If you compare that to those figures on the previous page, one will be able to see whether all attacks were being retaliated for, or only a relative number of them were.
On Page 81, I beg to draw the Court's attention to the entry under Paragraph 1, General Information. This is a situation report for the period between 1st and 10th October, 1942. "Drazha Mihailovic is pressed by his deputy leaders to activate the forces within his movement, referring to disadvantages in connection with popular sentiment, if his passivity towards German actions is continued. He has given way to this pressure in so far, by ordering to remove individual Wehrmacht members and small German detachments, without leaving any trace of them behind. He still persists in prohibiting any open hostilities." You can find in it a confirmation of what has been said in numerous affidavits, that these units did not bear their arms openly, but hid them and by crafty surprise attacks they attempted to win the day. On the following pages, you find reports on welfare measures taken for the food supplies of the population, for the political appeasement of the country. I would like to draw your attention to a remark made on Page 91, in Document 194, under Paragraph 2, "Enemy Situation". This is the situation report from the period between 11 and 20 January 1943, which reads as follows: "Drazha Mihailovic allows pursuit of Communists in Serbian sector as before. The strict reprisal measure for sabotage and murder of Serbian officials have caused D.M., due to pressure from the populace which constantly becomes more hostile in its attitude, to restrict his orders almost to the point of cancelling them. In the execution of the disobedience campaign, the population should under no circumstances be endangered, so that 'no retribution measures shall be brought on'."
Defendant Geitner begs to draw your attention to this entry, which is only one example of the fact that in actual reality, reprisal measures ordered by the commander in Serbia and other areas of the Balkans must, I am sure, have made a deep impression on Drazha Mihailovic and other leaders, and up to a certain degree, thus achieved their purpose.
It is important to pay attention to those entries for the reason that at that time Defendant Geitner and other defendants in 1943, I mean, of course, could not foresee that on 23 December 1947, five years later, the question would be gone into here in Nuernberg, whether and to what degree these reprisal measures impressed the leaders of the partisans in actual fact. That is why we think the entries of the period of time concerned are of importance for us today. There is, for instance, a small entry on Page 94, to which I would beg to draw the Tribunal's attention. It says there, under Paragraph II, Enemy Position; "Band activity remains now as before directed against the local Serbian administration......The attempts of D.M. to win the support of the legal Serbian armed forces, be it through terror or by bribery, continue....The Moslem question is another focal point of unrest. The Italians watch the attacks of the D.M. Cetniks on the Moslems from the position of 'Parade Rest!" There again you see with a further example how difficult the situation was for the German administration and German generals down there.
Court No. V, Case No. VII.
On Page 95, there is an interesting entry roughly in the first third of the page. It says there, "When the Italians departed", that is of March 1943, "they turned over the executive powers to the local Montenegrin Cetnik units. This threatens to bring about a renewed bloody altercation with the Moslem population, which, under the circumstances, will not be without influence on the attitude of the Albanians in the Novi Pazar and Kos. Mitvovica district. The Moslems are seeking German protection, after it has been denied them by the Italians; they should be ready to fight under German leadership."
Document 190 contains a number of reports of sabotage attacks and terror measures by the partisan units and the German commanders express their desire to be assigned more military units. Then, on page 99, in the situation report for the period between 16 June to 15 July, 1943, there is the remark that if the harvest goes all right, food supplies should be secured for the near future and the population in the towns should be appeased and the insurgents are likely to further intensify their sabotage acts of the harvest. This shows how correct German commanders were to think that the administration must see to it that everybody can work and can eat if there is to be law and order in the country.
Now, if the Tribunal please, I shall not read any more documents from Document 198. I shall merely draw the Tribunal's attention to the fact that it was in that period of time that a new wave of unrest swept over the country on account of air raids by the Allied air fleets, and the civilian population had to suffer from it rather badly. For instance, on Page 106, on the top, under Paragraph 4, Croatia, "The constant air attack terror has a very detrimental effect on the population living near the coast, unremitting use of air craft armament does not spare the farmer, who works in the fields, either."
