Nuremberg Trial – The Tenth Day
Saturday, 1st December, 1945
THE PRESIDENT: I will begin the session by reading the judgement of the Tribunal upon the application made by counsel for the defendant Hess.
The Tribunal has given careful consideration to the motion of counsel for the defence of the defendant Hess, and it has had the advantage of hearing full argument upon it both from the defence and the prosecution. The Tribunal has also considered the very full medical reports, which have been made on the condition of the defendant Hess, and has come to the conclusion that no grounds whatever exist for a further examination to be ordered.
After hearing the statement of the defendant Hess in Court yesterday, and in view of all the evidence, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the defendant Hess is capable of standing his trial at the present time, and the motion of the counsel for the defence is, therefore denied, and the trial will proceed.
Now the witness under examination should come back to the witness box.
(ERWIN LAHOUSEN resumed the stand.)
MR. ROBERTS: May it please the Tribunal, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe yesterday said he had no questions to ask this witness. He has now requested me very shortly to cross-examine this witness on one incident mentioned in the Indictment, namely, the murder of fifty R.A.F. officers who escaped from Stalag Luft 3 in March of 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: You said “to cross-examine.”
MR. ROBERTS: I realise that this is a matter which falls in the part of the Indictment which is being dealt with the prosecutors for the U.S.S.R. My Lord, I have mentioned that matter to General Rudenko, who with his usual courtesy and kindness has said that he has no objection to my asking some questions on that matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Q. By MR. ROBERTS: Might I ask you this? Do you know anything of the circumstances of the death of fifty R.A.F. officers in March 1944, who had escaped from Stalag Luft 3 at Zagreb and were recaptured?
A. WITNESS: No, I have nothing to say because at that time I was at the East front, as commander of my regiment, and had no contact any longer with my former duties.
Q. Did you hear of the matter from any of your fellow officers?
A. No, I heard nothing about it whatsoever.
Q. You cannot assist the Court at all with the matter?
A. No; in no way.
By DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (counsel for defendant von Papen):
Q. Witness, you stated yesterday that you were the intimate friend and collaborator of Admiral Canaris. Since I no longer can address my question directly to Admiral Canaris, I ask you to answer the following questions for me: Did Admiral Canaris know of defendant von Papen’s attitude toward Hitler’s war policies, and how did Admiral Canaris express himself to you on this point?
A. First, I should like to make a slight correction on the question addressed to me. I never asserted that I was the intimate friend of Canaris. Pieckenbrock was a friend of Canaris, while I was merely one of his confidants. From this relationship, however, I recall that von Papen’s and Canaris’ attitude towards the question, which counsel has just brought up, was negative.
Q. Was this negative attitude only towards the war policy, or was it also towards all the violent methods used in the execution of such a policy?
A. According to my recollection I have to answer this question in the affirmative in accordance with a conversation between Admiral Canaris and von Papen, during the latter’s visit in Berlin and at which I was present.
Q. Did you know that von Papen told Canaris that from political quarters no resistance against Hitler’s aggressive policies was possible, but that such resistance would have to be sought among the ranks of the military?
A. In this connection, that is to say, in the direct connection as it is now being presented, I personally do not know anything. In other words I personally was not witness at any such conversation between Canaris and von Papen touching this question; and I cannot recall today whether Canaris ever told me anything regarding such conversations with von Papen. It is quite possible, but I cannot recall it, and consequently my oath as witness does not permit me to make any statement other than I have made.
Q. Witness, do you conclude that Canaris believed von Papen to intentionally retain an exposed political office in order to exercise a mitigating influence?
A. I believe so, though I have no tangible proof through any of his statements, but that is my impression, from what I still recollect to-day.
By DR. OTTO NELTE (counsel for defendant Keitel):
Q. My client requested me to ask you the following questions: Since when have you known Canaris and Pieckenbrock?
A. I have known Canaris and Pieckenbrock since 1937 through my previous activity in the Austrian Intelligence.
Q. Did at that time any relationship of a military nature exist between the Abwehr, then headed by Admiral Canaris, and yourself?
A. Not only did such connections exist with the Austrian Intelligence, but the Austrian Federal Army and the German Wehrmacht maintained at that time an absolute legal and purely military exchange of information. Legal in the sense that this exchange and collaboration of military intelligence was carried on with the knowledge of the Austrian authorities. To state it clearly, this was purely military collaboration concerning intelligence exchange about Austria’s neighbouring countries.
Q. May I ask if this contact between you and Canaris was also of a personal nature, i.e., to determine how the Austrian Army felt about the question of the Anschluss?
A. This and similar questions, that is to say, all questions of a political nature, particularly the question of the Anschluss, or the then very intense illegal Nazi activities, were and had to continue to be completely ignored in this connection. This agreement was essentially kept by Count Margona, the official liaison man – (he was also executed after the 2oth of July) – and by Canaris and Generaloberst Beck.
Q. Do I understand you to wish to say that the personal contact did not mean that the Austrian officers of the General Staff gave information on everything regarding their attitude to the idea of the Anschluss, or that they were willing or able to give this information?
A. This personal contact took place for the first time on the day, when I saw Canaris – (it was the first time) – while he was still an Austrian officer. It was in the Office for Defence of the Federal Government, where Canaris was with the then Chief of the Austrian General Staff.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you not hear what was said?
DR. NELTE: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you please repeat the question?
BY DR. NELTE:
Q. I asked the witness to what extent a personal contact existed between the officers of the German General Staff and the Abwehr, and between the officers of the Intelligence Section and the German General Staff, for the purpose of determining the trend towards the Anschluss.
A. First of all, there was no such personal contact in the sense that the word is used here. The contact which actually did take place – (and there are witnesses in this room who can confirm this statement – von Papen must be thoroughly informed of this) – took place on a single day, during which I never spoke with Canaris alone, but always in the presence of my superior. officers. In any case, no questions relating to the Anschluss and no political questions which touched on internal Austrian problems were discussed there, naturally not by myself, and naturally not consciously and willingly by Canaris.
Q. What was your job in the Abwehr Office II?
A. In the Abwehr Section II, which I took over at the beginning of 1939 I described it yesterday, and I am willing to repeat it if you wish-this particular job did not have its own designation; it embraced various functions and actions, which I can define very precisely: acts of destruction, acts of sabotage, or prevention of sabotage, or in general those activities that are carried out by commandos. It was the function of this division to co- ordinate these activities and to bring them into relationship with the military necessities, or the plans of the General Staff.
Q. Who, in general, gave you your orders as regards co- ordinating these activities with the military activities?
A. My orders were usually received from my Chief, Canaris.
Q. I was referring to the office, whether they came from the OKH or the OKW?
A. They did not come from the OKW as a rule. Usually they came through channels from the OKW represented by the then Chief of the OKW, Keitel, or the chief of the “Fuehrungsstab” of the Wehrmacht; and when the General Staff or the Air Force “Fuehrungsstab” were interested in any undertaking, the orders, as far as I can remember, were also transmitted by way of the Armed Forces Fuehrungsstab, and the representatives of the three Armed Forces, i.e., the Army, Air Force and Navy appointed to it. All these orders came through the same channels to the Ausland-Abwehr, and Canaris transmitted them to me, as my allotted task.
