After the first interrogation it took some time until we were interrogated for the second time, I believe it was in March, although I don't know the exact date. In the meantime my father died and another relative. I asked urgently to be allowed to go and attend the funeral. I was at that time under no indictment. I was not told I was to be a witness either, however, my request was refused.
In January, all of a sudden, we were called to the office, the generals present were : General Rendulic, General Foertsch, General Leyser and General Warlimont. We were told to sign a document which contained a decree that we were released. An American Captain handed us this document. Although we were not allowed to talk with each other, we immediately unanimously protested against sighing this document and we refused to do that. We were told then we would not get any money, any release money. What that means to a General who has no more belongings, whose every belonging has been confiscated and whose relatives are starving, anyone can imagine. In spite of the importance of this fact, we refused and we were sent back to our cells. The next day we were called again and we were told we had to sign and the following had already signed: General Blaskowitz and General Sporrle. Once more we refused, thereupon the American Captain telephoned the commandant and the commandant appeared on the scene. He did not introduce himself and told us if we did not sign there was an order from higher agencies that he would have to take measures against us.
THE PRESIDENT: What was this commandant's name?
THE WITNESS: To the best of my recollection, Major Teich, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know to what military unit he belonged?
THE WITNESS: I am afraid I cannot say that, your Honor, I don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know how to spell his name?
THE WITNESS: T-e-i-c-h, Teich.
THE PRESIDENT: And that was here in Nurnberg?
THE WITNESS: Yes, in the office here in Nurnberg, that was in January to the best of my recollection. I can look up the date exactly, I made a note of it.
THE PRESIDENT: He was the commanding officer of what unit?
THE WITNESS: The American commandant, you mean? I don't know, I don't know to which unit he belonged. I never learned that, I never heard about that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE WITNESS: I would like to add in this connection, because I don't want to burden the Tribunal with details, but I would like to add that then as now I consider myself a prisoner of war who is under the protection of the Geneva convention.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q.- I summarize the whole of this examination and I will show you the indictment, General. You are being charged on count 1 of the indictment that you have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. What can you answer generally to this accusation?
A.- I have never committed a murder, I never mal-treatment of anybody, as I am being charged with having done. I never did suffer it that such actions were committed by men under my command, nor did I at any time give an order to kidnap or deport prisoners of war for forced labor, prisoners of war or other members of forces who found themselves in a state of war with Germany or members of the civilian population. This does not apply to me at all inasmuch as Croatia, as a friendly and sovereign state, was not at war with us. I neither ordered, nor did I suffer that private or public property was looted or plundered. Where excesses occurred, they were followed up with very severe measures. I neither ordered nor did I allow my subordinates to, as the prosecution charges, have larger or smaller villages destroyed arbitrarily. If a locality was destroyed at any time, which were very few indeed, then such an action took place during combat for urgent military necessity after conscientious examination and in close cooperation and on the decision of Croatian authorities and the Croatian government.
Such actions might have been carried out, but this government would not have any houses destroyed for purely economical measures, unless it was urgently necessary in the interests of safety, law and order.
I do not know of a single cruelty or crime against the civilian population, however, I do know for certain and I can prove this through witnesses that while I was in Croatia, I had at heart the interests and prosperity of the population and sponsored these interests with all means at my disposal and supported them whenever I could. This, as a matter of fact, was a matter of principle to me since we found ourselves in the territory of a state friendly to us and a state which was sovereign. We willingly took into account the umpleasantness and the expediency sometimes connected with such actions. As I have described earlier, I could call many witnesses, members of the Croatian population to bear me out in this fact. Unfortunately, the political situation of the country is such that this is not possible.
Q.- Under Count I of the Indictment you are charged with having aided and abetted crimes which have resulted in the murder of hundreds of thousands of the population in Greece of Jugoslavia and Albania by the troops of the German armed forces under your command and jurisdiction. What can you tell us, generally in answer to this count?