This is an entry for the period between 16 March and 15 April, 1944, for a period of time, in other words, where in Germany also farmers went through that experience as they plowed their fields. A similar entry can be found on the same page, 106, under Air Situation. It speaks of bombing attacks with about 600 4-engined bombers directed against the air base at Semlin and the railroad station at Belgrade, and parts of the inner city were seriously damaged. Water and electricity supplies, as well as lines of communication, were severely disrupted. A large number of persons were killed. In Belgrade alone, 1160 civilians were killed in this one air raid, and further air raids tell the same story, as may be found on Page 106, in Document 198, and of course they did not contribute to keep the population calm.
I shall now leave this group of documents and I shall come to the last document in Document Book Geitner No. 6, which is Document 200, on Page 110, which is offered as Exhibit 171. This is an entirely different document. This document refers to the examination of the witness Wollny.
PRESIDENT WENNERSTRUM: May I ask, Dr. Sauter, if the exhibit number should not be 172? Will you check on that, please?
DR. SAUTER: Just a moment, please. Your Honor is quite right. I am most grateful that you told me this. I must correct, therefore, Document No. 200 on Page 110 is offered as Exhibit Geitner No. 172. I said we once heard here on the witness stand a witness called Wollny, who told us at the time that he saw a poster. He saw this with his own eyes in a town in central Germany, and on this poster, the American Occupation Army threatened reprisal measures at the ratio of 1 to 200. Now, by a coincidence, we find yet another witness who also saw that poster and read it.
This is the man who gave me Document No. 200 as an affidavit. His name is Hans Joachim Hammling, born in April, 1920, at Schneidemuehl. He now lives in Altenburg, in Hessen, and is a German citizen. He says, "The following statements refer to my official position as 1st Lieutenant in the 71st Replacement and Training Armored Infantry Battalion during the period from 16 April 1945 till the end of the war. In the period from 16 April 1945 till the end of May 1945 the American occupation forces posted an announcement in the public announcement box at the wall of the school building in the village of Gerenzen, Mansfelder Mountain district South Harz. The contents stated that for each soldier of the United States Army Forces who was killed by members of the Wehrwolf organization or the German population, 200 Germans would be executed by shooting. This announcement was either signed: Ordered by Military Government, or: The occupation force reponsible for this district. The then commanding officer of the Mansfeld district was Major David B. Bernstein." The affiant has signed his affidavit on 22 October 1947, and the document has been sworn to and duly certified. If the Tribunal please, this brings me to the end of the reading of those documents which at present are available to me. It may well be possible that I shall have the opportunity of submitting another two documents which as yet are not completely in my hands. One is a similar poster which was sent to me, the original poster, where it is threatened that reprisals will be taken at a certain ratio, which is of a considerable extent, by the French occupying forces. The other document, which I intend to submit to this Tribunal as soon as it has been properly translated, is an affidavit which has reference to that poster, and gives in detail statements about the fact where, when and for how long that poster was probably shown.
Those two documents, I would be grateful if I might submit them at some later time, as soon as they are in my hands in the proper form. For the rest, this brings me to the end of presenting my evidence on behalf of Defendant Geitner. Thank you very much.
JUDGE CARTER: Do I assume that there is to be no cross examination on the affidavit of General Geitner that came in yesterday?
MR. FULKERSON: No, if Your Honor please.
JUDGE CARTER: Very well.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Rauschenbach, for General Foertsch. If the Tribunal please, I beg to submit Document Book 4 on behalf of Defendant General Foertsch. I trust that it is in the hands of the Court. The first two documents in that document book are already known to the Court. They are the two surveys which I submitted at the beginning of the examination of General Foertsch for the information of the Court. They are not to have any independent probative value, but at the express desire of the Tribunal, I allocated them an exhibit number. I have therefore included them in them in this document book. They are documents No. 72 and 73, offered as already before exhibit numbers 14 and 15. The next document is No. 74, and it is offered as Exhibit 63. The last exhibit I offered was No. 62. It is an affidavit by Professor Adolf Lampe of Freiburg, which I had intended to submit earlier, but at that time it did not have the proper certificate, to which the Prosecution objected, and I therefore omitted it at the time. Professor Lampe, as the affidavit shows, was acquainted with General Foertsch for a long period, for instance, from the time when General Foertsch was still in the Reich Defense Ministry, and he confirms what General Foertsch has told on the witness stand about his military and political career quite generally.