Q. Are you now describing the official channels through which you received the orders, or are you defining where the orders came from, whether they came from the OKW, the Army, the OKH, or the Fuehrungsstab; or whether they were simply transmitted by way of or via the OKW?
A. Speaking strictly for myself I can say that I was in touch with my immediate superior, Canaris, with regard to that question; also with Keitel and with the officers of the Army Fuehrungsstab. Sometimes I had to deal with officers of the General Staff of the Army in connection with questions concerning my section. I could mention specific cases from memory. But in general the procedure was such as I described it.
Q. Is it true that Keitel, as the Chief of the OKW, at first every year, and then from 1936 onwards, in shorter periods, spoke to the officials and section chiefs of the OKW; and on such occasions pointed out to them, specifically, that everyone who believed that something was being asked of him that his conscience would not allow him to carry out, should be so kind as to tell him, namely, Keitel?
A. It is true that the then Chief of the OKW spoke before the aforementioned circle several times, but I cannot, of course, remember his precise words, or that he made a statement which could be so interpreted. Whatever the wording of Keitel’s statement, I definitely did not obtain the impression that one could have spoken to him as clearly and openly as I and others, who are still alive, were able to speak to Canaris at any time.
Q. Do I understand you correctly to mean that you do not wish to challenge, in principle, the fact that Keitel actually said these words?
A. I can neither challenge it, nor can I add anything to it, because I do not precisely recall it. I do recall that these addresses or conferences took place, and it is altogether possible that the then Chief of the OKW might have used those words. I can only add what I have already said.
Q. Is it true that on several occasions, you, in the company of Admiral Canaris, as well as alone, were in the presence of the Chief of the OKW, in order to discuss plans or undertakings with Keitel, which were in the purview of your official duties?
A. Of course, I said a great deal about that yesterday; and I do not feel I have the right to talk about such things unless I personally was there.
Q. I had the impression, that in many respects you were being used as a mouthpiece for Admiral Canaris, among other things, through your quotations in his diary.
A. The impression is completely fallacious. I was not a mouthpiece, and am now as I was then, inwardly completely independent in what I state. I have never allowed myself, nor shall I ever allow myself, to become the mouthpiece of any conception, or to make any statements that are contrary to my inner convictions and to my conscience.
Q. You misunderstood me if you believe that I used the word “mouthpiece” derogatorily. I simply wanted to bring attention to the remarks that have their source in Canaris’ diary.
A. Yes, I did assist Canaris, in matters which were of personal concern to him and which, being dead, he could not take up. Since I knew a great deal of it, and in great detail, I took it upon myself to say what I knew.
Q. Did the defendant Keitel ever ask the question, or communicate with Abwehr Section, as regards whether or not there were Nazis in that section?
A. He gave unequivocal answers to such questions at the aforementioned conferences, namely that there can be no doubt that in such an office as the OKW, no officers or trends of thought could be tolerated that did not have an unshakeable belief in a final victory, or give proof of complete obedience to the Fuehrer, etc.
Q Could not these statements be interpreted as requirements of a military nature, obedience in a military set, or must they be understood politically?
A Of course, they were military, but there could be no doubt that they were clearly also political, since no discrimination was recognised in this matter. The Wehrmacht was supposed to be a unit, the National Socialistic Wehrmacht. That touches the basic problem.
Q. Do you then believe that the basic attitude was still essentially military?
A. The basic attitude was or should have been a National Socialistic one, in the first place; and only in second place a military attitude, or anything else.
Q. You said “should have been”.
A. Yes, because such was not actually the case.
Q. You said that in the first place it was military and not National Socialistic.
A. It should have been a purely military one, according to our interpretation, but according to the point of view represented by the then Chief of the O.K.W – whether he received an order in this matter or not, I am not in a position to say, as I wasn’t there – the basic attitude should have been one of absolute obedience in a National Socialistic sense.
Q. Do you know anything about the attitude of the generals towards this problem?
A. Of course, I do, because immediately after such conferences, as has been mentioned here, a lively exchange of opinions took place on this subject and a large number of those who were present – I could name them and some of them are present here – took a negative attitude to the fact that the orientation should be so exclusively political in accordance with “regulations from higher quarters,” as they were called then, and scarcely ever of a technical or military nature.
Q. Yesterday, on the occasion of the discussion of the meeting that took place in the Fuehrer’s train, in September of 1939, as regards the communication of the Chief of the O.K.W. to you, you said that the defendant Keitel had expressed himself to you, or rather had expressed himself to the gentlemen present, as follows, viz.: “That these measures had been determined between the Fuehrer and Goering, and that he, Keitel, had no influence on them. You added that the Fuehrer and Goering telephoned frequently back and forth. Sometimes he knew something about it; sometimes you did, too.”
A. That is correct. I have made a verbal transcript of everything which was said in my presence; and I repeated it here because it is true.
Q. May I ask whether your remark: “Sometimes I find out about it, sometimes I don’t”, relates to a concrete, specific case, or was that a general rule?
A. That was to be understood as a general statement, to the best of my present recollection.
Q. At this conference in the Fuehrer’s train, on the 12th of September, 1939, you spoke further of the transmission of the political goals which, according to you, had their source in Ribbentrop.
A. That is correct.
Q. And you said that the defendant Keitel transmitted these political goals to those who were present; and the same way with respect to the order regarding Warsaw, namely, the bombardment of Warsaw.
A. According to my recollection this was true as far as the air bombardment of Warsaw was concerned; and in accordance with my notes. I can also state in this respect that as far as the matter of the shootings in Poland is concerned, Canaris took the initiative in these matters by provoking discussions during which he pointed out the terrible political international repercussions that such behaviour might have. The details are no longer quite clear in my mind.
Q. I should now like to ask you whether, on the occasion when the order to bombard Warsaw was made known, Keitel did not specifically point out that that action was planned only to take place if Warsaw did not surrender, after it had been approached through parliamentary channels; and that first of all, Warsaw should be given an opportunity to capitulate without being bombarded.
A. I cannot recall the precise words he used, but judging by my knowledge of that general situation, it is quite possible, indeed probable, that the Chief of the O.K.W., Keitel, did make this remark.
Q. Do you know that before the Polish War began, the Commander in Chief of the Army at that time, von Brauchitsch, and the Chief of the O.K.W., Keitel, specifically objected to the use of Commandos and Gestapo, and rejected their use; and in so doing, had the agreement of Hitler?
A. No, that is not known to me, and could not have been known to me, because of my subordinate position at that time. Please do not over-rate the importance of my official position at the time.
Q. There is also here a question of knowledge of a document, which was transmitted to all departments and sections of the O.K.W., as you probably remember from yesterday. They were the so-called directives; and in these directives, there appears, contrary to what happened later –
THE PRESIDENT: I think you were going a little bit too fast.
Q. (continuing) I said that in connection with such military actions, the orders and directives were mimeographed and generally made known, no doubt.
A. Yes, but these orders did not concern my specific department, I stress the word “specific”, and I did not even see them.
Q. Since later you were brought into a discussion of these questions, and since you emphasise that the orders were not literally known to you –
A. Of course, a great deal was known to me, because I heard of it.
Q. For that reason, I want to ask you whether you recall that the Gestapo and S.D. were used, contrary to the specific intentions and wishes of the O.K.W., in the matter of the Polish War?
