PLEASE NOTE: This book contains graphic description ... - HUNSOR

in January 1942, in Zabalj and Novi Sad, the total number of civilian corpse was 3,309,including 147 children and 299 aged people.Feketehalmy-Czeydner continued denying the attrocities, even after the events at NoviSad. The accused, according to his defense, believed him, because he would not expect suchbaseness from an old, well known army comrade. At any rate, he asked him for a written report.However, both his official and prosecutor's reports were uninformative. The official diaries ofthe army units did not contain any information either. He asked for a judicial enquiry, fromthese sources he could not gain a clear picture of the events. Altough the judicial enquiryentirely exposed the terrible atrocities of the soldiers, he presented a plea for barring theindictment to the Regent. The reason was that the politicians refused to back the case, and theGerman military attache implied, that Germany did not want a great affair made of the matter.When the Kallay Government undertook the political clarification of the events in Bacska, theRegent ordered the reopening of the case, the accused entrusted a special court with148the legal procedings. He appointed the members of the court with special care to guarantee theuncovering of the truth. He did not order the arrest of the principal criminals, in spite of thedemands of his prosecutor, judge-advocate Mr. Babos. According to his defense, he did notbelieve that generals of high rank would escape. He trusted them even more, whenFeketehalmy-Czeydner and Grassy announced how glad they were to be able to clear themselvesof the unfounded accusations. These in question escaped after all with German help, andreturned only after the German invasion of Hungary on March 19, 1944. They were reappointedto the corp of generals, plus there was an order barring indictment and a total rehabilitation.The accused denied his guilt concerning the events in the South, though essentially heconfessed to know the facts.In connection with the statements of facts in the second article, the People's Court foundreasons to believe, that the accused sent a telegram to Feketehalmy-Czeydner on January 22,1942, saying that "striking injustices are to be avoided"; this cannot be confirmed. The pertinentpart of Grassy's testimony cannot be accepted as substantial proof in itself, because the person inquestion cannot be regarded as an unconcerned party. What is more, he had been one of thecentral figures of the events. It is evident that he tried to exonerate himself by all possible means,and shift the responsibility at least partially upon somebody else.According to the testimony of witness Imre Suhay, which he made on the basis of conscientiousperusing the pertinent documents, there was no such telegram among the documents, onlytelegram that forbid cruelties categorically. Even if there had been such a telegram, it issophistry to misinterpret it as a disguised instigation to permitt excesses. The killing of childrenis a "striking injustice" beyond doubt. The murdering of children would have been forbidden,even by the telegrammed order containing the prohibition. Such an instigation cannot be foundeven with the distortion of the meaning of the telegram.In connection with the Southern events, the responsibility of the accused as eitherinstigator, culprit or participant cannot be substantiated. According to the decisive statement offacts, the accused was informed of the massacre after it had taken place. This had been decidedin relation with the verdict of the People's Court against Bardossy. It is also true in the case ofthe accused, who learned of the events only from Bardossy on January 22, 1942. Instigation,