Court No. V, Case No. VII.
The second proof is contained in Document Book XXV of the prosecution. It is Exhibit 571 on page 83 of the English and 65 of the German text. This is the daily report of 4 May addressed to Army Group E and the contents are identical, and the same incident is also contained in Document Book XXV an Exhibit 579. This is on page 123 of the English and 93 of the German, again a IC report of 4 May 1944, the contents again being identical.
In the latter report we find the first case referred back to the IC report, of 14 April whereas the second case is being referred to a IC report of 25 April. I, therefore, state that these reports about a measure having been carried out by the LXVIII Corps is identical with those by the administrative Subarea Headquarters Athens both as far as the figure of hostages is concerned, the reason for the measure taken and the date on which they were taken.
Is that correct, General?
A By enumerating these proofs and facts clear proof has been furnished that the affidavit given by the former commander of the Administrative Subarea Headquarters in Athens concerning the publication of retaliation measures taken by him is in accordance with the truth. It becomes clear, therefore, first, that the two reprisal measures taken were carried out by the units and, secondly, that the commander of the subarea headquarters merely published the incident which becomes clear from the way the report is worded in the documents.
He published these things, in one case 20 days, in another 8 days, after the event itself: that means on the same day on which, according to the documents submitted, the LXVIIIth Corps reported these events to higher quarters.
Following up what she commander of the administrative subarea headquarters said, I should like to mention one point which is that the reasons why he published these things are connected with the following factors: (1) the incidents occurred in his territorial area, (2) by virtue of what was known as the Loehr Order -- that is to say, the Court No. V, Case No. VII.
retaliation order of 22 May 1942 -- I believe this is Exhibit 379 -this thing had to be published. Retaliation measure must be made public; and, finally (3) I can only assume that in addition there were the reasons which General Eisenbach explained, reasons which were connected with concern for the population.
Q The commander of the subarea headquarters in Athens, General Eisenbach, has stated that the making public of retaliation measures in these cases was completely unconnected with questions of responsibility for the measure. How is that as far as you are concerned, you the superior agency above Eisenbach?
A I should like to state that the responsibility for the reprisal measure as such was never in the hands of General Eisenbach. Therefore, the same went for me, as his superior officer.
Q Now, we have discussed the incidents contained in Document Book XVIII which have been used to charge you in the indictment and also two cases where your responsibility has been alleged by virtue of your connection with the administrative subarea headquarters in Athens.
Now, in Document Book XVIII of the prosecution there are a number of daily reports which your agency -- that is to say, the Military Commander Greece -- passed on to the Military Commander Southeast. I suppose you scrutinized all these reports carefully. What is the result of your perusal of these documents?
A Having scrutinized and compared all those reports, I found that all of them are concerned with passing on for informative purposes reports which had reached the military commander from the most varying sources and agencies, concerning incidents which had occurred outside the scope of his responsibility. I recall here statements concerning the technique of reporting such as I have made myself and such as become clear from a number of the affidavits submitted. In other words, here we have measures taken by other command posts or agencies who were passed on to the military commander for information purposes.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Q What type of reports were these?
A These reports could be broken down into six different groups. First of all these are the reports which came in from the Higher SS and Police Leader concerning incidents and measures in his band area Boeotia, for the pacification of which he was solely responsible.
The second group represents reports by the Higher SS and Police Leader, also passed on for purposes of information from the sphere of his police duties.
The third group concerns reports of facts and incidents from the area of the Combat. Commander of the Peloponnes; that is to say, of incidents of measures taken by the units inasmuch as they had not been touched upon before in this examination of mine.
The fourth group is concerned with incidents and events which had been resorted to by different agencies and units in Greece for which the Military Commander was in no way responsible and the measures taken he passed on for purposes of information in as far as he had been informed himself.
To summarize the fifth group I might say that these include all the reports made during my absence from Greece; that is to say, those things which occurred between 23 January and 17 March 1944 which, therefore, do not touch on my responsibility a prior.
And, finally, a sixth complex -- the many reports contained in the documents concerned with the period of time aftEr I had left Greece which, nevertheless, have been used to incriminate me.
That, I think is the breaking down of these reports into six groups.