A. I cannot remember. I can only refer to what I remember, and what is registered in the files, in which there is mention made of a remark of Hitler’s, which was transmitted by Keitel at that time; stating that, if the Armed Forces objected to these measures, the latter as well as the O.K.W. would have to realise that the Gestapo and the S.D. would go ahead anyhow. That is probably what you are referring to. I know that because I was present at these discussions.
Q. During this conversation, were you not told that an objection to the behaviour of the S.S. was brought up, on the part of General Blaskowitz?
A. Whether or not this question was brought up in this conference, I cannot recall. I can hardly assume that it was so, since otherwise the question would have been registered in the minutes of that conference, particularly in the case of General Blaskowitz, whose attitude in such matters was quite clear cut. But apart from this conversation in the Fuehrer’s train, I remember in its essence something about the subject – which was just brought up – namely, Blaskowitz’ objections. I cannot say what form those objections took at the time, whether they were in writing or verbal, but I do remember the general theme, though I cannot recall whether it happened at one of the conferences which I attended.
Q. What appears to me to be important in this matter, is the fact that actually the Armed Forces, the troops, protested, or at least had a negative attitude toward the behaviour of the S.S.
A. That the Armed Forces did object, is, of course, quite evident.
Q. That is what I wanted to know.
A. One moment, please. When I say “the Armed Forces”, I mean the masses of common soldiers, the ordinary human beings. Of course, there were in these Armed Forces – other men whom I wish to exclude. I do not wish to be misunderstood. The concept “Armed Forces” does not include everybody, but does include the greater majority of common soldiers and thinking human beings.
Q. You use the term “Wehrmacht” to differentiate between the common soldiers and the High Command.
A. As far as the then prevailing methods and conditions were concerned, which became apparent for the first time in this shape to the broad masses of the Wehrmacht, I think I have summed them up fairly accurately within the small section I have described.
Q. Who gave the order regarding the collaboration with the Ukrainian Group? You spoke yesterday of that group.
A. I have to go further back, and state first of all, that this group was composed of citizens from various countries; Hungarians, Czechs and Poles, who, because of their oppositionist attitude, had emigrated or gone to Germany. I cannot say who ordered this collaboration, because these matters came up quite a long time back, and because at that time, I was not even a member of the Abwehr Section, and was not in touch with the department, which I took over only in 1939. However, I remember the period after 1938 quite clearly. I should like to add to this connection, because it has been already mentioned yesterday, that these Ukrainians, as a whole, had no ties whatsoever with Germany. To be specific, a great many of these people with whom the Abwehr Division had any dealings were in German concentration camps, and some of them were fighting for their country in Soviet-partisan groups. Those are the facts.
Q. Did not Admiral Canaris say to you that the chief of the O.K.W.- when the demand was made on him for Polish uniforms and equipment, demands made by the S.S. – that Keitel specifically ordered that, the Abwehr Division should more or less let the matter drop?
A. I mentioned this matter also yesterday, saying that it was treated altogether in a mysterious way. Until it actually happened, neither I nor others knew what game was being played. This can be clearly seen from the war diary of the section, which relates how one day so many uniforms were requested for an operation called “Himmler”, by order of Canaris. My amazement and my question, how Himmler came to request new Polish uniforms, is registered in the diary by the officer who had the job of keeping it, and the question was answered to the effect that these uniforms would simply be picked up on such and such a day by somebody, without any further explanations, and that was the end of the matter as far as I was concerned.
Of course, this matter not only became immediately mysterious but also very suspicious, because of its connection with the name “Himmler”. All of us, from the highest level to the non-com. who had to deliver the equipment to the S.S. Hauptsturmfuehrer, whose name has been recorded in the War-Diary, felt that way about it. Everybody had his own opinion on this matter; that could not be forbidden.
Q. You also made statements yesterday regarding the treatment of war prisoners. In what regard was Abwehr Section II concerned with this problem?
A. The functions of Abwehr II were such that it was of the greatest possible interest to see to it that these war prisoners were being treated decently; the same applies to any Intelligence Services in the whole world.
Q. Do I understand you to mean that the Division Abwehr II as such was not admittedly concerned with problems concerning war prisoners?
A. Not at all with prisoners of war.
Q. You spoke of this problem of the treatment of war prisoners in connection with the talk that took place the end of July, 1941.
A. Yes, and during this conversation I did not merely represent my section, but the whole department, “Ausland- Abwehr”, namely, the section that has to concern itself mainly with general questions of International Law, military politics, and general questions on foreign territories common to all Abwehr groups. Abwehr Section III, rather than my own section, were, of course, interested in these matters because some of their officers served in P.W. camps, and from the point of view of counter-intelligence it was important to know about these things. For me the entire problem rather than the partial details were of importance, namely, that people in camps, for many reasons, should be treated decently, rather than mistreated or killed.
Q. You said yesterday that the war prisoner camps in the Eastern field were under the jurisdiction of the O.K.W.
A. Yes, what I said about the war prisoner camps, as I specifically said yesterday I learned from my talk with Reinecke and not from any direct knowledge of the orders themselves, which I did not see or read. This conversation with Reinecke, who as Chief of the P.W. Division and on behalf of the O.K.W. expounded the matter, elucidated the problem of war prisoners for me.
Q. My question dealt with the limits of the jurisdiction. Did you not know who in the Operation Section of the Army held responsibility for war prisoners, and that the O.K.W. took over this responsibility at the moment in which the war prisoners reached Germany?
A. Yes, as far as I recall, the General Staff of the Army had prepared everything to bring these people back; and an order originating with Hitler authorised the O.K.W. to overrule and cancel this, and the General Staff then made the O.K.W. responsible for all the consequences. What happened after that I do not know and have no right to judge; I can only repeat what I saw and heard.
Q. I thought that yesterday you expressed the conjecture that by Hitler’s order the movement of P.W’s. was stopped?
A. I did not express any conjecture; I simply repeated what I had heard at the time and what I knew – I could, of course, be wrong.
Q. From whom had you heard this?
A. I learned it through the people with whom I was in daily contact, such as Canaris, the section chiefs, and others who were present at daily situation reports and conversations and that sort of thing where these matters were discussed. It was under such circumstances that I heard these things, which were frequently discussed, and as I have emphasised repeatedly in the past since my first interrogation, I told Reinecke to his face that what he himself at that time said regarding these matters.
Q. That does not apply to my questions.
A. I quite understand your question, but I wish to define it as clearly as possible so as to make plain to you what I said yesterday in order to describe the specific organisational limits.
Q. But you know that as a matter of principle the O.K.W. had charge of war prisoners only in Germany?
A. That is evident.
Q. Could it happen that the Abwehr office that had to do with commando activities took an attitude such as you defined it yesterday, insofar as you had to do with these things from the German side, but you were not officially concerned with these things?
A. No, not immediately. The Ausland Office had something to do with these things because somehow it received intelligence of any order that was under consideration, even before it was put into shape, and certainly as soon as it was drawn up. The Order in question had, of course, a bearing on an essential question of International Law, and the Ausland Section of the Abwehr Division or the “Sachbearbeiter” as it was called – was naturally concerned with it. My division was, as a matter of fact, directly concerned with these things, for reasons explained before, regarding the possible consequences arising thereof to persons for whom I was responsible.
