"Enemy sabotage unit was engaged and destroyed on approaching the coast."
like dogs by the S.D.
A Yes, I have just said that. Before the 6th of April, I heard nothing about the whole matter. Only on the 10th of May did it come to our knowledge, for the Wehrmachts Fuehrungs Stub set up this notice. The whole investigation was made by Counter-Intelligence, Canaris' office, together with the security Police. That says the "SD"; that is wrong; it was the Security Police.
Unfortunately, I did not learn these details; the Counter-Intelligence learned then. I was concerned with the whole question only because I had to edit the communique. Otherwise, the whole commando order would not have come about.
Q I just want to show you one more instance. It is 2610-PS.
MR. ROBERTS: It is, my Lord, in small document book 7-A?, page 23, the German small book page 41. BY MR. ROBERTS: I rely on which isn't one of your own captured contemporaneous German documents. This is a report from the Judge Advocate General's Department, United States Army. It concerns 15 United States personnel who were shot under this order. If you look at the second page:
"On the night of 22 March 1944, two officers and thirteen enlisted non of the 2677th Special Reconnaissance Battalion of the Army of the United States disembarked from some United States Navy boats and landed on the Italian coast near Stazione di Framura. All fifteen men were members of the Army of the United States and were in the military service of the United States. When they landed on the Italian coast they were all properly dressed in the field uniform of the United States Army and they carried no civilian clothes. Their mission was to demolish a railroad tunnel on the main line between La Spezia and Genoa. That rail line was being used by the German Forces to supply their fighting forces on the Cassino and Anzio Beachhead fronts."
That was a good military target, that tunnel, wasn't it?
A I did not understand. The order which -
Q -- which you circulated on the 19th of October. You circulated a supplementary order to the Fuehrer Order, the last paragraph of which, I think, disgusted you. That is 503-PS.
A It is not correct to say,"Which you had to circulate".
Q I'll take that question up in a moment. I don't agree. I mustn't argue with you, but I must put some questions. himself also shot by sentence of this court martial.
A (Interposing): May I say something also about this document?
A This incident never came to my knowledge; at least, I have no recollection of it. To my knowledge it never appeared in the communique because General Dostler did not report the whole incident to his commanding officer Kesselring, who in this case might have been able to take another way.
Q. Why do you say that you had to circulate this order?
No man can compel another to circulate an order unless he does it.
A. I made long, statements to the effect that this order could not just be interpreted as an order to murder, but that there could be very serious and justified doubts as regards international law concerning the right or wrong of this order. In any casom you would have to be able to have the best understanding for such a situation, because even now, in my situation, I cannot say or do what I like, and this is exactly what happened to me during those last five and a half years.
Q. You could have refused. You could have said, and the other generals could have said, could you not, "We are all honorable soldiers. We will not publish and establish those orders".
A. Certainly under other circumstances it might have been possible, if, firstly, I had not had this conflict with the Fuehrer, and secondly, if the British Ministry of war had made my task a little easier. However, these events and the explanation on the 2d of September put the Fuehrer into a rage against which I could do nothing. The document itself is the best proof of how much I tried to refuse, because the threat of p*unishment and the thorough justification required were directed against myself.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, do you think that would be a convenient time to break off?
(A recess was taken). BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q. I want to ask you a few questions about the deportation of the Jews from Denmark. Will you look, please, at a new exhibit, D-547, which I offcer as GB-488. Denmark, dated the 20th of September 1943. That is before the teletype which has been put in, two days before:
"The Fuehrer has agreed in principle with Dr. Best's telegram that the Jewish question in Denmark be solved very soon by deportation.
"The execution of this measure should take place while the state of martial law still exists. It is not certain yet if sufficient police forces can be provided for the arrest of the Jews and their families, about 6,000 persons, of whom most live in Copenhagen. The army would be heavily burdened.
"I believe that the results of the deportation will be serious.
"The armament industry deliveriesswill be prejudiced Considerable disturbances will have to be reckoned with".
You made a note on the back of it, "I know nothing of this. If a political measure is to be carried out by the Commander, Denmark, the OKW must be notified by the Foreign Office".
Is that right?