A.- I have never been in either Greece or Albania, I was merely in a part of the former state, Jugoslavia. There I neither ordered nor abetted or took a consenting part in, nor was I connected with plans and enterprises involving the murder of hundreds of people, nor was I a member of an organization or group which was connected with the murder of thousands of persons from the civilian population of Jugoslavia.
I do not know that persons were summarily executed without investigation or trial in my area while I stayed there and, to the best of my recollection, at no time were the ratios reached which have been mentioned in this trial repeatedly.
I do not know that non-combatants were arbitrarily designated as bandits and were without an investigation or a trial, terrorized or tortures or/and murdered. Of a common plan to terrorize or intimidate,I heard here for the first time. It is completely out of the question that at any time the intention existed to designate the indigenous population. It was our zealous effort to achieve the very opposite. One does not want to weaken an allied power. As much as possible, one wants to sponsor and strengthen an ally with all means at one's disposal.
I never issued a hostage order which contained the ratios contained in this indictment. To the best of my knowledge. I did not issue a hostage order at any time.
Q.- General, what is your answer to Count II of the indictment quite generally?
A.- I have neither ordered nor passed on an order to the effect, nor have I committed my subordinates, to plunder or loot public or private property.
I did not allow the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages and the murder connected with such acts of the inhabitants of such villages nor did I commit the other acts of devastation not necessitated by military necessity. I have for the first time heard here of a so-called plan under the slogan, "rule through terror", a plan which had the aim of decimating for years the economic and material potentialities of such countries and to delay their rebuilding for years. That is contradictory to every sense and reason alone because we were in an allied state, Croatia, the economic and industrial potentialities of which we were interested in strengthening, sponsoring, and supporting.
All reprisal measures had been ordered and carried out as a rule by Croatian authorities. The German troops have merely been informed of such measures and passed them on to their superior agencies.
Q.- General, what can you tell us in conclusion as your answer to Count III of the indictment?
A.- I am not aware of the fact of having issued or passed on orders contradictory to law or having carried out such orders contradictory to law or having carried out such orders.
The methods of the Jugoslavian army of those days had capitulated in April 1941. I did not know another Jugoslavian army nor did my superiors. Therefore, that charge does not apply at all; namely, the charge that we had assassinated them as insurgents, Communist bands, rebels. The captured bandits were always treated as prisoners of war.
Q.- And what can you answer in conclusion to Count IV of the indictment?
A.- I had never anything to do with organizations or associations which were connected with murder, torture and systematic terrorizing, imprisonment in concentration camps, arbitrary forced labor for fortifications or entrenchments or deportations to slave labor of civilian po
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honors, that brings me to the end of my direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any defense counsel who wish to question his defendant?
DR. FRITSCH (Counsel for defendant Rendulic): If it please the Tribunal, I have only one question to put in the interests of General Rendulic.
BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q.- General, you have mentioned reprisal ratios. In this connection I would like to remind you of the army order of 15 September which is only a compilation of former orders. You have stated on direction examination that you have used very low ratios.
A.- May I say something?
Q.- I want to put my question new, General. Did the Army which received all daily reports of your Corps at any time object to those low ratios which you reported, General? Would you just answer this with "yes" or "No" if you can?
A.- First of all, I have to tell you that if you say that I mentioned ratios, I did not mean ratios which were applied in my area because I did not apply any such ratios in my area?
Q.- That is correct and I didn't say that.
A.- Your question was -
Q.- My question was whether the Army has ever objected to your reports concerning the low reprisal quotas which you applied?
A.- I cannot remember that the Army did.
DR. FRITSCH: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there other counsel who wish to question this defendant? Apparently not. You may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. FULKERSON:
Q. You heard General von Leyser testify, of course.
A. Yes, I was here when he testified.
Q. And since both you and he were in Croatia at the same time I assume that you were interested in what he had to say and that you listened rather carefully to his testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. You remember his statements about the position which the various indigenous units occupied toward the German troops?