Q. As regards the division for International Law in the Ausland-Abwehr, did it take an official position toward this?
A. I wrote, as I pointed out yesterday, a contribution on that subject from the point of view of my section, which was transmitted to Canaris and was to be part of the long document. I only learned from what Burckner said at the time what use was made of it. Whether he, i.e. his department, lodged these objections and counter objections, cognisance was taken of the danger these measures represented. This was done a second time and again I cannot say whether in writing or orally, after executions had already taken place and I had protested anew. This was the logical development.
THE PRESIDENT: It would help the interpreter if, when giving a very long answer like that that you pause between the intermediate parts of the answer.
THE WITNESS: Shall I repeat?
THE PRESIDENT: No, no; go on.
BY DOCTOR NELTE:
Q. You also spoke yesterday of some sort of branding used on Russian prisoners. Are you not aware that a scheme on this question, presented by the then chief of the O.K.W., who had gone to the Fuehrer’s Headquarters, was cancelled by an order transmitted by telephone, and that owing to a terrible misunderstanding this order was issued in but a very few copies?
A. No, I do not know about this, because, in general, I heard merely of occurrences that took place within Canaris’ Section in the Abwehr division. I knew of these occurrences either because I had promoted or directed them. What happened in higher quarters I only learned if I was appointed to collaborate with them.
Q. You yourself did not see the order?
A. Which order are you referring to?
Q. The one concerning the branding of Russian prisoners.
A. No. As in the matter of the commando orders, I only attended the very lively discussion of this question with regard to the branding of Russian prisoners. I remember Canaris mentioning that a doctor had furnished a medical report as to how this could be done most efficiently.
Q. You stated yesterday that Admiral Canaris had said that the defendant Keitel had issued the order to do away with General Weygand. The defendant Keitel denies that. Now, he would like to ask whether there is in your possession any document or any written evidence that could serve as proof of the source of such a remark regarding General Weygand?
A. This order was not transmitted in writing, but was given directly to me. It was given to me because I was to carry it out through my department. To a certain circle round Canaris, a certain limited public, it was known, and I was initiated into this matter by a lecture which Canaris delivered at Keitel’s O.K.W. after which I was spoken to by Keitel on this matter. I have noted this in my diary. It had not been an everyday occurrence. This took place on December 23rd 1940.
Q. Do you not remember the actual wording of the question that defendant Keitel asked you?
A. Of course I cannot remember the precise wording; the incident happened too long ago. I remember the meaning very well. The meaning was: “What has been done in this matter? How do things stand?”
Q. You said yesterday that you answered evasively.
A. I cannot remember the precise wording of my answer, but I certainly didn’t say what I had said to Canaris, namely: “I wouldn’t consider the execution of such a murderous order; my section and my officers are not an organisation of murderers.” What I probably said to Keitel was something about how difficult the matter was; I gave any evasive answer that I may have thought of.
Q. If the Chief of the O.K.W. had ordered such an action on his own initiative or on higher orders, it would, because of the high rank of General Weygand, have amounted to an act of State. You didn’t tell us whether after December 23rd, 1940, anything transpired in this matter, that is to say, whether the chief of the O.K.W. took up this question again.
A. No, I didn’t say that yesterday, but I frequently mentioned during the cross examination, that after this nothing further happened on the part of the Chief of the O.K.W. Canaris’ attitude made it obvious that nothing further had been heard of it, for in the hierarchy of commands, he would have had to transmit orders to me. On the other hand, the information which I received in the matter of Giraud was authoritative.
Q. We shall come to that presently. It is extraordinary that if an act of State such as the murder of General Weygand, should have been ordered, nothing more should have been heard of it. Can you give me an explanation for that?
A. I can give only the explanation which corresponded to our interpretation of the matter then. The situation at that time was full of agitation; events followed each other very quickly and something was happening all the time; and we assumed – I shall come back to why we assumed it – that this matter and the interest attached to it had been superseded by some more important military or political event, and that therefore this interest had been thrust into the background.
Q. Do you wish to say anything else?
A. Yes. I want to state that what I am saying now bears a certain relationship to the inner development of the affair Giraud, in which Canaris and the others, who knew about this when the matter began, had hoped that it would follow the same course as the affair Weygand; namely, that, wherever the order might have originated, whether from Hitler, Keitel or Himmler, down to Canaris and then to me, it would have been relatively simple to stop it once it had reached our circle. That was our hope when the case Giraud cropped up, a hope based on the practical experience of the case Weygand. Whether this was right or wrong, I do not know. This is the explanation.
Q. For a less important matter your assumption might hold water, but in such an important matter as the case of Weygand it doesn’t seem to me to do so. But even if it had been so, had the intention to do away with Weygand existed in any quarters and for any reason, how do you explain the fact that Weygand, who later was taken to Germany and housed in a villa, lived undisturbed and honoured and met with no harm? It would have been understandable that, if the order to eliminate him had been seriously expressed in any quarters, it would have been carried out on this occasion.
A. I can only answer to this that the attitude towards personalities in public life whether at home or abroad was very varied. There were high personalities who were at one moment in great favour and thought of very highly, and at the next moment were to be found in a concentration camp.
Q. Now, as to the case of Giraud, you said that Admiral Canaris said in your and other people’s presence that General Giraud was to be done away with on orders from higher quarters.
A. Yes; that can be assumed from the remark that Pieckenbrock made, that Keitel should tell these things to Hitler once and for all.
Q. So according to the communication made to you by Admiral Canaris, it was not an order of Keitel’s but an order of Hitler’s.
A. As far as we knew in the Abwehr Office about it, it was Keitel who gave the order to Canaris. I can only assume this in view of a remark Hitler made to this effect. I do not know who actually gave this order, because I had no insight into the hierarchy of command beyond Canaris. It was, as far as I was concerned, an order from Canaris, an order which I could discuss immediately with him in the same way as I can discuss it here.
Q. You yourself didn’t personally hear this order?
A. No, I did not personally hear it; I never stated that.
Q. But you mentioned that at a later time you were spoken to by Keitel about this matter?
A. The development was the same as in the case of Weygand.
Q. Do you remember that a precise, or positive expression such as “killing,” “elimination” or something of the sort was used on this occasion?
A. The word generally used was “elimination” (“Umlegen”).
Q. What I mean is whether in this connection such a word was used in your presence by the defendant Keitel?
A. Yes, of course – after my lecture, the notes of which I have together with the date, just as in the Weygand case. For reasons unknown to me the Giraud affair was apparently carried further than the Weygand affair, for Canaris and I could determine different stages in its development.
Q. You didn’t answer my question. What did the defendant Keitel say to you on this occasion, on the occasion when you and Canaris were present and the question of Giraud was brought up? What did he say?
A. The same thing: how does the situation stand, and by “situation” he clearly meant Giraud’s elimination, and that was the very subject we discussed under similar conditions in the Weygand affair.
Q. That is your opinion, but that is not the fact. I wish to find out from you what Keitel actually said to you. In your presence, he did not use this expression “dispose of”, did he?
