This is contained in Document Book 6, on page 85 of both the German and the English text.
This is an extract from the war diary of the 69th Corps Headquarters covering the time from 1 January until 30 June 1944. Under the date of 19 March 1944, in the war diary there is the following entry:
"This headquarters has received complaints from Hungarian military personnel and Hungarian civilians, according to which German enlisted men and officers do not behave properly. (Excesses against Jews in Stuhlweissenburg, attempts to disarm Hungarian military personnel on the Mur Island, requisitionings, etc.
"Such behavior, which is damaging to the German Armed Forces, is dangerous in the present tense and completely obscure situation. This headquarters will take strict disciplinary action in its area, will order investigation and the punishing of the guilty parties."
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I object to the admission of this affidavit. The defendant Dehner is not on trial before this court for his command of this corps in Hungary. It is entirely outside of the jurisdiction of this case.
DR. GAWLIK: If the Tribunal please, I would like to reply to this. I am offering this document in order to show that General Dehner intervened as soon as he heard of any excesses by units subordinate to him. I consider this relevant and I here refer to the well-known law book by Wharton "Evidence on Criminal Cases", in order to show the reputation and character which General Dehner enjoyed, If he intervened in this particular case in Hungary, it is a proof of the fact, that he would have also intervened against excesses in other places, if the excesses had been known to him. This is a general proof and evidence of the General's character and reputation, which according to the general rules of procedure in American trials are material.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I submit that Dr. Gawlik's statements are strictly argumentative to say the least. What the General Dehner did in Hungary is one thing, and we are concerned with what the defendant Dehner as commander of the 69th Corps did. He may have learned later on better, I don't know, but certainly it has no bearing in this case.
DR. GAWLIK: Now may I answer this again, Your Honor. I want to prove on behalf of the defendant General Dehner that at all times as commanding general he fulfilled his duty. Whenever any excesses were known to him, he proceeded in his duty as commanding general at all times. If he acted that way in Hungary, there is no reason why Hungary should not be considered because when he was in Croatia, he would have behaved the same way as in Hungary. For this reason I believe the document is material.
THE PRESIDENT: The specific instances are not admissible for the purposes of showing reputation. The objection will be sustained.
DR. GAWLIK: As Exhibit No. 33, I wish now to submit Document No. 34. This is a further affidavit given by Willy Zorn and it is dated 28 November 1947. The document is to be found in Dehner Document Book VI on page 90 & 91. This is the affidavit executed by Zorn, and is concerned with the same affiant as the one by whom another affidavit has here been submitted.
This particular document deals with General Dehner's conduct in France, and then in paragraph 3 it is stated that General Dehner also showed the same attitude in Croatia, whenever he heard of officers which were not subordinate to him had effected measures which in his opinion were too severe, and he made personal efforts to have them rescinded. It is for example, as shown in paragraph 3: "General Dehner also adopted the same attitude in Croatia. Whenever he learned that offices which were not subordinate to him had adopted measures which in his opinion were too severe he made personal efforts to have them rescinded. Thus, for example, he saw to it that the quartering and treatment of the prisoners in the prison of the Vukovar district were improved."
This brings me to the end of my presentation of Dehner's Document Book VI, if the Tribunal please.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, if you please I have a question I would like to ask the defense counsel, not in the nature of an objection, but merely in reference to this last piece of evidence, I asked someone to get this material, otherwise, I would have put the question earlier. Your Honor, I notice that in the affidavit before you on page 90, the affiant states that he is born on 4 August 1916 in Norn, in the Taunus. I also notice that the original states that he is born in Zorn. Now this in itself would not amount to anything, it would be merely a typographical error, but the reason I want to ask the defense counsel this is because this affidavit has been written with a typewriter, and then the defendant's birthday has been filled in with ink, and also his birthplace, and I would like to ask the defense counsel why the affiant who obviously must have written this affidavit himself did not fill in his birthplace at the time. Maybe he didn't know at the time, and he had to write them in later on. In any event, I would like to have the court look at this.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that particularly material or is it that you may wish to question the authenticity. Are you questioning the authenticity of the affidavit?
