Q. I now come to another case. I show you the daily report dated the 24th of August 1943, Document NOKW-1758, Exhibit No. 559, Document Book XXIV, page 251 of the English and page 184 of the German.
Did you, as Commanding General receive knowledge of the document submitted?
A. No, I received no knowledge about it at all.
Q. Can you comment on the question as to who seized the hostages?
A. It was probably for an attack on gendarmarie in Kacma. For this hostages were seized. I assume that the Croat gendarmerie who were stationed in the locality of Kacma seized these hostages.
Q. Was the Croat gendarmerie subordinate to you?
A. The Croat gendarmerie was subordinate to the Croat government.
Q. The seizure of 40 men as hostages by the Croat 1st Mountain Brigade is mentioned as reprisal for a surprise raid. Was the Croat 1st Mountain Division subordinate to the 173rd Reserve Division?
A. No, it was not subordinate.
Q. To whom was this Croat 1st Mountain Division subordinate?
A. It was subordinate to the Croat Ministry for Armed Power.
Q. Why, then, were the measures carried out by the Croat 1st Mountain Brigade reported by the 187th Reserve Division?
A. Because this Croat Mountain Brigade was quartered in the area of the 187th Reserve Division and because this division had to report everything which took place in its area.
Q. I will now show you Document NOKW-1746, Exhibit No. 562, Document Book XXV, page 25 in the English, page 21 in the German. Did you give an order for the suggested seizure of hostages contained in this document?
A. The seizure of hostages is mentioned in the last paragraph of this communication of the 187th Reserve Division to the corps headquarters of the 69th Reserve Corps. Therefore, I did not give the order for this seizure of hostages.
Q. Were these hostages seized?
A. I don't know and I don't think so either. If they were supposed to have been seized -- and in any case as was usual they would have been seized by the Croat authorities -- the letter of the Divisional Commander concerns an inquiry about the transfer of a reinforced battalion of another division to Duprava, and the last paragraph merely speaks about the fact that the population in the villages around Duprava are supposed to be house partisans up 80%, and he thinks it necessary for the seizure of hostages to take place. This does not by any means mean that the seizure really took place. What the result of this inquiry was, I really cannot say today.
Q. This brings us to the end of the subject, "Seizure of hostages." I just have one more question to present with regard to the first part.
General, I show you Document NOKW-1551, Exhibit No. 458, Document Book XX, page 2 of the English and page 2 of the German. This is a report of the OKH dated the 16th of March 1944.
While you were in charge of the 69th Reserve Corps did you receive any knowledge of this teletype?
A. No, this was impossible because this is a report of the OKH, and because the corresponding corps or perhaps army report is missing.
Q. Was the measure set down in this teletype ordered by you?
A. No.
Q. Can you state who ordered and who carried this measure out?
A. I do not know the incident at all but I assume that the measure against these 26 bandits was not ordered by an agency subordinate to me, and was also not carried out by a troop unit subordinate to me. This measure, as was usual, was probably ordered and carried out by the Croat agencies, and this also is not in contradiction of any order because in the meantime the well known Army Group order dated the 22nd of December 1943 had come into effect, according to which the order and execution is to be carried out by the Croat government or its representatives. I would also like to supplement this report insofar as, in the diaries which came from Washington, I found that through this mine blasting near Garcin there were not only, as it states here in the OKH report 22 own losses, but in addition i officer and 27 men were wounded because of this sabotage act.
Q. The order mentioned by General Dehner, the Army Group order, is to be found in Document NOKW-172, Exhibit No. 379 in Document Book XVI, page 49 of the English.
This brings me to the end of Count No. I of the indictment. I now come to Count II of the indictment, "Plundering and Destruction," and we will deal, first of all with Count 9-e of the indictment. The prosecution has charged you in the indictment under Count 9-e with the fact that approximately on December 1943 troops of the 173rd Reserve Division under the command of the jurisdiction of the 69th Reserve Corps during the operation Kommerhofer set on fire two Croat villages. The prosecution submitted here as evidence the daily report dated the 24th of September 1943, Document NOKW-658, Exhibit 375, in Document Book XV, page 7 of the German and page 16 of the English.