A. I cannot remember the precise expression that he used, but it was perfectly clear what the general subject was. Whatever it was, it was not a question of sparing Giraud’s life or imprisoning him. There was the opportunity to do away with him because he was in occupied territory.
Q. That is what I want to speak about now. You are familiar with the fact that after Giraud’s flight and his return to unoccupied France, a conference took place in Occupied France.
A. Yes, I heard of that.
Q. Ambassador Abetz had a talk with General Giraud, which dealt with the question of his voluntary return to confinement. You know that?
A. Yes, I heard of that.
Q. Then you probably also know that at the time the local military commander immediately called up the Fuehrer’s H.Q. by way of Paris to say that he believed that an important communication was to be made; namely that Giraud was in Occupied France and could be taken prisoner?
A. I know about this in its broad outlines.
Q. Then you also know that thereupon the O.K.W. – that is to say in this case, Keitel – decided that it should not take place.
A. No, that I did not know.
Q. But you do know that General Giraud returned to Unoccupied France without having been harmed?
A. Yes, I do know that.
Q. Well, in that case, the answer to my previous question is self-apparent.
THE PRESIDENT: Don’t go so fast.
Q. Did you know that General Giraud’s family lived in Occupied France?
A. No, I did not know that.
Q. I thought the Abwehr Division was charged with the surveillance of this region?
A. No, by no means – certainly not my department. I don’t know whether another department was in charge.
Q. The question was asked simply to prove that the family did not suffer from the fact that General Giraud escaped and that he later refused to return to captivity. I have one more question which you may be able to answer.
A. I beg your pardon. May I return, please, to the question of General Giraud?
Q. This question also has to do with General Giraud.
A. Very well.
Q. Did you know that one day your chief, Canaris, received by special courier a letter from Giraud in which Giraud asked whether he might be allowed to return to France? Do you know that?
A. No. No, I do not know about it. Perhaps I was not in Berlin at the time. I was not always in Berlin.
Q. I am aware of that. I thought it might be mentioned in the diary.
A. No, I didn’t keep Canaris’ diary. I simply made additions to it so far as my particular department was concerned, but I was not familiar with the diary in its entirety.
Q. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
DR. OTTO KRANZBUEHLER (counsel for the defendant Donitz):
I would like to propose a motion in connection with the technical side of the proceedings. In the course of these proceedings many German witnesses will be heard. It is important that the statement of the witnesses be brought correctly to the attention of the Court. In the course of the hearing of this witness I have tried to compare the real statements of the witness with the English translation. I think I can state that in many essential points the translation did not entirely correspond to the statements of the witness.
I would, therefore, like to suggest that German stenographers take down directly the statements of the witness in German, so that defence counsel will have an opportunity to compare the real statements of the witness with the English translation and, if necessary, to make a motion for the correction of the translation. That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr. Justice Jackson.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I just want to inform the Court and counsel, in connection with the observation that has just been made, that that has been anticipated; and that every statement of the witness is recorded in German so that if any question arises, if counsel addresses a motion to it, the testimony can be verified.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that German record available to defendants’ counsel.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I don’t think it is. It is not, so far as I know. It would not be available unless there were some occasion for it.
THE PRESIDENT: It is transcribed, I suppose?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I don’t know how far that process is carried. I will consult the technicians and advise about it, but I know that it is preserved. The extent of my knowledge is that it is preserved in such a form that, if the question does arise, it can be accurately determined by the Tribunal, so that if they call attention to some particular thing, either the witness can correct it or we can have the record produced. It would not be practicable to make the recording available without making reproducing machines available. While I am not a technician in that field, I should not think it would be practicable to place that at their disposal.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it not be practicable to have a transcription made of the shorthand notes in German and, within the course of one or two days after the evidence has been given, place that transcription in the defendants’ counsel room?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think that is being done. I think perhaps Colonel Dostert can explain just what is being done better than I can, because he is the technician in this field. I am sure that no difficulty need arise over the matter of correct translations.
COLONEL DOSTERT: Your Honour, the reports of the proceedings are taken down in all four languages, and every word spoken in German is taken down in German by German Court stenographers. The notes are then transcribed and can be made available to defence counsel. Moreover, there is a mechanical recording device which registers every single word spoken in any language in the court room, and in case of doubt about the authenticity of the reporters’ notes, we have the further verification of the mechanical recording, so that defence counsel should have every opportunity to check the authenticity of the translation.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am advised further by Colonel Dostert that twenty-five copies of the German transcript are being delivered to the defendants each day.
Mr. President, I was not informed that the German testimony is being taken down in shorthand in German. I understood that the records handed over to us were translations from the English. If German shorthand notes are being taken in the Court, I withdraw my motion.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we should get on faster if the defendants’ counsel, before making motions, inquire into the matters about which they are making them.
DR. FRITZ SAUTER: I would like to ask a few questions of the witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. SAUTER (counsel for the defendant Ribbentrop)
Q. Witness, you have previously stated that at some time an order was given, according to which, Russian prisoners of war were marked in a certain manner, and that this order had been withdrawn by the defendant Keitel. You did say that, didn’t you?
A. Yes, I have said that I have knowledge of it.
Q. This is interesting from the point of view of defendant Ribbentrop, and I would like to hear from you whether you know about the following. Ribbentrop maintains that when he heard about the order to brand Russian prisoners of war, he, in his capacity as Reich Foreign Minister, went immediately to the Fuehrer’s Headquarters to inform General Field Marshal Keitel of this order, and pointed out to him that he, Ribbentrop, in his capacity as Foreign Minister, as well as in his capacity as the guarantor of matters of International Law, objected to such treatment of Russian prisoners of war.
I would be interested to know, witness, whether in your circle something was said as to who drew Keitel’s attention to this order and asked him to retract it.
A. I was not informed of that and I only knew, as I said yesterday, that this intention had existed and was not carried out.
Q. Then I have another question.
Witness, you spoke of remarks of the defendant Ribbentrop yesterday, especially of one statement to the effect that an uprising should be staged in Poland – not in Russia – and that all Polish farmhouses should go up in flames and all Jews should be killed. That is just about the contents of your yesterday’s statement.
Q. Now, later on, I believe in answering a question of one of the Russian prosecutors, you amplified your statement by mentioning an order of the defendant Ribbentrop. I would now like to know whether you really meant to say that it was an order from Ribbentrop to a military department.
Q. Just a minute please, so that you can answer both questions together.
I would also like to remind you that yesterday, during the first session to deal with this matter, you spoke of a directive which, I believe, your superior officer had, as you said, received from Ribbentrop.
A. No, the then Chief of the O.K.W. received it, not my superior officer. This was Canaris. I would like to repeat it in order to clarify this matter. It was a matter that was taken up on the 12th of September, 1939, in the Fuehrer’s train. These meetings took place in the following sequence with respect to time and locality:
At first, a short meeting took place between Reich Foreign Minister Ribbentrop and Canaris in his train, where general political questions in regard to Poland and the Ukraine were raised. I was present. I do not know any more about the first meeting.
Later another meeting took place in the coach of Keitel, the then Chief of the O.K.W., and Keitel summarised and amplified the general political directives, issued by Ribbentrop, in regard to the treatment of the Polish problem. From a foreign-political point of view he mentioned several possibilities: this or that could happen. In this connection he said: “You, Canaris, have to promote an uprising with those Ukrainian organisations co-operating with you, and this should have as its aims Poles and Jews.”