It is immediately connected with the submission of the Prosecution that the defendants were, together with Ley, Sauckel, and such people, acted together in exterminating the people of the occupied areas. The Prosecution, on cross examination, put a number of questions concerning the origin and purpose of the books written some time previously by General Foertsch. This is the reason why I am submitting this affidavit.
"Paragraph 1.
"In order to facilitate a correct appraisal of my statements I shall make the following statements concerning myself and my political opinions."
(This refers, of course, to Professor Adolph Lampe.)
"Since 1922 I have actively opposed National Socialism at every opportunity which presented itself. My opposition ended with my arrest by the Gestapo in September 1944, as an assistant of Dr. Goerdeler and sent to Berlin for trial by the People's Court. Instead of details, which I will give upon request, I am enclosing, in confirmation of this, a certified copy of the 'Fuehrer Order' by virtue of which I was expelled from office in December 1944. I did not regain my freedom and livelihood until the collapse of the political system."
This certificate which the affiant mentions may be found at the end of this document, on page 12 of the Document Book. The decree reads as follows:
"Reich Minister and Chief of Reich Chancellery." Signed by Dr. Lammers, directed to Dr. Adolf Lampe. Berlin.
"The Fuehrer has ordered your removal from the office of University Professor as I inform you in accordance with instructions, because of your participation in events connected with the attempt on the life of the Fuehrer on 20 July 1944. As a result, all rights accruing from your previous office are forfeited."
To continue, on page 5 of the Document Book, under paragraph II, I shall skip the first few paragraphs and I shall continue on page 6, last paragraph:
"I clearly remember that in April 1933 Herr Foertsch took a definite stand against Hitler. In conversations he repeatedly expressed himself very disapprovingly and told me about the intrigues which were staged against General von Schleicher, who was apparently on intimate terms with Herr Foertsch, in order to bring about his dismissal as Reich Chancellor.
In the course of the following years, Herr Foertsch doubtless changed his attitude toward National Socialism at first, whereas I definitely persisted in my disapproving opinion. There was an extensive discussion about this between us in our correspondence. The thought never even remotely occurred to me that Herr Foertsch could in any way misinterpret my very definite criticism of National Socialism or consider himself obliged by this to take any measures against me. I tried to explain to myself his own change in attitude by the fact that as an enthusiastic soldier he naturally had to reach a positive attitude, considering that under National Socialist leadership his own sphere of activity experienced a development which had previously been considered impossible, whereas I, as an economist, had to keep in mind the perniciousness of the National Socialist economic policy and its consequences. I expressed myself to this effect to Herr Foertsch and received an answer which thoroughly confirmed my supposition. Herr Foertsch was firmly convinced that in the last analysis the military circles would keep the leadership in their hands. In June 1939 during one of my many visits to Berlin, as frequently happened, I also passed an evening in the home of Herr Foertsch. Here the specific problem of Armed Forces and Party was very thoroughly discussed. I recall that Herr Foertsch made use of a comparison and said that the Party river flowed into the broader river of the Armed Forces so to speak as a tributary so that for a time one would probably have to perceive a 'brownish' coloration of the entire river which resulted from the influx; however, he thought that there could be no doubt that the main stream would then cover up the color of the tributary. He described his various official positions and the attitude which he had adopted in them towards Party authorities. From this it definitely appeared that he had never made the slightest concession which seemed to him professionally unacceptable, but for his part had always decisively claimed the 'role of the main stream' described in the comparison and moreover had been able to have his own way."
To continue on page 8, the last paragraph:
"Late in 1941, or early in 1942, I wrote to Herr Foertsch that it was now high time for the supreme military authorities to realize their great political responsibility and that only they had an opportunity to place things on a fundamentally different basis who would still leave some reason for hope. Herr Foertsch replied that he shared my point of view completely; to this he added clearly enough that, unfortunately, civil courage and military courage were very seldom connected."