MR. RAPP: That is what I am doing. The affidavit which has already been admitted, and I can not then raise any objection and I don't want to call the affiant for such purpose.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document 33 shows "Zorn".
MR. RAPP: I take it that is his name, and my document shows, in Document 34, Your Honor, in my document it is spelled Norn. In my document in English text it is spelled "Norn".
JUDGE CARTER: We are referring to the other affidavit.
MR. RAPP: Oh, I beg your pardon, Your Honor.
DR. GAWLIK: May I give some explanation of this. The affiant's name is Zorn, and he is also born in Zorn. That is shown in the German document.
JUDGE BURKE: Zorn, Born, Norn, but it is Zorn?
DR. GAWLIK: In Zorn he was born. His name is Zorn and he was born in Zorn.
THE PRESIDENT: Anything further to question on your part?
MR. RAPP: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, any further documents to be presented, Dr. Gawlik?
DR. GAWLIK: At this time I have no further documents to be presented. My other documents have not been completed.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not resting your case at the present hearing then?
DR. GAWLIK: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: But the documents will be here either this afternoon or in the morning, or Monday morning for the final completion.
DR. GAWLIK: If Your Honor please, my last documents, only be one or two, will be given to the Secretary-General before Monday morning at 9:00 o'clock, according to the ruling of this Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Weisgerber, may I make inquiry, please. I would like to inquire as to whether or not you have completed the submission of all of your documents for the defendant Speidel, and whether you are now in a position to rest?
DR. WEISGERBER: If Your Honor please, the affidavit of Sandstroem which I mentioned this morning I received only yesterday afternoon, and yesterday I submitted it to the Defense Information Center for translation and mimoegraphing. That is one of my documents which is outstanding and the other ones the Greek Documents, were discussed this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. I thought we would try to close up on some of these defendants' cases. Thank you very much.
DR. FRITSCH: If Your Honors please, before I offer my last documents altogether six, I would like to briefly refer to this morning's discussion concerning the replies to the brief of the Prosecution. I would like to state for the record here that from the Defense Information Center I received for myself, as well as for my colleague, Dr. Gawlik, the information that our briefs have been handed over to the Secretary-General.
If Your Honors please, I now would like to offer two more Document Books, which altogether will comprise six documents for my client General Rendulic. I shall start with Rendulic's Document No. -
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I do not have the document books, as yet.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that the messenger is getting them and will present them shortly. The Tribunal now has before it Document Books III and IV for Rendulic. Are those the ones to which you refer.
DR. FRITSCH: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other documents?
DR. FRITSCH: No. No, there are no other documents outstanding, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. FRITSCH: If the Tribunal please, I would like to offer as Exhibit No. 56 Rendulic Document Book III, Document No. 51.
In this connection I observe that unfortunately in the mimeographing, in the English as well as in the German text, a part of the heading has been forgotten, that is, the note "Speech of Winston Churchill". It is an excerpt from the speech made by Winston Churchill on 24 May 1944 before Parliament. By this excerpt I intend to show that until the date given here, that is, 24 May 1944, Tito was not regarded a regular belligerent, by the Allies, either. I can dispense with the reading of details of this document, as the document speaks for itself.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly repeat the document number and the page and exhibit number.
DR. FRITSCH: That is Rendulic Document Book III, Document No. 51, Exhibit No. 56.
THE PRESIDENT: And the page, please?
DR. FRITSCH: Page 1 of the Document Book III in the English and German text. The next document to be presented is Rendulic Document No. 52 contained in Rendulic Document Book III, on page 2 of the Document Book, and the Exhibit No.will be Rendulic 57. This is an excerpt from the war diary of the 21st Mountain Corps, dated 26 August 1943, until 30 September 1943. The document contains a teletype, dated 9 September 1943. On this occasion I should like generally to recall the problem of the treatment of Italians. With the teletype message submitted here, I intend to show that the Italians started fighting at the side of the Allies. I shall read: "According to a statement by Marshal Badoglio the Italians are fighting together with the Allies and refuse to surrender any of their arms. Italian troops in the Balkans are, according to a report by broadcasting station CAIRO, subordinated to General Wilson. Italian resistance must therefore be reckoned with."