Thirdly, not a special meeting but just a short conversation between Ribbentrop and Canaris took place. A remark was made casually in this connection, which showed even more explicitly how this uprising should be carried out and what was to happen. I remember this very clearly because he demanded: “The farms must go up in flames.”
Canaris spoke with me at great length in this connection in regard to this remark. And this is what happened. Directives or orders received by Keitel were passed on to Canaris. It was later repeated to him in the form of a casual remark, which I recall because of the unusual referring to farms going up in flames.
THE PRESIDENT: It would assist the Tribunal if one question at a time were asked and if the witnesses would answer “yes” or “no” to the question asked, and explain, if they must, afterwards. But questions and answers should be put as shortly as possible, and only one question should be asked at a time.
Q. (continuing) Now, witness, something else has come to my attention.
THE PRESIDENT: You heard what I said, did you? Do you understand it?
Q. (continuing) This has come to my attention. Yesterday you said that these remarks of Ribbentrop are not in the diary, if I understood you correctly.
A. No – this is not from the diary but a contribution to Canaris’ diary. This is a remark which was –
Q. You also said yesterday that this remark especially aroused your attention.
Q. And to-day, you said that the then General Blaskowitz also made a striking remark. You also mentioned, however, that these remarks of Blaskowitz were not entered into the diary.
Q. Now, I would like to know, and I would like you to answer this question: why, if this remark of the defendant Ribbentrop aroused your special attention, was it not entered in the diary?
A. As to Blaskowitz I have to say or, better, repeat the following:
I have said: I did not hear the subject Blaskowitz mentioned in this way during the meeting, and I cannot assume that this subject had fallen into this category, otherwise it would have been entered in the diary. It can also be, of course, that the matter Blaskowitz discussed was at a time when I was not actually there. I have only put down what I heard or what Canaris told me to enter into the record.
Q. But did you personally hear that from Ribbentrop?
A. Yes, but the essence was not altered. In the final analysis whether it was extermination, elimination or the burning of farms, all of them were terroristic measures.
Q. Did von Ribbentrop really talk of killing Jews? Do you definitely remember that?
A. Yes, I definitely remember this particular remark he made to Canaris, because Canaris talked not only to me but also to others in Vienna about this matter, and called time and again upon me as a witness.
Q. You heard that too.
A. The matter was not settled thereby, but these words of Ribbentrop’s were frequently discussed.
Q. Witness, something else. You have told us about murderous designs with which you or your department, or other offices, were charged. Did you make the prescribed report at any police station? I would like to point out that failure to make a report of intended crimes according to German Law is punishable with imprisonment or in some serious cases with death.
A. Well, when you talk about German Law, I cannot follow you. I am not a lawyer, but just a simple man.
Q. As far as I know, this is also punishable according to Austrian Law.
A. At that time the Austrian Law as far as I know was not valid any more.
THE PRESIDENT: It is too fast.
Q. (continuing). In other words, you never made a report of the intended crime either as a private person or as an official?
A. I should have had to make a great many reports of about 100,000 intended murders of which I knew and could not help but know. You can read about them in the records – and about shootings and the like – of which I necessarily had knowledge, whether I wanted to or not, because, unfortunately, I was in the midst of it.
Q. This is not a matter of shootings which had taken place and could no longer be prevented, but rather a matter of intended murders at a time when it could have, perhaps, been prevented.
A. I can only answer: why did the person who received this order first hand not do the same thing? Why didn’t he report to Hitler for instance?
Q. You, as a General of the German Wehrmacht, should have asked Hitler…
A. I am sorry, you overestimate my rank; I had only been a General in the German Wehrmacht since the first of January, 1945, i.e., only for four months. At that time I was Lt.-Colonel, of the High Command and later Colonel of the General Staff, not in the General Staff.
Q. But, in 1938, right after Hitler’s attack on Austria, you had immediately made a request to be taken into the German Wehrmacht by Hitler.
A. I did not make a request, I didn’t have to do this. Wherever I was in the service, 1 was known for my efficiency. I was not a stranger. With the knowledge of the Austrian Government and also, in a restricted sense, with the knowledge of the German authorities (i.e., of certain persons) I was working for the Austrian Government in a matter which exclusively concerned things outside the scope of Austrian internal policy. I co-operated with the Wehrmacht and the Italian and I Hungarian Governments at the wish of the Austrian Government and the competent authorities. There were matters of politics which were not my domain.
Q. But, I believe, witness, your memory deceives you, because immediately after Hitler’s attack on Austria, you called on the General Staff in Berlin and there – what you deny – tried to get a commission in the German Wehrmacht. You had also made out a questionnaire in which you declared your complete allegiance to the Greater German Reich, to Adolf Hitler; and shortly afterwards you took the oath of allegiance to Adolf Hitler.
A. Yes, of course I did it, just as everybody else who was in the position of being transferred from one office and capacity to another.
Q. Previously you said you did not try to get this appointment but I have been informed to the contrary; that you, in the company of two or three other officers, were the first to go to Berlin with the sole purpose of asking the Chief of the German General Staff – Beck – to take you into the German Army.
A. I am very glad that you are talking about this, especially so that I may fully clarify my position. It was necessary for me to make an application for my new position in the German Wehrmacht. I was known because of my military activities, just as any military attachí is known in the country where he is serving.
Moreover, I can easily explain why I rose in office so fast. I have said that in my activities and in this co-operation, which was not determined by me, but by my superior Austrian Officer in the Austrian Intelligence Service with other States, was at that time directed against the neighbouring country of Czechoslovakia – Czechoslovakia was the country that was next after Austria. Therefore, it was natural that my later Chief, Canaris, who knew me from my former position, should be very much interested in my coming up into his department. He put in a request for me and, beyond that, so did Beck, whom I was visiting. Other people also know this: and I have now told everything that General Beck told me at that time.
Q. Then it is true, you did go to Berlin and try to be transferred into the German Wehrmacht, which you at first denied?
A. No, that is not true, I did not try to do this. Others made the request. I can even say that I did not go there – I flew there. Canaris, who knew me, not only in my military capacity, but also in regard to my personal attitude (just as Maroga had known me and just as General Col. Beck, who was informed about me by Canaris), requested me. I did not request a position, but others requested me for reasons which only later became clear to me, because they knew my personal attitude, just as my Austrian comrades – they were necessarily few-knew about this and about me. That’s the way it was.
DR. SAUTER: I have no other questions to ask this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Before the cross-examination I wish to announce that there will be no public session of the Tribunal this afternoon.
DR. STAHMER: I am counsel for the defendant Goering, and I would like to address a few questions to the witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. STAHMER (counsel for the defendant Goering)
Q. Witness, if I understood you correctly, you said yesterday that, according to the inner basic conviction of General Canaris, the war on Poland, which was not successful, was the end of Germany and our misfortune. This misfortune, however, would become greater by a triumph of the system which it was the purpose of General Canaris to prevent. Did I understand you correctly?
A. With one exception, you did not understand me. He did not fail to succeed in preventing it; the attack was not preventable, but Canaris had no way of knowing this.