DR. WEISSGERBER: May it please the Tribunal, in order to simplify the oral examination of this witness, I have compiled the six groups of reporting technique and have included them in Speidel Document Book No. III, as Document No. 60. It may be found on page 87 and subsequent pages of that document book. This document is offered as Speidel Exhibit No. 30.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Q Will you please take this document book? It is on page 87 and subsequent pages. General, the first compilation concerns reports which came from the band territory of the Higher SS and Police leader in Boeotia. This is a list of a total of 15 reports. Is there anything you have to add about this?
AAs far as this and the other compilations are concerned, I would like to say that the number of reports does not coincide with the number of incidents. All reports have been included as a matter of course if they reported one and the same incidents in several version.
Q The second compilation concerns events occurring in the sphere of police tasks of the Higher SS and Police Leader. Is there anything you wish to say about that.
A Only the same thing I should emphasize.
Q Number 3 compiles reports by the combat commander of the Peloponnes, a total of 7 cases, or 7 reports I should say. Anything you wish to remark here?
A No.
Q The next one comprises incidents occurring in the areas of other troops. Anything you wish to say about that list?
A I should state here that most of these reports concern reports of engagements with the bands by the commander Salonika Aegean. who was the competent officer as the tactical leader. They also concern measures of the railway security staff at Larissa who were subordinate to the military commander Salonika Aegean or Army Group E.
Q The next compilation concerns reports from the time of your absence. I hardly think you want to say anything about that.
A Well, at the most I should like to say that the figure of "18" could be increased to 31 if the reports mention this morning under the second Count of the indictment -- that is to say, shooting of 200 hostage as reprisal measure for a band attack near Tripolis Sparta -- would be included therein.
Q And the last compilation comprises reports of the period of Court No. V, Case No. VII.
time after you had left Greece.
A Yes quite.
Q You mentioned just now the railway security staff.
A Yes.
Q Would you tell us very briefly what they did, what their tasks were and who it was subordinate to?
A The railway security staff in Larissa, as far as I know, had the assignment of securing the railway Lines or line Salonika, Athens up to the border line of Boeotia near Polonia, with the units under its command. The staff was subordinate, as I said before, to the commander Salonika Aegean and/or Army Group E. I believe it fluctuated a little.
Q Now, there is one incident I should mention now which is connected with General Lanz's cross examination. This concerns Document NOKW-1641 contained in prosecution's document book XXI or page 111 of the English and 97 of the German text. This incident concerns the shooting of 71 Greeks, In the affidavit submitted by the defense by affiant Lenthe, the fact that the Evzones did the shooting is described as a possibility and a connection is hinted at between the Evzones and the administrative subarea headquarters in Messalongion. This is Lanz Exhibit 125 submitted by defense counsel for General Lanz.
General, you know that report as contained in Volume XXI. What could you tell us about this report"
A You showed me this report the other day after General Lanz's cross-examination and I found out that it stated 31 July 1944. At that period of time I had already been absent from Greece for two months. I had left Greece for good.
Q So, therefore, this incident should be made part of the list of incidents which occurred after you had left Greece.
A Yes, quite.
Q There is only one more point to be cleared up in this connection. What were the connections between an administrative subarea Court No. V, Case No. VII.
headquarters and Evzones?
A. Nothing at all; none whatsoever. This, it seams to me, is guesswork on the part of this affiant which I cannot quite understand why. The Evzones, as I said this morning, ware instruments under the Greek government and were used and committed by the Higher SS and Police Leader. The administrative subarea headquarters were subordinate to me and were members of my administrative organization. I cannot find any connection between the two.
Q This brings us to the end of discussing Document Book XVIII of the Prosecution, and brings us to Document Book XIX. There are three documents in that book which have been used by the Prosecution to incriminate you. The relevant Exhibit numbers are No. 447, to be found on Page 17 of the English Document Book and Page 10 of the German Document Book, and Exhibit No. 449 on Pare 37 of the English and Page 35 of the German text, and Exhibit No. 455, on Page 136 of the English and Page 148 of the German text. The two exhibits No. 447, which has eight pages, and No. 449, which has a pages, contain a number of individual reports from the year 1943 from the Greek area.
Did you scrutining these documents carefully.
A. Yes, I did indeed very carefully.
Q. Is there a single report contained in these documents coming from the Military Commander Greece?
A. Not one.
Q Is there in these documents a single report announcing measures taken by the Military Commander Southern Greece, or the Military Commander Greece?