Next I shall offer the following document, which is Rendulic Document No. 53.
It is contained in Rendulic Document Book III, on page 3 of the Document Book, and the Exhibit number will be Rendulic 58. If Your Honor please, I am submitting this document in connection with the problem of Commissar Order. The Tribunal will remember that on direct examination the defendant General Rendulic stated concerning the Commissar Order, among others, that at the time, one could have assumed that it was a reprisal measure. In order to show that this assumption was a likely one, I am offering the document just mentioned. This is a document which was compiled by the Foreign Office, and included in the general report, and we have a telegram here. This telegram is dated 12 August 1941, and on that date sent to the Foreign Office from the front. I quote "In the captured Operation Report No. 11 of the 13th day of the previous month, 1000 hours, of the 26th Division Staff, 1 kilometer west of Slastjena, in the forest north of Opuschka, was the following report: 'Approximately 400 killed were left on the field of battle by the enemy, around 80 men had surrendered, who were shot to death.'" and they add that the captured report mentioned is a Russian report which is contained in the further course of the document submitted by me. Furthermore, I would like to refer to the statement found on page it of the German and the English text. I shall read this. In the English text there, on the 12th line, we find the same text as say, in the telegram, namely: "Around 80 men had surrendered who were shot to death."
Next, I shall offer Rendulic Document 54, contained in Rendulic Document Book III, on page 6 of the Document Book, and the exhibit number to be given the document will be 59. This is the affidavit given by Erich Strassl, by whom several affidavits have been presented in other document books. The affiant has given his opinion of the defendant, particularly in reference to propaganda activity, I shall only read one sentence from thus document, roughly, towards the middle of the large paragraph: " I remember that General Rendulic repeatedly remonstrated with me, reproaching me that too much fuss was made, according to his opinion, with his name in the German press and radio."
The next document to be offered is Rendulic Document No. 55 contained in Rendulic Document Book III, oh page 8 of the Document Book and the exhibit number to be given this document is Rendulic 60. This is an affidavit of the former chief of the Reich Chancellory, Dr. Hans Henrich Lammers, dated 9 December 1947. With this document I intend to show a proof for the fact that the defendant General Rendulic was in no way sponsored by the Party. I am reading from the document as follows:
"In my capacity as Chief of the Reich Chancellery it was my duty to deal with endowments made in accordance with individual orders of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor. Among the beneficiaries of such endowments, which consisted of deeds to large estates, or payment of an amount in cash, there was also a considerable number of high generals. I am certain in my memory that General Dr. Lothar Rendulic never received any such endowment in any form whatsoever."
If the Tribunal please, that brings us to the end of Rendulic Document Book III, and I now offer the only document contained in Rendulic Document Book IV. This is Rendulic Document 56, contained in Document Book IV, page 2 of the Document Book, and the exhibit number assigned to that document will be Rendulic 61. Here again we touch upon the question of the conduct of the Italians, I may point out that this is an excerpt from the war diary. -- Well, the document speaks for itself, and I shall briefly read it: "Gen Roncaglia answered our request to come over to our side and to surrender the arms as follows: Your request to surrender arms is a hostile act, therefore, I ordered my divisions to oppose that request by force of arms. For your information the 11th Army and all the Italian forces are acting in the same way."
If the Tribunal please, that brings me to the end of my presentation of evidence on behalf of the defendant General Rendulic.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it, Dr. Fritsch, that you are now resting your case for the defendant Rendulic?
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I am now resting my case.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, in the course of the last few days I have announced the examination of three witnesses to take place. The witness's names are Ruehm, Schmaier and Hassold, I shall dispense with the Lehmaier. The witness, Hassold is unfortunately not yet arrived. I hope that he will be here at the beginning of next week. Now, I shall only examine the witness Ruehm. At the same time, however I should like to announce that in place of witness Lehmaier, I shall very briefly examine one or two other witnesses concerning the destruction of the place PFaffertshofen by Allied troops, after the conclusion of hostility. The names of these witnesses unfortunately I can not announce as yet, because they are not known to me, but I am sure that the Prosecution will be helped by the circumstance of my mentioning the subject matter of this examination.