Is this teletype signed by you?
A. No, this is again a teletype bearing no signature. Might I please have the photostatic copy?
Q. Does this teletype bear any kind of initial by you?
A. No, the teletype bear*s no initials at all.
Q. How do you understand this report, General?
A. The report is set down in the photostatic copy as quite incomprehensible.
Q. Which words are struck out in this report?
A. Struck out are the words, "recruited" and "villages on fire." Those are the words struck out.
Q What can be seen from the fact that the words you mentioned are struck out?
A I assume that the localities were not set on fire if the words are struck out.
Q These measures took place in the course of the Operation Kammerhofer. Who was SS Gruppenfuehrer Kammerhofer?
A He was the representative of the Reichfuehrer SS and Chief of Police with the Croat government.
Q Which agencies were subordinate to Kammerhofer?
A The so-called Police Sector Leaders in Croatia.
Q From whom did Hammerhofer receive his orders?
AAs I have already mentioned a few times, Kammerhofer received his orders from Reichfuehrer Himmler.
Q Was SS Gruppenfuehrer Kammerhofer subordinate to the 173rd Reserve Division?
A No.
Q Did you give orders to Kammerhofer for execution of the measures contained in the daily report of the 24th of September 1943 -- under figure 2a?
A No.
Q Can you give us any further details about this?
A No. At that time I was on leave and from this fact alone I could not have given the order. In addition, Kammerhofer was not subordinate to the Corps so that my deputy could not have given him the order either.
Q To prove that the police in Croatia did not execute the measures and operations under the orders or responsibility of military agencies on orders of the representative of the Reichfuehrer SS Himmler, I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to Document Book Dehner No. II* page 31 of the English and page 31 of the German, to the Document Dehner No. 16, which I have already submitted, Exhibit Dehner No. 10, dated the 13th of September 1943 in which it states:
"Colonel Handl, Commander of the Regular Police in Zagreb, undertakes on orders of the representative of the Reichfuehrer SS an operation in Syrmia which is mainly directed against the Fruska-Gora, in order to mop up bands in this area."
And now I come to Count 9-g of the Indictment. With regard to this the prosecution has submitted as evidence the daily report dated the 16th of October 1943. This is Document No. NOKW-658, Exhibit No. 375, Document Book XVI, page 16 of the English and page 39 of the German. I will show you this daily report.
Is this teletype dated the 16th of October 1943 signed by you, or does it bear your initial?
A No, we have already had this report before when we were talking about the seizure of hostages.
Q Did you order the burning down of the villages of Paklenica and Vocarica?
A No.
Q Can you tell us who ordered the burning down and who carried it out?
A I assume that it was carried out by the Croat police, because reprisal measures were undertaken in principle by the Croat police.
Q Did you have previous knowledge of this intended measure?
A No.
Q Would you have been able to prevent this measure?
A This would have been impossible.
Q I now submit to you the daily report dated the 9th of October 1943 from Document NOKW-658, Exhibit 375, Document Book XVI, page 12 in the German and page 30 of the English.
Is this teletype dated the 9th of October 1943 signed by you or does it boar your initial?
A It neither bears a signature nor an initial.
Q Figure 2-b of this teletype dated the 9th of October 1943 reported about the localities of Paklenica and Vocarica, the village were evacuated and burned down.
Is this daily report dated the 16th of October 1943 a repetition of the daily report of the 9th of October 1943?
A No, the two reports are different, one from the 9th and one from the 16th.
Q Can you tell us a little more detail about this?
A The report of the 9th of October concerns a surprise raid on the main railway lino near Novska; while the report of the 16th of October concerns a surprise raid by bands on the village of Novaka which occurred on the 15th of October.