Q. Is it known to you that Admiral Canaris, within the first years of the war, had very active sabotage organisations behind the front, and that he personally was very busy with these organisations?
A. This is naturally known to me, and I have fully informed the American departments who have been interested in this, on this subject.
Q. But how is that possible? This would not be in conformity with his inner political beliefs.
A. This is explained by the fact that in the circle in which he was active he could never say what he really thought, and thousands of others could not do so either. The essential thing is not what he said, or what he had to say; but what he did and how he did it. This I know and others know too.
Q. This is not a question of what he said, but of what he has actually done. He has not only proposed such measures, but has also applied himself to their execution; is this true?
A. Ostensibly he had, of course, to remain within the limits of his office, in order to keep his position. That was the important thing, that he had to remain in this position, to avoid in 1939 the thing that actually happened in 1944. He then tried to get things in hand, and I wish to compare Canaris with Himmler; there is no need to mention what the goal was, if he took part .
Q. You mentioned the name of Himmler; in this connection I would like to ask the following questions.
Is it known to you that Admiral Canaris, during the first years of the war, kept up close connections with the S.S. and that the necessity of close co-operation with the SS. was emphasised by him repeatedly, so that the defendant Goering had to advise him to be more independent in his military functions?
THE PRESIDENT: You are going too quickly and I do not think you are observing what I said just now, that it will help the Tribunal if you will ask one question at a time.
DR. STAHMER: I would like to summarise my question this way; did the witness know that Admiral Canaris, during the first years of the war, had good connections with the SS. and recognised the necessity of close co-operation with the formation, a fact which he always emphasised?
THE WITNESS: Yes, this is known to me. I also know why.
Q. (continuing): And why?
A. Because in this position he was able to see and to get information of everything that happened to these people, and so could intervene if and whenever feasible.
Q. Was it the duty of your organisation and of the department of Canaris respectively, to pass on enemy intelligence in good time to Higher Headquarters?
A. I do not understand what the office of Canaris has to do with this.
Q. Your section, of the office of Canaris?
A. Why, of course, the Department I –
Q. Now, according to my information your office did not pass on the information of the Anglo-American landing in North Africa. Is that true?
A. I do not know, I do not wish to be held responsible for the Department. This is a question which could easily be answered by Oberst Pieckenbrock, but not by myself.
Q. As to the case Rowehls, you said yesterday that a colonel of the Air Force, Rowehls, was leading a special troop which had the job of making reconnaissance flights over Poland, England and the South East, prior to the Polish campaign, and you also said that Colonel Rowehls went to see Admiral Canaris and to report on the result of these flights, and presented his photographic maps. Is that true?
A. Yes. How should I have known about it otherwise? I did not invent it.
Q. I didn’t say that.
How did Colonel Rowehls come to tell Admiral Canaris about this?
A. I believe I mentioned yesterday, that this was a function of the department Ausland-Abwehr, Obere Abteilung.
Q. Have you yourself seen the pictures that were made over England?
A. Yes, I have seen them.
Q. When and where have these pictures been shown to you?
A. In the office of Canaris, but they were none of my business. I happened to be present at the time. I was interested to see what was going on.
Q. What did these pictures show?
A. I do not remember the details now. They were pictures taken from airplanes.
Q. The pictures were not shown to you?
A. No, the pictures were not shown to me, I was merely an interested bystander on this occasion, just as I previously told you.
Q. Did Rowehls give any written reports about these test flights to the Amt?
A. I do not know.
Q. You do not know?
You also said that Rowehls’ squadron made flights from Budapest later?
Q. Do you know that of your own experience or information?
A. I know it through personal investigation; the time is fixed through the diary of the section, and because at that time I was in Budapest, and because at that time I was asked to attend a Citation Ceremony at the Palace.
Q. And why were these flights executed from Budapest?
A. I do not know; I said that yesterday. A gentleman of the Air Force would have to answer that.
DR. DIX (counsel for defendant Schacht): You probably do not know me. I am Dr. Dix, the attorney for the defendant Schacht.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. DIX
Q. Witness, do you know Captain Struenck from the Abwehr?
A. I would like you to tell me something about the name. The name alone does not mean anything to me. Give me a few points that will refresh my memory.
Q. He is a lawyer who was a reserve officer with the Abwehr, I do not know in which department, but I should say it was in the department of Pieckenbrock. However, if you do not know him I will not question you any further.
A. If he was with Pieckenbrock I do not know him. I knew a few. Is Struenck still alive?
DR. DIX: No, he is no longer living.
THE WITNESS LAHOUSEN: Was he executed?
DR. DIX: He suffered the same death as Canaris and Oster. For the information of the Court, I should like to add that I asked this question because I named Struenck as a witness, and the Court has admitted him as such. I wish to take this opportunity … but if you do not know him I will not continue questioning you.
LAHOUSEN: As to the question whether he is still alive, I seem to recall that this man, in connection with others whom I knew, very well might have been killed, but I cannot be more definite on this point.
DR. FRITZ (counsel for the defendant Fritzsche): I would like to ask the witness a few questions.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. Witness, do you know that the defendant Fritzsche, after May, 1942, was transferred to the Sixth Army as a soldier, and that there he heard for the first time of the existence of an order for execution and that he recommended to the Supreme Commander of the Sixth Army, Paulus, to have this order suspended within the jurisdiction of his army and to have this decision made known by leaflets to be dropped over the Russian front.
THE PRESIDENT: Be careful only to ask one question at a time. You have just asked three or four questions at once.
Q. (continuing.) Yes, Sir. Is it known to you that Fritzsche gave Paulus the advice to rescind the order for his army area?
A. That order had already been given to his army. Will you kindly give me the approximate date?
Q. That was during the Russian campaign, as I mentioned yesterday. Most of these things occurred in May, 1942.
A. No. In connection with the person of Fritzsche, this is not known to me. In connection with the name Reichenau, which was mentioned before, I do remember a conversation between Reichenau and Canaris. That for me was very impressive, and Reichenau’s concept and judgement of things in this conversation, in this circle, where there were several other gentlemen present, showed him to be entirely different from what I expected him to be, and the way I thought of him. I don’t know anything about this particular question.
Q. Also nothing concerning the fact that Paulus had then already rescinded the order within the boundaries of his Army?
A. No, not in connection with the name Paulus, but in general I believe, as I also mentioned yesterday, that several army commanders, whose names are no longer in my memory to-day, all those names have been recorded, and I have already informed you about them.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. KAUFFMANN (counsel for defendant Kaltenbrunner):
Q. Do you know Kaltenbrunner?
A. Kaltenbrunner? I met Kaltenbrunner once in my life, on a date that will always be in my memory. It was also the first meeting between Canaris and Kaltenbrunner. It took place in Munich in the Regina Hotel, and it was on that day when two young people, a student and his sister, were arrested and executed. They had distributed leaflets from the auditorium of the University of Munich. I read the contents of the leaflets, and I remember, amongst other things, that they contained an appeal to the Wehrmacht.
I can easily reconstruct that day. It was the first and last time that I saw Kaltenbrunner, with whose name I was familiar. Of course, Kaltenbrunner mentioned this subject to Canaris, in the presence of witnesses, and everybody got a terrible impression of what had happened, and Kaltenbrunner spoke about it to Canaris in a manner of which cynicism would be a very mild description. This is all that I can say to this question.