A. Yes. I would not have read this document, but this note did originate from me, and that proves that I did not know up until this time that obviously some few days prior this question had been discussed in Denmark, and that the Commander of Denmark was objecting to it. Consequently I wrote, "I know nothing of this. This is a political measure, and if a political measure, is to be carried out in Denmark, then please have the Foreign Office notify us".
Q Then to go on, I omitted one or two important documents.
Will you go to document dated 1 October 1943, the fifth or sixth document of your Lordship's file, No. D/547, dated the 1 October 1943. It is to the O.K.W., from Denmark, and quote as follows : " The Reich plenipotentiary in Denmark has given the following report to the Reich minister for Foreign affairs : 1. The arrest of the Jews to be evacuated will take place in the night of 1st/2nd of October, transportation from Seeland will be carried out by ship 2. Should I receive no contrary instuctions, I do not intend allowing the Jewish action to be mentioned, either on the radio or in the press, " and then, " I intend leaving the possessions of the evacuated Jews undisturbed in order that the seizure of these possessions can not be imputet to be the reason or one of the reasons for the action." Then is told the disadvantageous effects.. There is a question with this Reichsfuehrer SS note, and answer, the Reichsfuehrer's note is in angreement, and then thereis a note in Jodl's handwriting. " The Fuehrer agrees." Is that in your writing ? publishing of the liberation of the Danish soldiers which were to be liberated. Then it is also important to note in this document that the commander in chief of Denmark said that he did not intend to have the property of the evacuated Jews disturbed. He said, " I intend leaving the possession of the evacuated Jews undisturbed. At this time he ha d the executive power. October 1943, OKW / Wehrmacht Operational staff, and from Denmark. I quote : " Jewish action carried out in the night of the 1st/2nd October by the German police without incidents," and then in the last document, dadet 3 October, 1943, to the OKW / Wehrmacht Ops. Staff, and quoting : " According the statement of the Reich plenipotentiary the Reichsfuehrer SS has sordered that the Reichsfuehrer SS alone as the person ordering the Jewish Action is to receive the exact figures of arrest. " n/The pleipotentiary has, there fore, given no figures to the Commander of the German troops in Denmark.
232 Jews have been handed in by the police troops via the gathe ring points set up by the Watch battalion, Copenhagen."
What was the " Match Battalion " ? It might have been an arrangement by the police; it might have been part of the Army, but I can not tell you that with certainty if it is a unit which advises or supervised, but as a matter of t/ being interesed I could agree it is a complete incident to us, and my interest in this matter gives the right to prove the basis of my opinion.
--
Q First of all have you said that the " watch Battalion " is quite different from , or part of the Wehrmacht ?
A That is not for certain. I do not wish to dispute it absolutely, from the wording " watch Battalion " whether the Army had it; it might have been in a supervisory capacity, or might have been a watch unit of the police, I could not say with any surety, but then General von Hannecken should be able to tell you about it.
Q This " decent soldier " portion you covered yesterday, were they called upon to get these Jews which managed to get through the SS net ? do not believe that there was one unit of the Wehrmacht which concerned itself with the deportation of Jews. I do not believe that. I do not believe that it took place.
I do not believe it.
too. It was a matter of complete indifference to you how many Jews were deported, you did not care? matter, and with political matters I was not concerned, but my position and attitude was towards the Jewish, question, and I believe that point I did prove.
Q Where did the Jews go to, Auschwitz? that those Jews we are concerned with were taken to Theresienstadt at some particular given time, and that they were treated well, that they received clothing, and food. That I can say with my experience and from the document presented by the British.
Q You believe that? felt it in this court. I believed it when I herad this confirmed through the prosecurion. Thus I heard, it confirmed. which you show in your speech. Will you look at your notes of your speech, page 298 of document Book 7. It is the big one. That part which begins on page 38 in the witness' copy, where I think is a piece of paper, that is 38. I wonder if you can find it for him. I quote;
"This dilemma of manpower shortage has led to the idea of making more thorough use of the manpower reserves in the territories occupied by us. Here right thinking and wrong thinking are mixed up together. I believe that "in so far as concerns labor, everything has been done that could be done. But where this has not yet been achieved, it appeared to be more favorable politically not to have recouse to measures of compulsion, Exchanging for these order and economic aid. In my opinion, however, the time has now come to take steps with remorseless vigor and resolution in Denmark, Holland France and Belgien also to compel thousands of ideless to carry out the fortification work which is more important than any other work.