Q What does that show?
AAccording to these two reports, the same two localities were completely burned down twice within 7 days for two separate events, one an attack on the railway lino and one an attack on the village. This is impossible. It can again be seen from this that the daily reports in many cases were very unreliable, and that very often reprisal measures were reported which in reality were not carried out. It is also doubtful whether the villages of Paklenica and Vocarica were ever burned down at all.
Q What is mentioned about the localities of Paklenica and Vocarica in the war diary of the corps under the date of the 17th of October 1943?
A What page, please?
Q "The 187th Reserve Division reports in its diary entry for the 17th of October reprisal measure for a surprise raid on Novska after seizure of 27 male hostages aged 50 to 60 years, one quarter of them railway staff from Novska whose band membership was proved, the evacuation of the population, and the villages of Paklenica and Vocarica burned down."
Q. On the basis of the documents submitted--Document NOKW-658; that if the Daily Report for the 9th of October; and Document NOKW-658, the Daily Report for the 16th of October; and Document NOKW-648, the War Diary entry of the Corps under the 17th of October 1943--can you tell us why these two village could have been burned down, if they were burned down at all?
A. These two villages (POINTING TO THE WALL NAP BEHIND THE WETNESS STAND) which were in the neighborhood of the important main railway line-approximately in this district here on the map--were notorious band strong points. From here the attack on the railway and the attack on the village of Novska were planned. The population were definitely members of the bands, and the destruction of these villages was a military necessity, if at was carried out at all. They were a band nests. The report, which is enclosed with the entry an the War Diary, was unfortunately not submitted her* This would prove what I have just said.
Q. I now come to Count 9-h of the Indictment. The Prosecution has stated, in connection with this, that on or about the 15th of November 1943 troops of the 187th Reserve Division, under the command and jurisdiction of the LXIXth Reserve Corps, burned down the village of Jamina. A document stating that a measure of this kind was carried out on approximately the 15th of November has not bee submitted by the Prosecution. In evidence for this point were submitted the Daily Report of the 7th of November 1943--Document NOKW-075, Exhibit No. 358, Document Book XIV, Page 107 of the English and Page 90 of the German; also, the teletype dated the 7th of November, 1943, Document NOKW-658, Exhibit No. 375, Document Book XVI, Page 25 of the English, and Page 59 of the German. I will show you these two documents. Is the text of the documents the same?
A. The text of the documents is the same. It is the same Daily Report. The one is an excerpt from the other.
Q. I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact t** in this case also one document has been presented under two exhibit numbers Was the village of Jamina completely burned down?
A. No. According to the text of the Daily Report, only part of it destroyed.
The village itself was still standing, according to all appearances, in December 1943-- that is the next month -- as can be seen from a report of the Corps.
Q. This is the Daily Report of the Corps, dated the 23rd of December 1943. It is Document NOKW-658, Exhibit No. 375, Document Book XVI, Page 36 of the English and Page 88 of the German, under Paragraph 3-a.
Did you issue an order for the partial burning down of the village of Jamina?
A. No.
Q. Before this measure was carried out, were you informed about it?
A. No, I was not previously informed about it.
Q. Could you have prevented the measure, if the village was destroyed at all or even partially destroyed?
A. No, that was impossible. I could not have prevented it.
Q. Can you tell us anything about who carried out the destruction of the village, if it was destroyed at all?
A. I assume, as I have repeatedly stated, that it was probably carried out by the Croat police because these kinds of reprisal measures were carried out on principle by the Croat police.
Q. Can you tell us the reasons why a partial destruction of the village could have taken place?
A. The village was a strong point of the bands. It was a band hiding place, and it was a rallying point of the partisans who from here, as I mentioned already at the beginning organized the crossing of the Save, when in Syrmia, that is in the northern part, (POINTING) things began to get too hot for them. Jamina is near the Save, and they crossed over into the Majevica Mountains. This can be seen from a Daily Report of the Corps. In the village itself there were munition and arms depots. The village itself was very difficult to reach. It was situated in a large wooded area. The destruction of this village, if it took place, was a military necessity. It was an urgent need.