MR. RAPP: May I inquire which is to happen during the defense's case. He gives some German witnesses names, and I now ask are these men to be heard, if and when they are available, before or after the rebuttal.
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I have made endeavors to get hold of these witnesses, in such a way that I may be able to hear them on Monday.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I would appreciate a more direct statement as to whether or not they are going to be here on Monday or Tuesday, or if they are now whether they are to appear at a later time to be heard.
DR. LATERNSER: If Your Honors please, unfortunately I am in no position to make a statement to this effect. I learned today of this circumstance and I took all the steps I could take today and I hope that things will work out the way I hope they will turn out. Whether or not this will be the case I cannot tell the Tribunal, much as I would like to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal announced this morning that as a result of comments made at that time that the defense would close their case on Tuesday, that being true I can see no opportunity for the presentation of any further evidence at a later time if this evidence is not presented prior to Tuesday afternoon at the time we adjourn.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Your Honor. I shall now call the witness Julius Ruehm to the stand.
JULIUS RUEHM, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness will kindly raise his right hand and be sworn.
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION:
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. Witness, will you please take off your earphones now, I believe that will be simpler for you.
THE PRESIDENT: Now for whom is this witness being called, is it general or what?
DR. LATERNSER: For all the defendants, if I have the consent of my colleagues to this, I may anticipate that.
THE PRESIDENT: There being no objection you may proceed.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q. Witness, will you please state your full name?
A. Julius Reuhm.
Q. Will you spell your sur-name?
A. R-U-E-H-M.
Q. Witness I would like you to always make a brief pause before you answer my question. When were you born?
A. On 20 May, 1882.
Q. Where?
A. Nurnberg.
Q. What is your profession?
A. I am a municipal officire.
Q. How long were you in the Municipal service?
A. From December, 1898 until September, 1945, 47 years altogether.
Q. And what was your last position?
A. My main position was state counselleor and I was vice-mayor.
Q. Mayor of what town?
A. Of Nurnberg, the town and municipal district of Nurnberg.
Q. When did the allied troops enter Nurnberg?
A. That must have been around 17 April, 1945, the 17th or 18th of April of 1945.
Q. What was your position at that time?
A. I was a state counselleor and a referent for personnel matters.
Q. Was your official position changed after the entering of the Americans?
A. It was changed after the 21st of April through the appointment of Lord Mayor of the Municipal district of Nurnberg.
Q. Who appointed you or commissioned you Lord Mayor of Nurnberg?
A. The 1st Military Governor of Nurnberg, that was Colonel Fuller.
Q. When did that appointment take place?
A. That appointment took place on Sunday, 22 April 1945.
Q. What happened on 2 May 1945?
A. On 2 May 1945 I was called by Captain Loetcke, the control officer and was informed that I was to appear immediately before the then administrative area headquarters commandant, who worked in the Kommandantura on Schweppermann Strasse, because during the night from the 1st to 2nd of May 1945 somewhere near that office on the street Kleinreiterweg a shooting had occurred. Captain Loetke himself brought me to the commandant's office and there I was brought before the commandant's office and there I was brought before the commandant of the sub-area administrative headquarters, who was surrounded by his staff.
Q. What did he tell you?
A. He told me there through an interpreter this shooting had occurred and that I knew that I as Lord Mayor of the municipal district of Nurnberg, was responsible for such occurrences. The house from which the shots had been fired would now be destroyed by American tanks and if such an occurrance would be repeated then that district of the town where such an occurance happened would be destroyed by American tanks and razed to the ground. It was my task to inform the population about the seriousness of the situation.
Q. Witness, did you do that?
A. I did that. The officer took me back to my office and immediately I drew up a proclamation to the population of Nurnberg and I issued this proclamation on the same day. This announcement was made public and posted in the whole area of the town.