The necessary orders for this have already been given."
Do you remember that?
Q Yes? territories to become victims of German deportation?
A In most countries labor compulsion laws did exist. However I do not know but I would like to state under my oath that in Denmark and Holland, and in Belgium, as well as local firms, who recruited their own workers they participated in the fortification work; that the population of thesesareas were glad in having to do this work for the strengthening of the coast fortifications, with more certain by that invasion would not take place in their own country. For that reason they were strongly interested to prevent an invasion, to try everything, and that is the way it erne about. Though it sounds incredible, the local inhabitants participated in the work of fortifying these coasts, that is a fact, and the population was glad to do this.
Q I don't believe you, but had the necessary orders been given. In the last sentence it tells these people they are compelled to work even though they don't want to work on the fortifications. It refers to, not people who wanted to, but the people were compelled to work. did not concern myself with this problem. but I dad know that labor conscription laws had been instituted in the occupied countries. to say. Will you look at a new document, No. 1383 PS, which we offer as GB-489. This is a report of a discussion of the Current Military Situation, dated 12 December 1942, pages 63 and 66. I quote; with Jodl speaking:
"Jodl: The Military Commander of France reports: The number of French workers deported into the Reich since 1 June has now passed 220,000. There are in round figures 110,000 specialists in Berlin."
How many of those 220,000 were volunteers, did you find out?
A That I cannot tell. I only read -- in a report which was appended to the situation report coning from France -- that there had been an exchange between workers. That was already testified to by Sauckel. Luft 3. thought Hitler was no longer "humane" did you say? deviating from all humane concepts.
Q Had you thought he was humane up to March of 1944?
A Before this act I did not know very much about him personally. So far as things that could not be justified under international law were concerns or which were doubtful according to international law -- everything which he has decreed before that time, so far as I know, could still be justified in some way; they were reprisals. However, this act was not a matter of reprisals.
Q Would you agree with me -- the word isn't too strong -- that this was sheer murder of those 50 airmen?
A I completely agree with you; I consider that as murder. unabated loyalty? did everything within my power to avoid further injustice. Norway. The document is 754-PS. It has not yet been exhibited, and I offer it as 32-490. This document is signed by you, is it not?
Q I will just read parts of it to the Tribunal. It is dated the 28th of October, 1944. It is from your staff, and the direction is to the Army Supreme Command; Commander in Chief, Norway; the Reich Commissioner, Norway; and the Navy.
"Because of the unwillingness of the North Norwegian population to voluntarily evacuate, the Fuehrer has agreed to the proposals of the Commission.
and has ordered that the entire Norwegian population east of the Fjord of Lyngen be evacuated by force in the interest of their own security, and that all hence are to be burnt to the ground.
"The Supreme Commander, Northern Finland, is responsible that the Fuehrer' order is carried out without consideration. Only by this method can it because prevented that the Russians with strong forces, aided by these homes and the people familiar with the terrain, follow our withdrawal operations during the winter and shortly appear in front of our position in Lyngen. This is not the place for sympathy for the civilian population."
Lyngen is in the very North of Norway, is it not, on the West Coast?
A No, on the Northern Coast. It is situated where Finland is closest to the Polar Region. It is a very small piece of land. which the Tribunal will find as the last document in the small book, 7-A. It is at page 26 of the Norwegian report, at the bottom of the page.
"As a result of the advance of the Russian troops and the retreat of the German Army in Finnmark, October-November 1944, the Germans practiced the 'scorched earth' policy for the first time in Norway. Orders were issued that the civilian population was to evacuate and that all houses, transport and stores were to be destroyed. As a result of this, about 30,000 houses were damaged, apart from 12,000 items of damage to chattels amounting to 176 million kronor."
For photographs, will the Tribunal turn to pages 62 and 63. At page 62 is a copy of the Germany order, and 63 is a photograph of the ruins of a fishing village.