A. What do you mean by "indigenous units?"
Q. The Domobrans, the Ustascha, and so forth.
A. The Domobrans and Ustascha? You mean the Croatia Militia?
Q. Yes.
A. The Croatian Armed Forces?
Q. Yes. Do you think that the explanation which General von Leyser gave of that relationship was accurate and correct as far as you know?
A. What relationship do you mean -- the relation between the Domobrans and Ustascha? Is that what you mean?
Q. No, the relationship between the Ustascha and the Domobrans on the one hand and the German Wehrmacht on the other.
A. Yes, it was an Allied Armed Force, the Armed Farces of the sovereign state Coratia.
Q. And you believe that his explanation of the tactical subordination, I believe he put it, of the various units of the Croatian Armed Forces to the German Wehrmacht was a correct explanation of the situation in Croatia at that time.
A. Well, in that ease you have to give me the exact wording how Leyser stated it at the time. After all every single word is important.
Q. Well, I am just trying to save time by not going over the same ground with you that I have already gone over with General von Leyser. Have you any exception to take to any of the statements that he made about this relationship?
A. I don't have the exact statements of General von Leyser in front of me now which I would have to have if I am supposed to state my own attitude. If I just do it according to memory, every word can be different and can mean something else. I can't do it according to memory. You would have to get the record of what he said and then you would have to ask me, "Do you agree or don't you?"
Q. That is just what I am trying to avoid. Off hand, you don't remember any statement of General von Leyser's which was so glaringly inaccurate that you would like to take exception to it so far as this relationship existed.
THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you get the record and ask him about these matters? Why should you question him about some generalities.
MR. FULDERSON: Very well, Your Honor.
Q. General, I will ask you a specific question which I did ask General von Leyser: Can you point to a document in here in any of these books which shows that this happened, that the German Wehrmacht made a decision to execute hostages, that the Croatian Government or any of the Croatian authorities protested against the decision and that as a result of the protest the Wehrmacht reversed its decision? Do you know of any such document?
A. I can't recall it.
Q. You were in Croatia from August 1943, I believe, until the 18th of March 1944 and -
A. I beg your pardon if I may correct myself -- until the 15th of March, as I have learned just now from the War Diary.
On the 15th of March we handed over everything within the Corps area to the 1st Cossack Division. This division remained in Croatia while we marched into Hungary.
Q. And then during this period you said that you were on leave twice. I think the first one was the period from the 28th of August until about the 26th of September and then again on about 20th of December you left and were gone until the 6th of January.
A. When you count the second leave you have to add two days for travelling before and on the way back, two days for traveling.
Q. And in addition you said that you spent about half of the time that you were actually in Croatia away from the Corps headquarters visiting your troops and inspecting the division and so forth.
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. And, in addition, I believe you said that he made a summary of the daily reports that had come in while you were gone, a written summary, and you read that.
A. No, I didn't say that. I didn't say that. That is something entirely new.
Q. Well, then he made only an oral summary. Is that correct? Is that what you are now saying?
A. He made an oral report. Wherever possible I looked at the documents. But as I was usually pressed for time and he just gave me an oral report which summarized everything.
Q. Of course, the object of this was to keep you from having to read through this mass of accumulated reports.
A. It is practically impossible to really look at everything and look through everything.
Q. Well, do you feel that you were kept well informed of what was happening in your Corps area by following this procedure?
A. It wasn't possible to do it in any other way. I am under the impression that I learned of everything that was possible for me to hear of. I did the best in my power.
Q. So it is fair to assume that there are many of these daily reports whose contents were known to you even though you didn't read them?
A. That is possible.
Q. Well, in fact, wasn't it the very purpose of this oral summary that the Chief of Staff gave you?
A. It might have easily happened that at one time the Chief of Staff did not deem something or other important enough to tell me about it and that, on the other hand, he reported about something that does not seem important here but was important at the time,--let's say, for instance, a tactical matter.
Q. But it is still fair to assume that there are many of these daily reports which, although you didn't actually read yourself, you were told about and knew about the contents.