Q. How did that proclamation read?
A. I have the original of this proclamation here and I may perhaps read it?
Q. Will you read it very slowly please?
A. It is contained in the official Gazette of the Allied Military Government, Nurnberg, No. 1: dated: "Wednesday 2 May, 1945." It reads as follows:
"To the whole of the population of the city of Nurnberg: The irresponsible conscienceless elements have during the past night from various houses shot at American soldiers. Such an act of sabotage directed against the reconstruction of public law and order must lead to the most severe consequences for the participants as well as for the whole of the population of Nurnberg in their very own interest against committing any irresponsible act lest our city be in danger of being completely destroyed and of losing further human lives." Nurnberg, 2 May 1945, (Signed) Lord Mayor of Nurnberg.
Q. I have only one more question to put to this witness. You just said in your testimony that the commandant of the sub-area administrative headquarters told you that as Lord Mayor you were responsible for everything that went on in Nurnberg. At that time was there any decree of the occupation forces to that effect?
A. There was ordanance No. 1 of the occupation forces, which to the best of my recollection was posted everywhere at that time.
Q. Can you perhaps give us the text of this instruction?
A. I have it here. The text can be found in the official Gaxette of the Military Government for Germany, Control Area of the 6th Army Group. The number of the issue is One, ordanance No. 1. It says,"Crimes and other punishable offenses." In section IV of that article: "The Mayor or any appointed representative of a community can, as representative of the population of the community, be indicted and sentenced for all punishable offenses for which the residents, or a considerable number of them, presumably collectively, are responsible.
Q. Thank you very much, witness. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. You may cross-examine, Mr. Rapp.
MR. RAPP: Thank you, Your Honor.
Cross Examination BY MR. RAPP:
Q. Witness, were you ever in military service during your entire life?
A. No, never.
Q. Were you ever a member of the Nazi party?
A. Yes.
Q. When?
A. Since 1934 and it was dated back to 1933.
Q. Were you ever a member of any other Nazi organization?
A. No.
Q. Witness, you told us that you were called to this American headquarters on the 2nd of May?
A. Yes.
Q. Because some shooting occurred the previous night; is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Was it clear to you at that time that such shooting was a result of sniper action?
A. No, no. I had no knowledge of that sort. I was of the opinion and that is what I told the administration sub-area headquarters commandant, that in my opinion, not Germans had participated in this shooting but foreigners.
Q. I don't think you got my question, witness.
A. Yes, please.
Q. I didn't want you to tell whether the snipers were Germans or non-Germans. I was merely asking you whether you were told that people shot from concealment, out of ruins or buildings at American soldiers, that is what I want to ask you?
A. No, I don't know that and that was not said, all that was said was that in the area of Kleinreiterweg shootings had occurred. That is all I remember.
Q. But, upon the recommendation I presume of the American authorities in Nurnberg at that time you published a proclamation saying that shootings had occurred from houses; is that right?
A. Yes, that becomes apparent from my proclamation, otherwise I could not have drawn up that proclamation in the way I did.
Q In other words you did knew that shootings took place from houses, and they must have told you that; isn't that right?
A I was told by the interpreter of the administrative sub-area head-quarters commandant. Before that I did not know anything about it because in our district there was quite a lot of shooting at that time. I personally knew nothing of that shooting until I was called to the commandant's office.
Q And you were told that the only military action or any counter measure that the occupation forces were to do were to erase the city blocks or houses from where the shooting occurred; is that right?
A Yes, that is correct and that is also contained in the proclamation which I issued with the permission of my control council officer, Captain Loetke.
Q You were not told that the inhabitants of these houses would forfeit their lives if the shootings would continue; were you?
A No, that was not said, they just said that they would be chased out of their homes.
Q But they were not put to death, were they?
A I cannot say that, that depends on the situation.
Q Well, witness, my question is very simple. I merely asked you whether you were told by the American commandant if this shooting doesn't stop the inhabitants will forfeit their lives?