To skip the next paragraph and continue with the next one:
"Taken all in all, there can, therefore, be no doubt that Herr Foertsch:
"1) had fundamentally changed his temporarily favorable attitude after he recognized the irresponsibility of the Party's activity, to which, in the beginning, he granted 'extenuating circumstances' so to speak, and when its growing preponderance over the military authorities had become clear to him;
"2) that above all else he was a teacher, a leader of men in the best sense of the word and not a 'ferocious soldier';
"3) that, because of his very sense of responsibility toward the nation, he showed a fundamentally humane attitude at every opportunity.
"Even although I have no detailed knowledge of the "measures for which Herr Foertsch is in any way responsible, I am positive that he certainly always made an extreme effort to depart from orders contrary to his views as much as he was able and at great personal risk in order to do the best that was possible to alleviate the sufferings of the people in the conquered territories even if perhaps he could not prevent injustice completely.
"I remember that he wrote with the deepest sympathy abotrt the sufferings of the Greek people during the first period after the occupation"of the country and, as further appeared from his letters, did everything to change things for the better insofar as any opportunities for this were offered to him. From my personal knowledge of Hermann Foertsch I account hint one of those officers of the old school who, hampered by tradition and long years of training were not able to recognize that the way of high treason, which in itself, namely, under normal national conditions, is a disgraceful way, had become, through Hitler's misdeeds, a way of honor."
The next affidavit is Document Foertsch No. 75, offered as Exhibit No. 64. It may be found on page 13 of the Document Book - affidavit by Professor Schramm, who is a professor of history at Goettingen. Schramm, between March 1943 and May 1945, kept the Mar diary of the Wehrmacht Operational Staff and for that reason he can give us a few important impressions. Under paragraph 3, on page 14, he says:
"In the period from March 1943 to May 1945 I kept the Mar Diary of the Operational Staff of the Armed Forces. Therefore I got a glimpse of all the more important military documents, outgoing and incoming. Had General Foertsch of his Commander in Chief made a proposal at this time which was a sign of cruelty or a lack of a sense of justice, this would have been impressed on my very accurate memory, for that would have occasioned me to alter an opinion which I already held for a dozen years. This is not the case, however. The correspondence between the Army Groups in the Southeast and the Fuehrer Headquarters disclosed, rather that Hitler worked continually as an agitator, and the military authorities endeavoured openly, or in a roundabout way, to conduct the war also in this theatre in accordance with the traditional rules of war.
"4) of factors which made the conduct of war in the Southeast difficult, I stress the following:"
I shall skip paragraph a) because that subject has been discussed so often before and that goes for paragraph b) as well. To continue, on page 16, under B, the last paragraph:
"In addition to the impressions gleaned from my papers, there was the personal impression. Not only did I speak with General Foertsch in the years 1943 and 1944 when he came on orders to report at Fuehrer Headquarters, but I looked him up in summer 1943 in Salonika. I made the same observation here which I had already made in 1940. General Foertsch had remained the same as I had known him prior to 1933. Only now, to his critical attitude to the Party was added criticism of the military leadership by Adolf Hitler. In our discussions which were carried on in the intimate circle, General Foertsch made no secret whatsoever of his ideas.
"I would point out also that the Army Group in the Southeast put in-economic claims (for example, for allocation of drachmas which it required for defense works in Greece and building of ships), that, however, it submitted to the counter-arguments of the ambassador Neubacher, realizing that this would bring the inflation threatening in Greece to a head. The fact that economic considerations took precedence over military was essentially due to General Foertsch according to my observations."
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The Tribunal will take its noon recess at this time.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 23 December 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You may proceed.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH (Counsel for the defendant FOERTSCH.)
The following documents in the document book for General Foertsch are all excerpts from laws and decrees which have been published in the German law books during the war. I would like to prove the following with the presentation of these documents: 1), the impossibility of simply refusing orders given by the highest military authorities or to incite a superior or a subordinate to refuse the execution of such orders; 2), the fact that the Chief of the O.K.W. was not in a position in any way comparable to the one of the Chief of Staff which we have discussed here; and, 3), that the military commanders and the other offices of the armed forces in disciplinary respect and also concerning court martials, had no influence on the SS offices.