Q. The Daily Reports mentioned by General Dehner, are the Daily Reports dated the 6th of November 1943, Document NOKW-658, Exhibit No. 375, Document Book XVI, Page 24 of the English and Page 57 of the German.
Also, the Daily Report dated the 15th of November 1943, Document NOKW-658, Exhibit No. 375, Document Book XVI, Page 23 of the English and Page 55 of the German, Paragraph 2-a.
I now come to Count 9-i of the Indictment. I will show you Document NOKW-658, Exhibit No. 375, Document Book XVI, Page 30 of the English and Page 72 of the German. This is a Daily Report of the Corps Headquarters of the LXIXth Reserve Corps to the Second Panzer Army, dated the 27th of November 1943.
Did you sign this document?
A. No, this is one of the usual teletype reports which were not signed by me.
Q. Is the document signed at all?
A. No.
Q. Can you tell us whether you received knowledge of the document?
A. I did not sign the document, I did not initial it, since on princi*** I initialled every document which I saw. I can therefore assume with certainty that I did not see this document.
Q. In addition I will show you Document NOKW-049, Exhibit No. 376, in Document Book XIV, Page 110 of the English and Page 85 of the German. May I repeat--Document NOKW-049, Exhibit No. 376, Document Book XIV, Page 110 of the English and Page 85 of the German.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Exhibit No. 376? It is not in Document Book XIV, but it is in Document Book XVI. It should be Document Book XVI on page 37 of the English.
DR. GAWLIK: General, which document book is it please?
WITNESS DEHNER: It is Document Book XIV, Exhibit No. 356.
DR. GAWLIK: I'm sorry, Your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: That's quite all right.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Are these two documents NOKW-658 and NOKW-049 identical?
A. The two documents are identical. The one document is a literal copy of the Daily Report, an excerpt.
Q. Did you order the burning down of the village of Grgurevci?
A. No, I did not order it. The burning down of the village of Grgurevci (G-R-G-U-R-E-V-C-I) is also not mentioned in the War Diary.
Q. Did you know about this measure before it took place--that is, the burning down of the village?
A. No.
Q. Can you tell us whether troops of the 173rd Reserve Division subordinate to you burned down the village?
A. Since a surprise attack on the police had taken place in Grgurevci, as is shown by the new War Diary from Washington, I am convinced that the destruction was carried out by the police. The police were not subordinate to me; they carried out their operations independently. Usually they informed us about reprisal measures which had been completed. It could also easily have been the Croat police who carried out this measure, because the carrying out of these kind of reprisal measures were, on principle, carried out by the Croat police.
Q. Can you tell us what the reasons could have been for the burning down of this village by the police?
A. The seven preceding Daily Reports are, unfortunately, missing so that the actual reason cannot be determined. The village was a well-known band strong point in the Fruska-Gora, that is in this district here (POINTING). The village was fortified with pill-boxes, and from here the bands made repeated attacks against the most important road, Ruma-Erdevic.
That is this road here (POINTING), which runs along the main railway line. They made attacks especially against the most important points of the main railway line, Vogany (V-O-G-A-N-Y), Mitrovica (M-I-T-R-O-V-IC-A); Lacarac (L-A-C-A-R-A-C)-this has been mentioned before; and Martinci (M-A-R-T-I-N-C-I). Then, after the acts of sabotage had been completed, they withdrew again into their hide-outs. Quite apart from the fact that this was certainly a justified reprisal measure, the destruction of this band stronghold was, for reasons of maintaining public order a security, urgently necessary. From the Washington Diary I also saw that shortly before this, heavy fighting had taken place; and it is not quite out of the question that the village, which was built of straw-roofed houses was set on fire during the fighting. As can be seen from the diary, one battery of Field Artillery, one company of anti-tank guns, and heavy mortars were in action against the villages. It was a rather heavy battle. We lost, during this battle, one company commander and twenty-eight soldiers. It is also possible that what was reported here as reprisal measure had already been destroyed in the previous fighting.