A. No.
Q In looking at these documents carefully, which are contained in Document Book XIX, one finds that they one reports by the Commander in Chief Southeast, with the following contents: a) Reports and measures taken by the battalions: b) Reports and measures taken by the Military Commander Salonika Aegean, who was the tactical officer and subordinate to Army Group E direct: c) Reports and measures taken by other units which was at no time were subordinate to the Military Commander Southern Greece or the Military Commander Greece--reports of which he had no knowledge at the time. Finally, they are reports and measures by a number of command posts connected with the Italian capitulation. The Military Commander in Greece was not connected with those. Is that correct?
A. Yes, it is correct.
Q Now, I would now like to turn to Exhibit No. 455, in particular on Page 139 of the English, in Document Book XIX, which is on Page 150 oi the German text. This particular passage concerns special measures ordered by the First Mountain Division on the 29th of October 1943. Was the First Mountain Division, at any time, subordinate to you?
A. Not for their tactical purposes; but for territorial purposes it was under me, just as any other unit was in that area.
Q. Did you hear about the measures ordered in this Exhibit No. 455 at any time?
A. Not in the old days. I learned of them only through the documents here.
Q. What are your comments on this document?
A. That the First Mountain Division should refer to the Military Commander, such as is contained in Paragraph la, is quite incomprehensible to me because in contact existed at any time between the two command poets. It was occurred to me that the Division wanted to obtain the particulars for the basic hostage order from the Sub-area Administrative Headquarters in Joannina. which was under my command. Here we are obviously concerned with the same order which I mentioned yesterday but this assumption does not quite hold good because the order is dated the 25th of October 1943, whereas, according to the War Diary of the Military Commander, the sub-area Administrative Headquarters in Joannina was established only a fortnight later, that is, on the 9th of November because of the fact that the First Mountain Division was about to leave tho area again. But in any case this order proves that the First Mountain Division knew the retaliation order which I mentioned yesterday, which I called the "Felber Order," because the figures are the same--and this at a period of time when this order reached the Military Commander Greece. The order also proves that the units had clear orders to take their own retaliation measures for losses suffered in fighting the bands, without calling in the Military Commander, In other words, the way I look at this order is that the First Mountain Division needed the particulars for this measure from their former generals of subordination in this area, and that these particulars hailed from a period of time when the First Mountain Division was still serving in Serbia, because, up to that time, this order was not known in Greece.
This is my explanation.
Q. Now, did the First Mountain Division, at any time, turn to you to obtain your approved for retaliation measures concerning special orders in the IC area?
A. No, in no case at all.
Q. This brings us to the end of our discussion of Document Book XIX, and I shall now turn to Document Book XX. In that volume there are four documents which have been used by the Prosecution to incriminate you. There is, first of all. Exhibit No. 464, to be found on Page 46 of the English and Page 33 of the German test. Will you please give us the benefit of your comments on this incident?
A. This is quite obviously connected with the incident at Kallithea, which I mentioned yesterday, where I threatened to carry out retaliation measures but did not actually do so. This report from the Activity Report of the 117th light Infantry Division is concerned with the same contents and the name period of time as this incident; but it does not furnish us with any new point of view about this incident.
Q You're talking about the incident in connection with which I submitted the affidavit by Premier Logo the topoules?
A. Quite so. That is the same incident.
Q. And the affidavit showed quite unequivocally that the hostages were released later. The second document in this Document Book is Exhibit No. 467 on Page 56 of the English text and Page 42 of the German text. The first report mentioned here is dated the 13th of August 1944. In other words, it concerns a period of time after your departure from Greece.
A. Exactly.
Q. On the next page, Page 57 of the English, which is Page 43 of the German text, there is a report mentioned, dated the 9th of October 1943, but this is a report by the Sub-area Administrative headquarters 395.
What can you tell us about that?
A. Looking at the contents of the report we are obviously concerned with a clear-cut report about an engagement with the bands. This document was probably put to my credit because Sub-area Administrative Headquarters 395 is mentioned here as the executive commanding authority. I have already described the twin possession of that agency-Commander Salonika on the one hand and Sub-area Administrative Headquarters 395 on the other. This report proves that people dealing with the two designations were always being confused. One called the agency Headquarters Salonika, and another called it Sub-area Administrative Headquarters 395. But the contents make it quite clear that the firm names are owing mixed up. There the contents refer quite definitely to the tasks in connection with the band fighting by the military command Salonika. The Military Commander Greece is obviously not being touched upon by this report.