The first document which I would like to present is Foertsch No. 76, on page 18 of Foertsch Document Book 4, which I am offering under Foertsch Exhibit No. 65. This is the decree concerning the revision of the Military Penal Code and there is also an excerpt from the new version of this Military Penal Code. I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal first of all to page 18. The decree was issued by the so-called Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich. It is signed by Presiding Officer, Reichs Marshal Goering; Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Keitel; and the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellory, Dr. Lammers. Note the fact that the Chief of the O.K.W. stands between the other two persons, one of whom is the Reich Marshal and the other one the Chief of the Reich Chancellory; this fact alone shows that he was not just a Chief of Staff but that he maintained a comparatively independent position with his own jurisdiction and authority. I refer here to the cross examination of the defendant Foertsch, where the Prosecution touched upon this comparison with a few questions, namely the comparison between the Chief of the O.K.W. and the Chief of Staff in the Army Group.
The Chief of Staff of an Army Group would never have been in a position or authorized to be a co-signator of such an order. Furthermore, orders from an Army Group were not signed by the Commander in Chief and the Chief of Staff, as is the case here in the instance of this decree. On page 19 we have the same document and there I would like to draw attention to Article 47 of the German Military Penal Code which has been referred to during those proceedings on several occasions and to which I shall refer during my final plea; that is why I included this paragraph in the document book. Paragraph 48 is new for this trial. It reads as follows:
"Punishment of an act or an omission is not precluded because the perpetrator considered his behavior as called for by his conscience or the precepts of his religion."
In other words, he who omitted at that time to carry out a military order could neither refer to his conscience nor to his religion. Ho was punished. The same subject is being discussed in Article 92, which is the next paragraph in the document:
"Disobedience.
"1) Whosoever shall not obey an official order and thereby intentionally or through negligence cause considerable damage, endanger human life or property in considerable amount, or the security of the Reich or the mobility of training of the unit, shall be punished....."
and then follow the punishments. In the second paragraph it states that "if the act is committed in a combat zone the death penalty may be imposed." Thus we have here the threat of a death sentence for the disobedience towards an official order. Paragraph 94, Insubordination, when committed in a combat zone, it threatened with the death penalty. Then we have Article 115, the next one, "Instigation of a subordinate to a crime", which is to be understood that he who violates the German military laws, that is, he who incites a subordinate to commit a military crime, is liable to punishment.
The next document to be offered is Foertsch Document 77, which I shall offer as Foertsch Exhibit 66. This is an excerpt from the "Decree in regard to Special Criminal Law in Time of War and while on special duty," This is on page 22 of the document book. We have to note here that according to paragraph 3 of this decree the following are liable to punishment: "2. whoever under takes to induce a soldier or a member of the reserve to disobedience, to resistance or activity against a superior...." If a military commander, therefore, a Chief of Staff, or any other officer in the Southeast incited any soldier -let us say, if the Chief of Staff caused his Commander to not carry out orders from the O.K.W., that is, to disobey, then he was liable to punishment by death. The same is stated in paragraph 3: "Whoever undertakes to evade, or help another to evade, entirely, partly, or for a time, the performance of their armed service, by self mutilation, a device using deception, or any other means."
An example, if General Foertsch had pretended sickness or if he had shot himself in order to be not capable of carrying out his services and thus evade his tasks, he would have incurred the death penalty. Page 23 of the Foertsch Document Book contains paragraphs from the same document, and here paragraph 10 is of importance. It is provided here that the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces is authorized to change and supplement this decree issued by the Fuehrer. This is an indication of the great authority held by the Chief of the OKW, which is by no means comparable to the authority or jurisdiction of a chief of staff in an army group.
The following pages of the document deal with the legal competence, and this is a subject which I don't want to discuss in detail here.
On page 26 we might note that for all offenses committed by Generals, the Reich Court-Martial has jurisdiction. That is, we have a special provision here that proceedings may be taken against Generals for all offenses that they might commit, that is, even for disobedience or refusing to obey orders. In this Document 77 end on page 27 of the Document Book I would like to draw attention to the last but one paragraph.