That was a cruel order, was it not, witness?
A No, not quite. I should like to make a few explanatory remarks here This order is typical, as I have already stated, of what was not wanted by the soldiers, but what was contrary to the will of the solders. This decree was forced through by the Fuehrer against the wishes of the soldiers. be no city of Kirkenness, no city of Hammerfest, no city of Altar, as well as other cities.
All of these cities are to the East of the Lyngen Fjord. in agreement with me, and in conversations which I had with my brother, who was the commanding general in that region -- and whom I wanted to call as a witness since I expected the submission and production of this document -- this decree was watered down in such a way that only the military necessities were carried * and everything was according to Article 23 of the Hague Land Warfare Regulation. Otherwise there would not be any city or house left in Northern Norway. If you were to travel to that part of the country, you would see that that is not the case. On the contrary, these cities are there in good order, undisturbed. Terboven. I made these statements to the Fuehrer in the strongest language, but even so he demanded these words in the form of a decree. were necessary for military reasons. Those are the facts. complained of this order, did he not?
A That as well; he was enraged about this decree. of the Norwegian civilian population. page 98. These are regulations on the conduct during the occupation of Denmark and Norway. They are instructions to the troops to treat the inhabitants politely and well and to behave themselves with due decorum. That is right, is it not? of the country and the safety of its inhabitants. That appears on page 99. declaration of war, is it not?
Q From your point of view?
A No, from the point of view of the Norwegians as well. That was the most extraordinary thing about it.
Q Well, you know, we can see, in the Norwegian Government's report, photograph and photograph of these towns and villages bombed to ruins. Is that your idea of an orderly occupation? less insignificant and not to be mentioned. These were just a few coastal batteries and a few fortifications, but not cities. Villages were only destroyed in the fight with the English brigade at the Mass and at the Delihammer; then villages were destroyed. However, during the occupation nothing was destroyed. There the Norwegians were very much interested; they had their hands in their pockets and they looked on with interest.
and occupied the country with opposition, so much the better for you? That is obvious, is it not?
A Yes, indubitably; and it would have been better if Terboven had not come. I believe even after the occupation, things would have been very good for them. properly, of course, was not read. It is Appendix 5.
MR. ROBERTS: It is a pant, My Lord, I assume, of AJ 14, the number which this document was given when it has put in, in the examination in chief. I am handing the Tribunal copies of Appendix 5, because it does not appear in the Jodl Docment Book. BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Appendix 5 we candescribe as the sting in the tail of this document:
"Guiding Principles for the attitude of troops in the occupied areas". I will not read the first few paragraphs.
"Only in the event of the civil population putting up a resistance or behaving rebelliously can the following decisions be carried out:
"1). If the civilian population offers resistance or if attacks by the population on our troops or their lines of communications must be feared, the arrest of hostages should, on principle, be resorted to. Hostages should only be arrested on orders of a brigade commander, independent battalion commander or commander of equivalent rank . . .
"When accommodatingand feeding hostages it should be borne in mind that they are not imprisoned because of crimes.
"Hostages and population are to be informed that the hostages will be shot at any sign of any hostile action. Previous sanction of the shooting by the Divisional Commander, must, however, be obtained . . .
"Armed resistance by the civilian population is to be crushed by force of arms."
The last sentence on that page is: "The death penalty will be imposed for violence of any kind against the German Armed Forces or their members in the occupied territory.
"Major trials will take place by Field Court Martial (Summary Court or ordinary Court Martial). The Regimental Commander can appoint the Summary Court which will be composed of 1 Captain, 1 Sergeant, 1 Corporal, hear witnesses and draw up the sentence in writing.
The verdict will be the death penalty if guilty, otherwise acquittal. The sentence will be executed immediately after confirmation by the Regimental Commander.
"The following are to be considered as acts of violence: sabotage, destruction of our lines of communication, the cutting of telephone wires, demolitions, etc."