Q. I now will discuss cases which are not set down expressly in the Indictment. I will show you, first of all, the teletype dated the 4th of November 1943, Document NOKW-075, Exhibit No. 358, Document Book XIV, Page 112 of the German and Page 87 of the English. I'm sorry; it's Page 112 of the English and Page 87 of the German. Under letter "d" there is a note that on the second of November the village of Novo-Tropolj was burned down. Please comment on the form of this document.
A. The document is a copy. It bears no signature-even the usual notation (Corps Headquarters 69th Reserve Corps) is missing, as well as the reference number.
The copy is not certified, and on the document itself there are no initials at all, nor is the sender given. The entire document doesn't seem to have been photostated, since part of it is not here.
Q. When you were Commanding General of the LXIXth Reserve Corps did you hear about the burning down of the village of Novo-Tropolj?
A. Of course, today I can't remember if I heard about it at that time, out of all the incidents which took place. I certainly didn't receive knowledge of it in the form submitted here.
Q. On the basis of the document submitted can you comment on this incident?
A. It is a typical Cossack report about which I have already commented. It is very vague and nothing can be assumed from it. I have already mentioned that the Cossacks were, for the most part, illiterate and couldn't speak German. This can also be seen from various documents. I assume and reconstruct the case like this for myself: The troops were fired on from the village, and then they attacked the village. Fighting took place, whereupon the village was burned down, probably through the gun-fire. Band suspects--according to the language of the Balkans "active band helpers"--were taken along. If in this case any kind of excesses were committed by the Cossacks then they would certainty have been followed up by the Corps, as the usual excesses committed by the Cossacks were very carefully investigated and followed up.
Q. Witness, what is the basis for the statements you have just made?
A. They are based on statements which are to be found in Document Book XIV.
Q. Document look XIV, page 112 of the English, page 87 of the German.
A. Where this report by Col. Vubic is given, and then the compilation of the individual excesses committed by the Cossacks in Document Book XIV, page 24.
Q. Which report--the one dated the 25th of November? Which one?
A. Unfortunately, the report isn't dated. It is Exhibit NOKW-509.
Q. Exhibit 340, Document Book XIV, page 26 of the German and page 43 of the English. I am sorry, your Honor, page 112 wasn't correct. It is page 43.
Witness, I meant what other basis have you for the description? From the document, and is it a pure assumption on your part?
A. No, it is from experience. We experienced this quite frequently.
Q. I now come to another case. I will show the teletype dated the 26th of September 1943, NOKW-658, Exhibit 375, Document Book XVI, page 9 of the English, page 22 of the German, under letter "A" of this teletype, with the 187th Reserve Division is stated the following:
"As reprisal for an attack, the well known brand strong point of Susnievci is to be burned down."
Were you in office on the 26th September 1943?
A. No.
Q. Where were you during this period?
A. I was on leave.
Q. How long were you on leave?
A. I was on leave until the 26th of September, inclusive.
Q. Did you know about the destruction of Susnievci?
A. I can't remember anything about it today.
Q. On the basis of the statements in the teletype, can you comment on this destruction?
A. Susnievci was a band strong-point and from this village the band committed a number of attacks against Brod and against the main railway line which ran along near Brod. I assume that the destruction of this band strong-point was a military necessity.
Q. And now I come to another case. I will show you the teletype of the 9th of October 1943, Document NOKW-658, Exhibit 375, Document Book XVI, page 12 of the English and page 30 of the German; under figure "2", the burning down of the village of Vetojevci is mentioned. Did you sign the document submitted?
