maybe it has been mistranslated but it says here that authorization is sought for the 392nd Division to draft men fit for military service. Is that what your version says?
A. Well, in the German version it states: "Upon request for 392nd Division authorization is sought from headquarters 2nd Panzer Army for 392nd Division to enlist men for military service."
Q. Does that sound to you as though the 392nd Division was turning away droves of voluntary recruits?
A. No, it was not entirely "driving away", but they had reported to the 392nd Division and now the 392nd Division was asking what we should do with all these people who wore coming to us. "Can we enlist those people?" -- that was the question and we passed it on to the army; and as the channels were laid down, it went through General Glaeser to the Croatian War Ministry and there they would decide whether we should do that or not. There had to be some kind of order in recruitment. One can't just sort people out. This must be regulated from a central office and, as Croatia was an independent state, the Croatian War Ministry was the Central Office.
Q. Wouldn't it have been just as easy to have requested permission to accept volunteers as it was to ask permission to draft people of military age if that's what they meant?
A. I am afraid I didn't quite understand.
Question repeated by the interpreter.
A. Yes, basically it is the same in my opinion whether I ask for the permission to accept them or to enlist them-- shall I repeat?
Q. Yes, if you please,
A. The difference, in my opinion, is if I ask whether I should enlist them then I know that so and so many people have reported and they want to join before it was accepted, and if I say, "Shall I draft them?", then it means I have to look for them; but basically, in my opinion, it is the same.
Q. I see. In other words, in your opinion there is no difference in the German language between a voluntary recruit and a conscriptee or a draftee.
A. Yes, there can be a difference.
Q. Well, that distinction doesn't seem to have boon drawn here if your interpretation of this is correct.
A. I don't know what you mean.
Q. Never mind. Now, then, we have this report -- this request, ratjer -- which is before you and then I believe in your own document book you have the refusal by the 2nd Panzer Army for this request. You don't care to look at that, do you? Dr. Tipp has it there, if you want it.
A. Yes, in my opinion one can see from this what I have just said. It states: "2nd Panzer Army does not agree to the drafting of Croatians to the 392nd Division and recommends that they be engaged with the help of the army inspection"; and that is what I said. The 392nd Division had received many applications and they are asking if they can enlist or draft them and as the army cannot decide about this, the army states that the Army Inspection should do this. That is, the man in Croatia who would have distributed them.
Q. General, I am going to hand you NOKW-1446 which I should like to introduce as Prosecution Exhibit 613. Please turn to the page numbered 14.
That is page 7 of the German and page 6 of the English. This purports to be a daily report from the 392nd Division to the 15th Mountain Corps on the 21st of March 1944. I wish you would just read the part that follows the word "intention," General, aloud please.
A. "Intention: Have hunt code name 'Lagerleben' (taking into custody of 200 compulsory recruits 6 kilometers east southeast of Cinde.
Q. Go right ahead. I would like to know what it means.
A. This means that the 392nd Division, Thick was stationed in this area has received the report that 200 of the men, compulsory recruited by the partisans are in a camp and they went to keep them but it doesn't mean that these 200 people were compulsory recruited, this is an operation of the 392nd Division in order to release these compulsory recruits from the partisans, not a case of compulsory recruitment as you seem to mean.
Q. How do you draw that conclusion, General?
A. Because it says: "intention" here. I can't imagine it any other way. I even think that in this other document which has been submitted here there is also something similar, the fact that the partisans have taken compulsory recruits some place or other and they were released also by the 392nd Division. This isn't a compulsory recruitment as you mean it but it is a liberation of such people.
Q. Well, having looked at those other two documents, first a request from the 392nd Division to be allowed to draft recruits, to use your phrase, and then seeing the 2nd Panzer Army's refusal back in January 1944, you think that it is out of the question that this passage here refers to compulsory recruits for the 392nd Infantry Division.
A. These 200 people?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q Now, General, I am sorry that I am not quite able to follow your logic on this but I wish you would try to make it clearer to me.
A Could I ask which date this other entry is?
Q It is the 31st of March and it is on page 14 of the photostat.
A In the entry of the war diary -- may I see that again? What date.
Q The request is on January 19th and the refusal is January 21.
A In my opinion, even from that one can see -- this request of the 392nd Division was in January -- that is two months before this -therefore, this entry cannot have anything to do at all with that one. That entry was in January -- not request. This one is March.
Q I realize that. But is it possible to look at that without taking anything else into consideration except that request in January and draw the conclusion that here the 392nd Division was doing what it asked permission to do two months before?
A No.
Q That's not possible?