"The Chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht is authorized to give explanations in regards to this decree, to issue orders for its execution", etc. Thus, although the decree itself was issued by the Fuehrer, it was expressed what importance it held in the State.
The next document offered is Foertsch Document 78 which is Exhibit 67. This is on page 30 of the document book. It is a decree about the special jurisdiction of the SS. We have here mentioned in detail that the persons named here, that is, SS members, are exclusively under the SS special jurisdiction, therefore, not under the jurisdiction of the Wehrmacht.
On page 31 at the top we see in paragraph 3, which starts on the preceding page, sub-section 2 of that paragraph:
"The Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police will take the place of the Reich Minister for War or the Chief of Staff of the High Command. He will appoint the judiciaries and the local limits of their jurisdiction".
Article 4 on the same page, 31, says:
"SS courts will take the place of courts-martia". I would like to state here by way of an explanation that General Foertsch was not a judiciary and that nobody asserted that he was. In the expert opinion of General von Halder concerning the position of a chief of staff it is stated quite clearly that Department 3 which is the department which dealed with legal matters in the staff was not under the charge of the Chief of Staff. Inspite of this I am introducing this document here to show at least indirectly that through no channels, not even by influencing a certain person, did General Foertsch have any opportunity whatsoever to influence the conduct of SS members via the courts which were established.
The next document is Foertsch Exhibit 79 on page 33 of the document book, and this will be offered as Exhibit No. 63. This deals with the special legal procedure in criminal offenses for the SS, and Foertsch Document No. 80 deals with the same thing. That is Document No. 80, Exhibit 69 on page 36. This document shows again that all closed formations of the SS and police subordinated to the Wehrmacht are liable to Wehrmacht law, but there are special SS field courts to exercise this law. This important decree has again been signed by the Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces, Keitel, as one can see on page 36. This shows again the importance of the position of a chief of staff of the High Command, and that this position cannot be compared with the position of a chief of staff in an army group.
Now I come to the last document which is Foertsch Document No. 31, and this will be offered as Foertsch Exhibit 70. This is so-called Wehrmacht disciplinary law.
From the excerpts which I have included in this document book I would like to draw attention to the last paragraph before the signature. That is on page 39. There in paragraph 3 it is stated:
"The Commanders-in-Chief of branches of the Armed. Forces and the Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces can assume jurisdiction in all cases in their area of command."
Here the defendant's jurisdiction as the Chief of the OKW is made quite clear, and it becomes expressly clear from this that he can in no way be compared with the Chief of Staff in an army group.
If Your Honors please, this brings me to the end of my presentation of the Foertsch Document Book. I don't intend to introduce any other document books, but there might be one individual affidavit which I would like to reserve the right to present before the Defense concludes its case. Apart from that, I have come to the end of this additional presentation of documents.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: Dr. Mueller-Torgow for General Felmy. If the Tribunal please, since Document Book Felmy 6 has been completed in the meantime, I would today like to present all those documents which I have available at this moment. I would, like to start with Felmy Document Book No. 1. This is where the documents to be presented are concerned. All affidavits, namely, affidavits by persons who comment not materially on the individual counts of the Indictment but who happen to know General Felmy from various occasions, when presenting these documents, I shall therefore restrict myself to the most material contents, and I shall present them more or less as a group.
The first document which I would like to present is Felmy Document No. 1, and this till be offered as Felmy Exhibit 61. It is an affidavit executed by Dr. Georg Guntermann. The next document is Felmy Document No. 2, and this will be offered as Felmy Exhibit 62. That is on page 3 of Felmy Document Book 1. This is an affidavit executed by one Dr. Rudolf Goernand.
The next document is Felmy Document No. 3, and this will be offered as Felmy Exhibit 63. It is an affidavit executed by one August Jolie. I would like to read the substance of this document. It is on page 5 of Felmy Document 1.
"I have known Herr Felmy since Spring of the year 1912. He was then assigned to me as aerial observer, and I have made a considerable number of cross-country flights, as well as the Prince Heinrich flights in the years 1913 and 1914 with him. At that time, when flying was still in its infancy and each flight, especially each cross--country flight, involved considerable danger, the two-man crew of the airplane formed a close partnership, the "flyers' marriage". For years I so had an opportunity to become acquainted with Felmy even under the most difficult conditions. He showed himself to be of a staunch, open and absolutely honest character, as a good, modest, always helpful comrade, always ready to step in for others, without regard for his own person".