A. As a general rule and in large outlines, yes, and where they were important to me.
Q. From what you say, you couldn't have read more than half of the daily reports if you weren't there over half of the time.
A. I didn't understand that. -- When I had time I read the reports. Of course, if I didn't have the time, then the Chief of Stuff orally reported to me the events, i.e. in a summarized form, that would be up to the estimation and judgment of the Chief of Staff what he reported to me. If he did not consider some report important enough he might not have reported it to me, but though I couldn't read every individual document I still learned from the chief of staff what happened along large lines.
Q. What would you judge was the proportion between the reports which you actually read yourself on the one hand and those whose contents were simply summarized and passed on to you orally by the Chief of Staff?
A. The proportion between the reports of which I learned from the Chief of Staff and those which I read personally, is that what you
Q. Yes.
A. What do you mean by "proportion?"
Q. Well, would you say that you actually read half of them and that half of them were simply orally summarized to you by the Chief of Staff or would you say that you read two thirds of them or what?
A. One can't put it that way. At some times, if time pressed, the Chief of Staff would summarize everything in an oral report and some time I would not have had the opportunity to read everything myself. It might be that one day I would have to leave quickly after an hour or two and then another day there would be a more explicit oral report. That would depend on the situation and it changed daily.
Q. Well, now you have repeatedly emphasized here the importance of the presence or absence of your signature on these daily reports as proving either that you read these or didn't read them.
A. Yes.
Q. Well, from what has now just come out that doesn't seem to be so important, does it, if the documents were summarized to you by the Chief of Staff even though you didn't read them it makes very little difference whether your initial is on them, does it?
A. Then again there would be a day where I had time to read everything myself.
A. It was very certain that whenever I read a document I initialled it. I did that on principle and I can rely on that fact for certain. Every referant had the duty to point it out to me in case I should forget it.
Q. But the mere fact that your initial doesn't appear on one of these reports doesn't mean that you were not fully apprized of what that particular report contained at the time.
A. Well, it might be possible that reports were submitted to me which are not initialled but the final copy was not initialled. It is possible that I just initialled the drafts and maybe at the time it was amended to the first document.
Q. You mean-- I beg your pardon.
A. You see, what you see here, after all, does not include everything I saw. I saw much more, many more things, which you don't know about and about which you couldn't know -- daily reports, et cetera. Many daily reports are missing.
Q. But you think it is possible that among these documents t there is a final draft included whereas you saw and initialled only the preliminary draft?
A. All that is, well possible. It is possible that I only saw a preliminary draft which I initialled and then was later asked by the Chief of Staff whether measures could be carried out in accordance with that draft. It is also possible that I saw the final copy, possibly at one time also a report which was in a telegram style with the two usual lines on it. That is also possible.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Q Then, according to what you say, there are really two possibilities, when one reads a Daily Report here and doesn't use your initials on it: First, you may not have read the document at all, but you may have been told about it by your Chief of Staff; and secondly, you may have actually read the preliminary draft and initialled that, but the documents submitted here are the final drafts on which your initial doesn't appear.
A That could have happened differently. It's quite possible that it was the way you stated it; but I can only repeat that whatever I saw I initialled on principle.
Q But it doesn't prove very much then, simply to look at one of these documents here and see that it has not your initial on it. That doesn't necessarily prove either that you didn't know about it, or that you didn't read it.
A It proved that I did not see that particular document--the document involved.
Q You mean that you didn't see that particular draft of that particular document.
A That I did not see that particular document; that is what it proves.
Q I see. Now, let us go back to these absences of yours from Corps Headquarters. Who acted for you in your absence?
A During my absence the ranking divisional commander deputized for me, and that was Major General Brauner.
Q He was the ranking divisional commander in the Corps?
A Yes, indeed.
Q Now, Colonel Steinbeck was your Chief of Staff, wasn't he?
A Yes, he was.