Q. The next document-
THE PRESIDENT: Well take our afternoon recess at this time.
(A RECESS WAS TAKEN)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please take their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You may continue with the examination.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WEISGERBER:
Q We will continue with the discussion of the documents from Prosecution Book 20, and after we have discussed Exhibits No. 464 and 467, we now come to Prosecution Exhibit No. 469, page 63 in the English and page 46 in the German. What can you tell us about this document?
A This is the German pamphlet which has already been mentioned, which is addressed to the population of the districts of Phydon and Levadia. From the pamphlet, one cannot see an office nor a signature nor a date. It is only a very poor German.
The only geographical place mentioned is Levadia. This is the same Levadia which has frequently been mentioned in the area of Boeotia. The signature with initials also do not offer any indication. Therefore, there is no possibility at all of identifying where this pamphlet originated, with whom this pamphlet originated because I have taken the trouble to make a test from the documents of the units which during the course of time were in Boeotia and I can see on this document Police Regiment 18, 1st Panzer Division, the 117th Light Infantry Division, 1st Air Force Field Division, the 1st Regiment Brandenburg, SS Panzer Grenadier Regiment 2, SS Panzer Grenadier Regiment 7 and SS Panzer Grenadier Regiment 8; and in addition there are units of the LXVIII Corps, for instance there is mention of one battalion of it and therefore it is not possible to find out from where this pamphlet originated.
Q And now I would like to ask you, did this pamphlet originate from you?
A No. Do you think I would write such bad German as in this pamphlet?
Q The last document in Document 20 is Exhibit No. 474 of the prosecution, page 94 of the English and page 66 of the German. What can you say about this exhibit?
A We already discussed this. I think this morning. It concerns the agreement between the Administrative Sub-Area Headquarters and the 117th Light Infantry Division about the competency with regard to reprisal measures.
Q And this brings us to the end of Document Book 20. General, there are no further documents charged against you by the prosecution. I now come to the last chapter of the charges against you. They are those which, according to the testimony of the witness Dr. Sontes, one of the Greek witnesses who were examined here--General, you have previously stated that you were also the supreme judicial authority over the population and, first of all, for Southern Greece and later on for the whole of Greece. Would you please tell us quite briefly in which areas your powers as supreme judicial authority extended?
AAs supreme judicial authority. I had the right by virtue of my executive power, and the duty to sentence Greeks inhabitants of Greece who by committing offenses or crimes violated the laws of the occupation power-in the main they were the following cases: murder, homicide, attempts on peoples' lives, sabotage and theft of Wehrmacht property, damaging Wehrmacht property and similar crimes by which the life and the fighting morale of the occupation power was weakened.
Q The witness Dr. Sontes during his testimony mentioned several special cases. The first of these cases was that one of the Greek officers who tried to escape to Egypt, according to the description of the witness, these Greek officers were sentenced to death by court martial for espionage. The witness further stated nevertheless that you had not confirmed the sentence of imprisonment which was served in Germany. Do you remember this case?
A I remember this case very well because it concerned me very much at that time, kept me very busy. From the testimony of the witness Sontes, it is correct that my Military Court sentenced him to death.
According to legal regulations, this was correct.
Q General, in order to avoid misunderstanding, you mean the Greek officers were sentenced to death?
A Yes. The Greek officers about whom we are talking here.
Q Your testimony could have been misunderstood in that Dr. Sontes was sentenced to death.
A I'm sorry. Of course we are talking about these officers who were mentioned just now by Dr. Weisgerber. Well, it is correct that these three officers were sentenced to death by the Military Court but incorrect is the fact that I rescinded the sentence and changed it into a penitentiary sentence and that I had caused them to be sent to Germany to serve this sentence of imprisonment. I had no right, neither with regard to the first measure nor to the second.
Q But yon said that you were the supreme judicial authority. Why, therefore, couldn't you confirm this sentence? Or not confirm it?
AAs supreme judicial authority in Southern Greece at that time. I only had the right to confirm sentences of imprisonment up to five years. Other punishments beyond that I had to submit to my superior office. Army Group E, or the Cammander-In-Chief Army Group E as the next highest judicial authority and he had to give his decision on it.
Q Then you probably did that in this case?