A In those words it was not said.
Q Well, just what was told to you then?
A The discussion or conference was quite brief. The administrative sub-area headquarters commandant pointed out to me that this shooting had taken place, as I stated before and that the house from which the shots had been fired be razed to the ground by American tanks and that in case of a Repetition the whole sector of the town would be erased. Much more was not said to the best of my recollection, it was quite a brief conference.
Q That will do then. You did know by the way at that time that Germany had also surrendered unconditionally to the Allies; that was known to you, wasn't it?
A I can well assume that it was know to me, yes.
Q Witness, you read a certain paper here in Court, may I see that please?
A Yes.
Q You told us that as a result of this publication, which you read into the record, the authorities, that is the American authorities in this particular case held you personally responsible for.....
A Yes.
Q ...Any acts detrimental to the welfare of the occupation forces, if such acts had a collective character?
A Yes.
Q But you did know that this responsibility entailed first that you were to be indicted, if it would happen at all and that it was only to be determined as a result of a trial; is that right?
A Yes, that is what I assumed.
Q In other words your guilt had to be established and then only if at such trial your guilt was established, you would be responsible, but summarily responsible without a trial, you were not?
A Well, I did not assume that I was, because it says something in the decree about sentencing.
Q Thank you, I have no further questions, Your Honor.
DR. LATERNSER: Will you please take your ear-phones off again, witness? I would first of all like to clarify certain, circumstances. You were asked whether at the time when you issued your proclamation of 2 May in Nurnberg, whether at that time it was known to you that Germany had unconditionally surrendered. One preliminary question when did the unconditional surrender take place?
THE WITNESS: I don't know that by heart, I am sorry.
DR. LATERNSER: Don't you know that the unconditional surrender took place on the 6th or rather on the 8th of May.
THE WITNESS: I cannot say that, I don't remember it.
DR. LATERNSER: In this particular point, you might possibly admit that there was an error when you answered the Prosecution's question that you were issued your proclamation after the capitulation.
THE WITNESS: I had assumed when I answered the question that the surrender had occurred before.
MR. RAPP: I object, Your Honor. Dr. Laternser is not to crossexamine his own witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will take judicial notice of when the surrender took place, which is of common knowledge to our Court generally.
DR. LATERNSER: And you were asked about your membership in the National Socialist party?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
DR. LATERNSER: Were you active within the Party?
THE WITNESS: No, never.
DR. LATERNSER: How long were you in service as a municipal official.
THE WITNESS: 47 years from 1898 until September of 1945.
DR. LATERNSER: Were you entitled to a pension for your old age?
THE WITNESS: According to the German Civil Service law for decades I had that rights.
DR. LATERNSER: Do you receive a pension now?
THE WITNESS: No.
DR. LATERNSER: Why don't you receive one?
THE WITNESS: I was a purely nominal member of the Party and regarded as such.
DR. LATERNSER: On whose order, on whose instigation is it that you don't receive your pension?
THE PRESIDENT: That is not particularly material, Dr. Laternser, I don't believe that it will be helpful to the Tribunal in its final decision.
DR. LATERNSER: Then I have no further questions to put to this witness.
MR. RAPP: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will be excused. Pardon me, is there any questioning on behalf of any of the other defense counsel? Judge Carter? Judge Burk?
JUDGE BURKE: I have no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be excused, sir.
(The witness is excused.)
DR. LATERNSER: If the Tribunal please, I am just being informed by my colleague, Dr. Tipp, that he learned that his document book yet to be presented has already been translated although we don't know whether the document books which have been translated have already been distributed. If that is not the case there is another possibility for the presentation of the defense. I myself have an eighth document book to present, as I have already informed the Tribunal and, as I am just being told, through the excellent support by Captain Rice it was possible to mimeograph this document book during the luncheon recess. It is supposed to have already been mimeographed and I believe it has already been distributed.
If the Court would make a brief recess now, I am certain that after the recess I would be in a position to present the balance of the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take our afternoon recess at this time.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until fifteen hundred.
(A recess was taken)