Q Well, now, in your absence--say you were gone for a week-what were the respective parts which Colonel Steinbeck and Major General Brauner played? I don't under the relationship between what the Chief of Staff did in your absence and what the senior divisional commander Court No. V, Case No.VII.
did. In the first place--excuse me--before you answer that question, the divisional headquarters, I assume, of General Brauner's Division, would usually be in a different place from the Corps Headquarters would it not?
A The Corps Headquarters was located in Vukovar, as I have mentioned before.
Q Well, you said it moved two or three times.
A (POINTING TO THE WALL MAP): The divisional headquarters of Major General Brauner was up here in Brod, 75 Km. distant.
Q But you said -- Pardon me; go right ahead.
A General Brauner deputized for me. That is, he was responsible when I was absent for a longer period, that is to say, on leave. When I was absent for only a shorter period, visiting the troops, then the Chief of Staff would deputize for me in current matters.
Q Well, in other words, whether Colonel Steinbeck was your deputy or whether General Brauner was your deputy depended on the length of your leave. Is that it?
A Yes, when I was away for a longer period of time, then it was regulated by an order from a higher agency. It was an Army order that during my period of leave I would be represented by the ranking officer in the Corps area, and that was Major General Brauner.
Q Well, was this arrangement whereby your Chief of Staff deputized for your during short absences, unique with the LXIXth Army Corps, or was that the general rule in the German Army?
A That was the usual way it was handled in the German Wehrmacht. It was a custom everywhere in the Army.
Q And it was also the custom that the senior officer in the entire outfit--where there happened to be an Army Corps or even an Army, or a division--would take over and deputize when the commander was gone for a longer time? That was also customary throughout the whole German Army?
A It was the customary way it was handled in the German Army.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Q Now, during these short absences of yours exactly what was the authority of Colonel Steinbeck? I'm assuming, now, taking your word for it, that it was only on the longer leaves that General Brauner came into the picture at all. I'm now assuming that you're going to be gone for only a week and that Colonel Steinbeck is going to take over for that time. What was his authority?
A He had the authority which is laid down precisely in the Manual of the General Staff. He deputized for me during the time of my absence in current matters, and if an urgent case occurred at some time or other, then he had to take over responsibility for this urgent case also; but that was an exception. He was authorized to deputize for me in current matters.
Q In other words, he could do two things: He could handle any routine matter of the Corps, or he could even make a more important independent decision in case of emergency?
A If it was urgent, yes--if a courier was there or something like that.
Q Well, suppose that you were gone for four or five days and an emergency arose, and Colonel Steinbeck made a decision which resulted in a rather disastrous outcome. Whom would the Army hold responsible for that--you or Colonel Steinbeck?
A While I was absent the Chief of Staff deputized for me in routine matters only. If a matter of importance occurred he would try to reach me over the telephone which, however, in most cases, was not possible because I was with the individual troops units, and there were no telephone connections there. But when I returned he would report to me orally about it.
Q In other words the Army held you responsible for what happened in the area of the LXIXth Corps, regardless of whether Colonel Steinbeck was deputizing for you or not? Is that correct?
A The Army, of course, would turn to me for anything--that is quite obvious.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
Q And -
A I beg your pardon. And if I had any inquiry to make, or if the Chief of Staff did not inform me correctly, then the Chief of Staff would be taken to account. As a matter of course the Army would have to rely on me.
Q When you say that the Chief was responsible--that is, you mean that you would see to it that the Chief was responsible.
A Well, it's possible that the Chief might forget to inform me. This could happen, couldn't it? And then I would again have to take somebody to account for that. I was responsible to the Army.
Q And that same thing was true if you were gone for a short leave, was it not? Did the Army hold you or General Brauner responsible for what happened in the area of the LXIXth Corps?
A What do you mean by "short leave?" If I went on leave, the ranking divisional commander always deputized for me. If I did go on leave the ranking divisional commander deputized for me, and this regulation was made public by an order by the Army for every leave; it applied to every leave.
Q I see. So that is the distinction. You actually had to be on leave before the senior divisional commander came into the picture, General?