A. No.
Q. Is the document submitted signed at all?
A. No, and it does not bear my initial either.
Q. According to the document, who carried out the destruction of this village?
A. According to the document, the destruction of the band strong-point of Vetojevci was carried out during the police operation Kammerhofer. That is, in any case, the troops under the orders of Kammerhofer, the police, carried this out.
Q. Did you give any kind of order for the burning down of this village?
A. No.
Q. Were you informed about it before hand?
A. No, I was not informed about it.
Q. Can you today, on the basis of the statements in the teletype dated the 9th of October, 1943, tell us whether this concerned a reprisal measure at all?
A. The incident in itself is not known to me in detail since it was not a measure undertaken by my Corps. On the basis of the teletype, nevertheless, I assume that it was not a reprisal measure but a destruction, which was necessary from a military point of view, of a fortified band strongpoint and in the report the expression "well known band strongpoint" is used.
This destruction of the village of Vetujevci is not noted in the War Diary of the Corps.
Q. Now another case. I will show you the daily report dated the 20th of October, 1343, Document NOKW-658, Exhibit 375, Document Book XVI, page 18 of the English and page 43 of the German. Is this teletype signed by you?
A. This is another one of these very many teletypes which are not signed, but only Dear the typewritten words "Corps Headquarters LXIXth Reserve Corps" and a reference number.
Q. Can you tell us whether you knew about the document submitted?
A. I find no initials on this document at all and I assume that I received no knowledge of it because, otherwise, I would have initialed it. The stamp "Commanding General" has no initials, and indicates that it was to have been submitted to me, but apparently this didn't happen. I can't give the reason for this. Perhaps at this time I was absent from the headquarters.
Q. Did you issue the order for the destruction of the village of Arak*vac?
A. No.
Q. According to the teletype submitted, did troops subordinate to you destroy this village?
A. No.
Q. Who destroyed this village?
A. From the teletype, it can be seen chat the destruction of this village was carrion out by police forces under Kammerhofer.
Q. Witness, did you have previous knowledge of the intended destruction of this village?
A. No.
Q. Could you have prevented this intended measure?
A. No, that was quite impossible.
Q. Can you tell us more details about this?
A. I couldn't give Kammerhofer any orders because Kammerhofer wasn't subordinate to me.
Q. Was the destruction of this village, if one can regard this as having been proved at all, a reprisal measure?
A. From the daily report, one cannot see this. The village is described here as a definite bend next in which explosives, infantry munition, hand grenades, propaganda material, and other stocks were stored.
Q. Witness, when can the village have been destroyed?
A. It is possible that the destruction of the village occurred during tin fighting, when the village was set on fire by the shells. The destruction of this village was in any case necessary from a military point of view in order to maintain peace and order. This destruction is also not mentioned in the War Diary.
Q. Now another case. I will snow you the teletype dated the 28th of November, 1943. Document NOKW-658, Exhibit 375, Document Book XVI, page 31 in the English and page 75 in the German. Did you sign this document?
A. No.
Q. Is this document signed at all?
A. No, just as in the case of the others, it is not signed at all.
Q. Can you tell us whether the document submitted by the prosecution as evidence was submitted to you at the time for information?
A. No. I don't think so. Otherwise, the document would boar my initial.
Q. And further in this connection, I will show you the radio message No. 487, Document NOKW-509, Exhibit 340, Document Book 14, page 44 in the English and page 26 in the German. What was the reason for the destruction of Grabovo?
A. A purely tactical reason. This was a tactical operation against band villages fortified and consolidated as strong points, from which the mountain village of Grabovo, thanks to its situation and its fortification, was regarded as the most dangerous. The village was defended, and we also used heavy weapons, artillery, anti-tank guns and trench mortars.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKER: At this point, we will take our afternoon recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Court will be in recess until 1515.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. FULKERSON: We have had a cross-fire motion on the matter of General von Weichs. First we submitted one, then Dr. Laternser did, and view of the order which the Court issued yesterday appointing a medical commission to examine General von Weichs, I assume that you would hold the motion of Dr. Laternser's in abeyance, that is the motion to sever, until the report of the medical commission was made; and for that reason we haven't filed any pleading responsive to that motion.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: That is correct.