Q. Kaltenbrunner claims that Himmler retained full executive powers for himself, while he was only in charge of information. Is this in accord with the conversation that you just mentioned?
A. I would like you to know what connection this has with the matter Kaltenbrunner and Himmler-the power politics which took place, in the S.S.I have merely given this very plain description of this event – I can give you the names and the people present, who were very much impressed.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. BOEHM (counsel for S.A.)
Q. You were asked yesterday, whether the orders as to the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war were known to the leaders of the S.A. and other organisations, and your answer was, that these orders must have been known to them, and I would now like to ask you who these leaders were at the time and what were their names.
A. Who they were and what their names were, I do not know. I have also stated explicitly yesterday why I said so. These orders should have been known both to them and to a large circle, through the execution thereof and, of course, through the return of the wounded. The German people would have learned of it.
Q. In other words, it was only an opinion of yours but in no way a fact based on information?
A. No, it was not based on information. I have never spoken to any S.A. leader about it. I never had anything to do with them, and I do not think any one of them knew me well.
Q. Could you make a statement on this, that is, that the orders which were named yesterday were given to the formations of the S.A., emphasising S.A.?
A. Would you kindly formulate that question again?
Q. Could you make another statement, whether it was known to you whether the contents of these orders, which were talked about yesterday, were sent to formations of the S.A. through channels?
A. No, not through channels, no, but in the way I have previously indicated in other words, members of the S.A. who were also in the Wehrmacht would see outside actually what happened, and when they came back or came in contact with them they talked about the Jews as anyone else would. It was only in this connection
Q. Is it known to you whether members of the S.A. had anything to do, at all, with the management of the prisoners of war?
A. Within the frame of the employment of S.A. in the Wehrmacht, yes.
Q. Have you any personal information on that?
A. No, I never said that. I said I had already talked about the S.A.
Q. I have asked you what leaders of the S.A. formations have known about it, and you yourself answered that they should have known it.
A. I said the leaders of these organisations, in this way, have known about it.
Q. And to-day I ask you whether the specific formations of the S.A. had received these orders.
A. I can only repeat what I said yesterday, and I think I was very clear on the subject, in other words, how these orders, that I did not read myself, but I know the effects anyway –
Q. I can imagine myself how this happened, but I have asked you whether you know anything about having these orders actually given to the S.A.?
Q. You do not know? Is anything known to you to show that members of the S.A. were employed for the supervision of prisoners of war, according to your personal information?
A. Yes, because I, myself, on a trip to the Army Group North, once got hold of an S.A. man, who kicked a Russian prisoner of war, and I told him off, accordingly. Surely somewhere I have this in my records, and also an episode about an Arbeitsdienst Mann.
Q. Did you report any of these incidents to any superior officers?
A. I did report them to my superior officers, and also made reports about these trips, either orally or in written shape, and on many of these occasions discussions took place.
Q. Have you got anything in your records?
Q. Will you kindly present these?
(Discussion between counsel and witness in German, not translated.)
A. I am looking it up. This is about the Arbeitsdienst Mann, this document.
Q. It is not about the S.A.?
A. I have not got it here. I would have to look it up.
Q. Is there any possibility that you might find some records?
A. I would have to obtain the entire material which the American authorities have, and I would have to look through it thoroughly for this one possibility.
DR. GEORG BOEHM (counsel for S.A.): I will ask the Court to have it made possible at some time.
Q. (continuing): I would also like to ask you if you have any other information that S.A. members, who you previously said were employed in supervisory capacities, were made to execute these orders, according to statements about Russian prisoners of war.
A. No, not personally.
Q. Thank you.
DR. STAHMER (counsel for Goering): I would like to ask the Court for a fundamental ruling, whether the defendant also has the right to personally ask the witness questions. According to the German Charter, Paragraph 16, I believe this is permissible without a doubt.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the point you have raised and will let you know later.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The United States prosecution would desire to be heard, I am sure, if there were any probability of that view being taken by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better hear you now then, Mr. Justice Jackson.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think it is very clear that these provisions are mutually exclusive. Each has the right to conduct his own defence or to have the assistance of counsel. Certainly this would become a performance rather than a trial if, we go into that sort of thing. In framing this Charter, we anticipated the possibility that some of these defendants, being lawyers themselves, might conduct their own defence. If they do so, of course, they have all the privileges of counsel. If they avail themselves of the privileges of counsel, they are not, we submit, entitled to be heard in person.
DR. STAHMER: I would like to point out once more that paragraph 16 (e), according to my opinion, speaks very clearly in support of my point of view, and says that the defendant has the right, either personally or through his attorney, to present evidence, and according to the German text it is clear that the defendant has the right to cross- examine each witness called by the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other German counsel, defendant’s counsel, wish to cross-examine the witness?
DR. SERVATIUS (counsel for defendant Sauckel): I would only like to point out that in the written forms that have been given to us by the Court, the defendant as well as his lawyer can propose a motion. There is room for two signatures on the questionnaire. I request, therefore, that the defendant himself have the right to speak on the floor.
THE PRESIDENT: What I asked was whether any other defendant’s counsel wished to cross-examine the witness.
(Dr. Boehm approached the lectern.)
THE PRESIDENT: What is it? Would you put the earphones on, please, unless you understand English?
What is it you want to ask now? You have already cross-examined the witness.
DR. BOEHM: Yes, I have cross-examined him, but I have heard from him that he has written statements, that he has made a report, according to something he has witnessed. I cannot dismiss the witness as yet.
I would like to make a motion that it be made possible for the witness for the prosecution to look through all the reports and all the records, and for us to go through all the materials.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you must conclude your cross- examination now.
DR. BOEHM: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court thinks it would be better, if you want to make any further application with reference to this witness, that you should make it in writing later.
DR. BOEHM: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, as no other defendant’s counsel wishes to cross-examine the witness, the Tribunal will now retire for the purpose of considering the question raised by DR. STAHMER: whether a defendant has the right to cross-examine as well as his own counsel.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has carefully considered the question raised by Dr. Stahmer, and it holds that defendants who are represented by counsel have not the right to cross- examine witnesses. They have the right to be called as witnesses themselves and to make a statement at the end of the trial.
Do the prosecutors wish to ask any questions of this witness in re-examination?
COLONEL AMEN: just one question, your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the witness come back here.
THE MARSHAL OF THE COURT: He was taken away.
THE PRESIDENT: Taken away?
THE MARSHAL: That’s right. He was taken away by some Captain who brought him here for the trial. They have sent after him now.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know how far he has been taken away?
THE MARSHAL: No, Sir, I do not. I will find out immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Amen, are the questions that you wish to ask of sufficient importance for the Tribunal to wait for this witness, or can he be recalled on Monday?
COLONEL AMEN: I do not think they are so important, your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well then. The Tribunal will adjourn, and it will be understood that in future no witness will be removed, whilst he is under examination, from the precincts of this Court, except on the orders of the Tribunal.
COLONEL AMEN: I do not know how that happened, your Lordship, I understood he was still here.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 10.00 hours on 3rd December, 1945)