A Yes, and that's what I meant saying "if I was on leave."
Q Yes. Now, suppose you were on leave and he had been deputizing for you--I'm speaking now of General Brauner--and some disaster occurred in the Corps area, would you or General Brauner be held accountable for it?
A I couldn't have been held responsible because I was not there. It would be my deputy, who had all the rights and duties of the Commander and who exercised them in that case.
Q Do you remember the order which Colonel Steinbeck issued in your absence, in which he made various statements, among others that the partisan nuisance was becoming greater, etc.? Do you know the order Court No. V, Case No. VII.
which I mean? In the last part of it he refers to hostage camps. I can show it to you. It's in Document Book XVI, Page 92 in the German--if you care to see it--Page 38 in the English.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps it might be well to take up the discussion of this document after the noon recess. We'll take our noon recess at this time.
(The Tribunal recessed to resume at 1330).
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 19 December.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
ERNST DEHNER -- Resumed.
CROSS EXAMINATION -- Continued BY MR. FULKERSEN:
Q. Do you still have that document, General?
A. Yes, I still have it. You mean the order of the 24th of December?
Q. Yes. Now, at that time I believe you said that you were on vacation in Germany?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Well, now, there is that order of the 24th, and then, another one just before it, which is also signed by Steinbeck.
A. Yes.
Q. And you were on leave when both of these orders were signed?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Well, according to what you said, then the deputy at that time was General Brauner?
A. General Brauner.
Q. Well, why is it that if Brauner was incharge Steinbeck seems to be signing these basic orders?
A. This is not a basic order in that sense. This order is based on the order issued on the 15th of September by the Army.
Q. You mean that this is simply supplementary to the so-called "50 to 1 Order"?
A. These are simply more detailed explanations. On the oasis of an inquiry coming from a different division.
Q. Well, I still don't quite understand why it is that if General Brauner was in charge at that time Colonel Steinbeck was the man who was signing these directives.
I just wish you'd explain that to me because it's not clear to me at all.
A. This being not a basic or er, but merely bases itself on the old order, Steinbeck was certainly entitled to issue this order. Even if the order had been a basic one, he still could have issued it, if he previously would have contacted General Brauner who might not have been available at the time.
Q. In other words, in issuing these directives Colonel Steinbeck was just exercising the discretion, which you would have had if you had been there, in carrying out this basic order of September 15th?
A. What I would have done had I been there I cannot tell you today, but Steinbeck in this case acted in accordance with orders.
Q. And when you got back did Colonel Steinbeck show you these directives?
A. I'm not sure about this today. One should assume that he informed me about events which had occurred during my leave.
Q. Well, it would have been rather unusual would it not for Colonel Steinbeck to have issued a directive such as this if he were not fairly sure beforehand that it was not contrary to your own basic policy?
A. In that case he would not have done it, I should think, nor did I have any reasons to raise objections to this order because all the order intends to achieve is that no innocent persons will be seized as hostages; it is a moral principle. And he has also the obvious endeavor to make it impossible for the SD to seize hostages. Steinbeck knew very well that this was entirely in accordance with my own policy.
Q. Now, you testified yesterday, I believe, General, that the policy of shooting hostages was at least effective. That is to say, that after it was carried out resistance dwindled and that the areas where the hostage executions had then became peaceful again.
A. I'm afraid I didn't quite follow you.
THE PRESIDENT: May I interrupt for just a minute?
MR. FULKERSEN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Your voice is rather resonant, -
MR. FULFERSEN: I'm sorry , Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: And amplified by the sound system -- it isn't grating, but it comes in with considerable force. I wonder if you could -
MR. FULKERSEN: Moderate -
THE PRESIDENT: Moderate it a little bit.
BY MR. FULKERSEN:
Q. Did you understand the question, now?
A. What I said was that reprisal measures had their effect insofar as from time to time rest, calm, and order had been established, as the documents show.
Q. Well, when did this beneficial effect commence to manifest itself -- the beneficial effect on these hostage executions -- about what time?