MR. FULKERSON: Thank you.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed.
DR. GAWLIK: We stopped before the recess when we discussed documents NOKW-658, Exhibit 375 in Document Book 16, on page 31 of the English text and page 65 of the German text; and Document NOKW 509, Exhibit 340 in Document Book 14, on page 44 of the English Text and page 26 of the German text. That document dealt with the destruction of the village Krabovo.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. At whose instigation, General, was Krabovo burned down?
A. Krabovo was burned down at the instigation of the Croatian authorities. I am inclined to assume since these were representative authorities of the Croatian government, that these representatives had expressly requested that this village be destroyed. This goes to prove how dangerous the Croatian authorities considered this bandit strong point, although they must have had a particular interest in preserving every house. It follows further that the destruction of this band strong point for the maintenance of public safety and order and order was expressly necessary.
DR. GAWLIK: In this connection, if it please the Tribunal, I'd like to draw attention to the daily report dated 28 November 1943, Document NOKW-658, Exhibit 375, on page 31 of the English Document Book and page 75 of the German text. Of particular interest is paragraph 2-A where it says expressly that at the request of Croatian agencies both villages were burned down as pronounced band seats.
From the preceding sentences it becomes apparent that the places were Krabovo and Zvilos.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. General, did you issue an order to destroy Zvilos?
A. No, I did not issue such an order.
Q. Why then was that place, Zvilos, destroyed?
A. The village was also destroyed within the same tactical operation, and likewise at the request of Croatian agencies because that was a fortified band strong point. It was located in inaccessible territory also in Fruska Gora, and that was why it was destroyed. From this village and from this position our troops were shot at. We were waging a difficult and serious battle from that village, during which we employed heavy weapons. I also know that on the outskirts of those villages, trenches were found.
Q. This brings me to another incident. Again I am going to show you again the teletype of 28 November 1943, which is Document NOKW-865, Exhibit 375 in Document Book 16, page 31 of the English and page 75 of the German. In this daily report of the 28th of November 1943, it is further started that Lecimir bas burned down. Before this village was destroyed, were you informed of the intended measure?
A. No, I was not.
Q. Would you have been in a position to prevent this measure?
A. No, the place was already destroyed when I heard of it.
Q. According to the teletype of the 28th of November 1943, was it a reprisal measure?
A. On the basis of this teletype of 28 November 1943, I am not in a position to answer your question with certainty. From the context of this report, I feel inclined to assume that a military necessity existed for this measure because Lecimir was also fortified and was also a band strong point.
Q. Can you give us any further reasons, General?
A. Lecimir was, just like Krabovo, very in accessible. It had been fortified by the bands and was defended by them. It was in the Fruska-Gora mountains, and a hide-out and a strong point of the bandits. From there we had frequent attacks on the main highway Ruma-Erdevic, (spelling) E-r-d-e-v-i-c, and against the railroad line. I assume that the village was destroyed for military reasons by police forces as is stated in this teletype.
Q. In this connection I will show you Document NOKW-509, which is Prosecution Exhibit 340, contained in Document Book 14 on page 48 of the English text and page 28-A of the German text. What was the reason for this communications?
A. The 173rd Reserve Division reported to me at the time the following: After conclusion of the tactical operation against the FruskaGora, and after withdrawal of the troops of the 173rd Division, the police forces were released from the temporary tactical subordination and were no longer subordinated to the 173rd Reserve Division. This was an exceptional case where a small unit of the police had been subordinated to the 173rd Reserve Division for a limited period of time and for a certain purpose. After the police had been released from this relation of subordination, the rest of the population who were in the Lecimir community centre, were shot allegedly on the order of the police forces in the clutch in Lecimir as becomes apparent from the Document NOKW-509which we are discussing.
Q. General, when you received this report, what did you do?