A This sentence together with all the documents and the events preceding it was submitted by me to the Commander-in-Chief Army Group E. In itself, it was not my duty to give any opinion about such sentences. In this case, nevertheless--and I know this, I remember this very clearly-I gave a very detailed opinion on this sentence in which I requested rescinding of the sentence and a considerable mitigation. If the court martial had given a definite legal judgment according to the legal provisions which prevailed at that time, for me the motive of the actions of these defendants were the most important reasons for my opinion. As an officer. I saw in the attitude of these defendants a wrongly understood but nevertheless subjective, understandable, up to a certain degree, pardonable action and this was the reason for my attitude towards this sentence.
Q. General, could you still say what decision was taken then by the competent office?
A. I still remember that the decision in this case took an enormously long time and that the reason was that this case was supposed to be taken even as far as Hitler. In any case, the OKW was dealing with it. The decision was that the death sentence was rescinded or changed and that the punishment I don't know the extent of it-was to be carried out in Germany. With regard to this latter decision, I had no influence whatsoever and I also didn't know the reasons for it, but in any case no one sentenced to penitentiary or imprisonment was ever sent by me to Germany but sentences were on principle always served in the prison in Athens.
Q. And the witness Sontes also gave his personal opinion about this case here, namely that in this sentence he saw a violation of international law and of international ethics because these officers were not treated as prisoners of war to which they were entitled; and therefore, General, I would like to know. General, what you have to say about this personal opinion of the witness Sontes.
A. At that time, when I heard it, I was very astonished that an obviously prominent attorney could state this kind of thing because he knew as well as I that at that time in Greece there weren't any prisoners of war at all; because after the capitulation, as we have often heard here, the soldiers and officers were released and sent home. That is, they were not made prisoners of war but they became private citizens again and as civilians of course they no longer enjoyed the protection of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Regulations but they came as every other citizen did, under the laws of the occupation power. If they violated any of these laws, then as every other citizen, they had to take the consequences.
In this respect? the sentence is absolutely clear according to my opinion and the subjective charges made by one witness against the defendants with regard to this point are in my opinion void.
Q. I now come to the second case which the witness Sontes mentioned in his testimony here. It is the case which he described, the Choros case. Dr. Sontes maintained that these persons who came before your military court went through a very extensive investigation before the proceedings took place, and at that time the secret field police made statements before the court and I quote here: "There is an order according to which we in such cases are allowed to make a very extensive investigation of the arrestee. What do you know about such methods of interrogation, and above all about this alleged order?
A. With regard to these methods of a so-called extensive investigation, I heard for the first time from the witness Sontes. The order quoted by him is completely unknown to me.
Q. But nevertheless the secret field police were subordinate to you at than time or is that not correct?
A. That is not correct. The secret field police were not subordinate to me but to the so-called field police director with the Army Group E in Salonika from whom they received their factual directives. They were in Athens or rather to be more exact in Piraeus---they were available to the Military Commander Greece for routine work duties and they had duties with regard to the military courts to carry out, to make arrests for this purpose etc. I I don't know about the rest of their tasks.
Q. In this connection I would like to refer to document Speidel No. 49, which is contained in Speidel document book No. 3 on page 35 and following. I offer this document as Speidel exhibit No. 31 and refer to page 36, figure III, it states:
"Subordinate to the Military Commander, Greece are the following: Economically: a) Courtier-Intelligence office Athens, b) 840th Secret Military Police."
This makes quite clear the fact that these Secret Field Police were only attached to you economically, that is you had no disciplinary competence, administrative competence or judicial competence?
A. No and also because the members of the Secret Field police were members of the army and secondly, these were officials and I, as General of the Air Force, had nothing to do with both categories.
Q. And then to whom were the offices of the Secret Field Police subordinate?
A. I assume in this connection to the so-called Secret Field Police director.
Q. And did you really never hear about the alleged investigation methods, mentioned by this witness, that is the intensified investigation?
A. No, I never heard about it, because if I had heard about the fact that there in the area of my sphere of work, i.e., my military court such methods were used. I would certainly have objected very strongly against than and I can perhaps illustrate that by my intervention in a very much more harmless case than this one would be. I am reminded of this case by the accusations made by the witness Sentes.
Q. What case do you mean?
A. One day Greeks reported to me that in a pre-interrogation in Piraeus, a Greek was beaten by a member of the Secret Field Police, only beaten. I was highly indignant about this report and called the chief of this office to me at once, I wanted to take him to account.