A First of all, from this one sentence one can see that it says: "intention." The division should, if possible, report its intention and this "Lagerleben" is also a sign, as is usual, that, as usual all, operation have a code name as "Lagerleben" or "Panther." We have also had the word "Panther" in this trial and here it is quite clear that the division has the intention of undertaking an operation under the code name of "Lagerleben" in order to release and liberate these 200 compulsory recruits about which they had probably received a report about their whereabouts.
Q Where does that word "release" appear, General?
A It isn't in here but if I make an operation in order to get 200 people from a camp I would not call them compulsory recruits in advance, but there it states these are 200 compulsory recruits. Therefore, I know there are 200 people in this camp who, as the report was received, have been compulsorily recruited by the partisans in this area?
and this also confirms the fact that all the former reports -- Panther and everything else we talked about in this trial always stated that in this area we should make this drive so that the Croatian government take out these men and draft them for service? but the partisans compulsorily recruited these men and by force, therefore, the 392nd Division is going to undertake this operation in order to -- I call it--"liberate", release these 200 compulsory recruits in the course of an operation.
Q General, what happened to the citizenship of these volunteers in these Croatian legion divisions?
A The volunteers in the division -- you mean the Legion Division?
Q Yes.
A They were Croats.
Q But they wore serving in the regular division of the German Wehrmacht?
A Yes. How these conditions were regulated I don't know.
Q You know this, don't you, General: if one of these men committed an offense, was he subject to a German court martial?
A In the legion division these men were subordinate to the German military courts and I must assume that there must have been some kind of an agreement between the Croatian government and the German government.
Q Now, of course since these legions or divisions wore part of the Wehrmacht you had absolutely control over their activities as commanding general of the 15th Corps, I mean of those divisions that wore under you.
A The divisions were subordinate to me just the same as every other German division.
Q Now, let's take the case of the Ustasha. You had a good deal to say about what their movements and activities should be, didn't you?
A From time to time the Ustasha were tactically subordinate in the sector with the divisions where they were stationed.
Q Well, to what extent could you decide, as commander of the XVth Corps, whether you wanted to use these Ustasha units or not? How much independence did they have and could they refuse to be attached to you in a tactical operation?
A During my examination I stated this, too: in themselves the Ustasha batallions in the area were subordinate to the division at the time and if an operation was made then the divisions were also able to deploy the Ustasha tactically but, at the same time, in my examination I also said that there wore frequently difficulties there because these Ustasha battalions frequently turned to their Croatian authorities and made some kind of objection or complained. That happened. As a result often they didn't actually take part in the operation as we really wanted them to and quite often there were very great differences and frictions.
Q But these difficulties and frictions existed as the result of the personalities or the particular objections of particular Ustasha officers, did they not? There was no general objection to the Ustasha being under the XVth Corps in the sector of the corps.
A Well, these were difficulties which we had to overcome. A soldier has to overcome every difficulty. If they did not want to do it, then we had to do it with our own men* We had to do the thing somehow. It had to be done.
Q I don't believe you understood my question but I will try again. The Croation government agreed that the Ustasha unit should be subordinate to the division in whose area they were, did it not?
A Yes.
Q Now, when you say that these units were subordinate to you tactically, exactly what do you mean? Do you mean that they were only subordinate to these divisions insofar as a particular tactical operation was concerned? Is that what you mean?
A Yes. These Ustasha batallions were subordinate; as I have often especially mentioned in this trial. They were subordinate only for purely tactical purposes. This means that for this operation they received the tactical orders and had to accept these tactical orders from the division; but anything which happened -- perhaps excesses of some kind where intervention became necessary -- in this connection they were not subordinate to the German division. That means that in a disciplinary connection and from the point of jurisdiction they were subordinate to their own officers.
Q I see. I think I understand your distinction but, for example, suppose we take one division, for example, and that division has an operation which lasts for two weeks during that two week period all the Ustasha units in the area of the division operate with it, cooperate with it; now, after the operation is over, to what extent does the division control the Ustasha units; that is to say, to what extents are the Ustasha units subordinate to the division between operations, between tactical operations? Do you understand?
A Yes. This is how the matter is: let's say the operation lasts eight days. Then the operation is finished. Then the individual parts of the troops and the Ustasha battalions belonging to this go back to their headquarters where they were stationed before and there they take on the old commission which they were carrying out before. It could be protection of a sector or a supply line or road or something like that.
Q Now, who assigned them, as you call them, these "old commissions"? Who assigned the tasks that they were to perform between operations?
A The division to whom they were subordinate, and, therefore, all these formations had to report everything that happened to the division.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Mr. Fulkerson, we will take our usual recess at this time.
(A recess was taken)