The next document is Felmy Document No. 4, and this is an affidavit executed by one Werner Zahn. This will be offered as Felmy Exhibit 64. In the second paragraph there it is stated as follows:
"I have known General Felmy since 1913, the first years of the German Air Force. During World War I he distinguished himself as reconnaissance pilot and leader of airplane formations. Although his skill as a pilot was well-known to personnel of the Air Force, which was only a small organization at that time, he was more appreciated by them because of his straight-forward character, his firmness with which he defended his views to his superior commands, and his almost proverbial good-natured readiness to help. He was considered one of the best officers of the Air Force , who commanded everybody's respect and esteem by virtue of his noble views, his actions and his objectivity."
I shall read the next paragraph from page 7:
"When the Air Force was reorganized he was transferred to the new Air Force as one of the oldest and most experienced pilot officers of the old Air Force. His straight-forwardness, his experience and his capability as a pilot were often responsible for his clashes with the Supreme Air Force Command. Not to be discouraged, however, the General pursued his own way, which soon resulted in manifestations of dissatisfaction by the highest command. Without taking into consideration what his superiors thought of him, and disregarding his chance of promotion, the General opposed orders passed on to him if he deemed it necessary in accordance with his avowed, convictions. His dismissal already in the first year of the war was in my opinion far more due to his fair, decent actions and principles, as the real cause, than the reason that was officially stated at the time.
"Before World War II, I often discussed politics with General Felmy. At no time did he state that he considered a war possible, let alone desired the outbreak of hostilities. His sober, clear reasoning, in which he excelled, enabled him to recognize distinctly Germany's weakness militarily inspite of the rearmament drive. He hoped for a peaceful settlement of the most urgent problems (Corridor, Danzig, Colonies). He was profoundly opposed to an inhuman air war against the civilian population."
Document No. 5 is an affidavit of one Erich Morell and this will be offered as Felmy Exhibit 65. Felmy Document No. 6 is an affidavit by Karl Bolkenius and this will be offered as Felmy Exhibit 66. Document No. 7 is an affidavit executed by one Wilhelm Wimmer, and this will be offered as Exhibit 67. Document No. 8 on page 14 will be offered as Exhibit 08. This is an affidavit Executed by one Kurt JanckeSteinbrueck. I shall read the first two paragraphs:
"As a captain, General Felmy was my commander as leader of the Air Force Detachment 300 (Pascha) on the Sinai-Front and in Palestine in 1916.
As an irreproachable, steady, conscientious officer, he was an example for us. In action he strictly observed international rules. As to the treatment of prisoners of war, I state the following from my own experience:
"In Spring 1917 I shot down an English plane in aerial combat and took the Australian Lieutenant Vautin of the Australian Flying Corps, also shot down by my accompanying fighter pilot, into my plane as a prisoner at the place where he was shot down near Gaza, South Palestine, for the flight to our home base Ramleh. There the present defendant decided that Lieutenant Vautin was to be paroled for three days to live freely in our officers' billets and to mess with us, receiving the same treatment as we German officers, until according to the regulations he had to be handed over to the Turkish troops for further captivity. Captain Felmy treated Lieutenant Vautin correctly and exceedingly kindly in every respect. In other cases of downed enemy planes he saw to it at once that communications were taken up with the English Air Force. I must assume that the present British Commander-in-Chief in Germany, Air Marshal Sir Sholto Douglas, can give full particulars of this, as he served on the staff of General Allenby, who then commanded the English troops on the Egyptian front.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Just a moment. The interpreter doesn't seem to have a copy. Is it possible to have one provided here?
THE PRESIDENT: The reporters don't have one either.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Are there no more copies? Mr. Messenger, are there any more copies?
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: If Your Honors please, I will have a few English copies fetched immediately. Just a moment, please.
THE PRESIDENT: It might save time. It is rather difficult to have to interpret all of that as fast as you read it.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOW: The next document to be presented will be Document No. 9 on page 16.