Because he could not give me any explanation about this case, I told him to carry out an investigation and ordered him to come to me on the next day with the guilty persons. It turned out in the following interrogation, which I myself undertook, that a rather old and otherwise well behaved official had beaten a Creek for the reason that "otherwise he could not have gotten anything out of the Greek, and they were already used to methods of investigation from their own Government," and lastly he described be me that the incident was quite harmless. I protested very strongly and prohibited the use of such Balkan methods in my area and the officer who was guilty of this was forbidden to carry on his duties in my area of command.
Whether I was justified in doing this, I don't know, have my doubts, but anyhow I did it. On the other hand, I was personally convinced that through this personal intervention of mine, all further excesses or misunderstandings would stop. What the results of this harmless case can be seen from the fact that I did not regulate it by a written order or commission any officer to deal with it, but I myself, as a commander, regulated these things although I had a lot of other worries. I was convinced that this finally brought to an end such methods.
Q. Do you think that this settlement of the case was sufficient or what do you think of it today?
A. At that time I was of the honest conviction that I had done everything possible and that I had done the correct thing and that it was sufficient. Today I think however quite differently about this case, I take a much milder view of it since the summer of 1945 I experienced how in the American concentration camp at Wallenberg prisoners came back from interrogations bleeding and beaten so that first of all they had to be taken to the hospital to have their wounds bandaged. I saw that with my own eyes; since that time I took a little more liberal view of it.
Q. I now come to a third case from the testimony of the witness Sentes. Sentes maintained that in two cases the defendants were acquitted by the Military Court, but some of them disappeared without any trace whatever, he mentioned figures from the Choros case, which you have just mentioned, three people disappeared without any trace and from a guess concluded with an attempted blast, seven people disappeared; what can you say as an explanation for this?
A. With regard to the first, I would like to say that the presumption of the witness is completely wrong. It is quite out of the question that with any kind of Germany agency, someone who was suspected, could disappear and as the witness Sentes hinted was removed by some agency or other. I personally have no remembrance of this at all and unfortunately there are no files available from which an explanation would no doubt be definitely quite clear. If I understand the statement of the witness Sentes with regard to the date and the numbers I assume them to be correct and I make that a pre-condition that these figures are correct, then I can say the following:
At the beginning of my examination I described in great detail my first reprisal case in Piraeus and stated that the retaliation took place in Salamis and Piraeus and fifteen reprisal hostages in Piraeus were executed as retaliation for attacks. According to the statements of the witness Sontes these ten allegedly disappeared and prisoners were also shot on 10 January. That is on the same day the retaliation measure took place, therefore the obvious conclusion is that these people were executed as reprisal prisoners for the case in Piraeus and were of course determined by me and summarizing it, it was not an arbitrary measure of some subordinate agency, but it was a decision taken by me, the incidents of which and the conclusions which of course I cannot remember today.
Q. Therefore you want to say that it could have taken place like that without your being able to say today that it did actually take place like that?
Q. It is an assumption from the testimony of the witness Sontes, which I now assume to be correct, according to the reprisal case described yesterday on the basis of the same dates, that is the only basis I have for this assumption because of course I try to find some explanation for his assertions.
Q. The witness Sontes then talked about the time the SS were in Athens and he stated the following about this period, "Until September, 1943 I was not able to maintain that we were in a condition of complete lawlessness, but then after the arrival of the SS things were quite different and the military court of the Military Commander ceased its activities." The witness then stated literally February or March of 1944 the Court of the Military Commander Greece was "a shop without customers", what can you explain about this testimony of the witness?
A. In order to start, there is one point that the witness Sontes made very remarkable correct observation with regard to the date, however in this case he completely mixes up the cause and effect and proves with this that he had no insight at all into the actual circumstances and conditions.
Q. Well, then you say that the witness Sontes is correct when he says that in 1944 your Military Court was "a shop without customers"?
A. This explanation of course must be understood "cum grano salis", but he was right about this.
Q. And is this occurance to be traced back to the activities of the SS?
A. Yes, that is how I understood his comments. There seems to be a closer connection with that, but this statement is positively wrong because I must state that the activities of my Court and my own activities as far as my judicial authority is concerned, had no connection at all with the activities of the SS. The judicial tasks of my Court always remained the same and were influenced by nothing and by nobody. They remained principally and completely independent of any kind of measures or intentions of the SS.