A little drastic, that, wasn't it? Only the death penalty? regulations, which in times of peace were laid down by the experts on international law and laid down in cooperation/with the Foreign Office. It would be well if everywhere actions were carried out, courts martial would be employed in the same measures with which we entered into war and which we carried out into the war. and there is no doubt that according to the international law which applied in the year 1939, the taking ofhostages was very much admissible. law will you find the shooting of hostages legalized at all. I believe it is an open question. In our regulations, and under the regulations about troops, the concept of hostages and the taking of hostages was laid down, and had been laid down for years.
Q That may be so. But I do not want to argue with you about it. I suggest to you that the Hague regulations protect the lives of civilians in occupied countries, unless they commit crimes, of course, and also prohibit collective punishment of the innocent.
If you do not want to say any more on that, you are not obliged to. I do not want to stop you if you do. that applied in the German law, and these regulations were not illegal. But one would have to argue with experts on international law about this problem.
Q Very good. Now, will you look at one other document dealing with Norway? It is D 582.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it is a now document, and I offer it as GB 491. BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q That is a document which comes from your office?
A Yes. It originated from the Wehrmacht Operational and Quartermaster section.
Q Do you know of it or not?
A I cannot recall exactly, but there is some note made by me. Therefore, it is a document which I had seen.
Q Oh, yes. Where are the notes, witness? message.
Q I see what you mean , yes. I had forgotten that you were getting more than one document. Will you take first of all the document dated the 2nd of February, 1945? I think it is the top one. certainty whether I have seen it or not.
A I do not believe that I have seen this. I have no recollection of over having read it.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, in that, I would ask to withdraw it, and I will not put it in as an exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the defendant said that it was from his office.
MR. ROBERTS: Very well, then. He did that. BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q You see what the document says, defendant. It is dated the 2nd of February, 1945.
Q It is the 2nd of February. It deals with the Reich Commissar Terboven's report to the Fuehrer. It says:
"Those responsible for attempts to murder and carry out sabotages are the illegal entities within Norway with a bourgeois-national majority and a Communist minority, as well as individual groups which came direct from England or Sweden, return to Sweden after carrying out their tasks without having got into touch with the population, and from there are transported back to England by air.
"The bourgeois-national majority was opposed to the Communist minority in its conception of sabotage and murder, and in particular with regard to their extent and nature. This resistance has become progressively worker during the course of the past year, among other things essentially owing to the lack of effective measures on our part.
"3. Official departments of the exile government, as for instance the Grown Prince Olaf, as so-called Commander in Chief of the Norwegian Armed Forces and various others, have called upon the population at home, in speeches and other orders, to carry out sabotage. As a result, there is a particularly good possibility here of stamping every supporter of the exile government as an intellectual instigator or accomplice.
"The aim of the coming measures must therefore be, to strengthen the power and will to turn once more against sabotage, by threatening the very influential class of leaders in the bourgeois camp; thereby to exacerbate more and more the antagonisms between the bourgeois and Communists, who form a unified front."
Then we have "Suggestions", these are suggestions from your office, apparently.
"1. Particularly influential representatives of the explicitly antiGerman and anti-Nazi class of industrialists to be shot without trial on the accusation that they are intellectual instigators or accomplices and stating that they were convicted within the framework of police investigations.
"2. Similar men to be sent from the same circle to Germany to work on fortifications behind the Eastern Front.
"3. In cases where the circumstances are particularly suitable, proceedings to be taken before the Se and Police court, with the execution of the Sentence of death and suitable publicity."
"The Fuehrer has only agreed to these proposals in part. Especially in correction with of forts at protection against acts of sabotage, he has rejected the means consisting of taking hostages. Furthermore, he has rejected the shooting of influential Norwegian representatives without trial as a means of combatting sabotage", which is underlined in blue pencil.
Is that your blue pencil? instance where your department is suggesting a course of what submit is brutal action, which for once the Fuehrer rejects.
A I believe, Mr. Roberts, it is your mistake. No proposal is made here. The Wehrmacht Fuehrungs Stab said it is advising the military commanders in chief of Norway about that, which the Reich Commissar Terboven had reported to the Fuehrer. And to that effect first he told him about the position and then the proposals which are mentioned here were suggested to the Fuehrer; and the Wehrmacht Fuehrungs Stab, the Operational Staff, which obviously had a representative at this meeting -- I, however, was not present -- immediately advised the military commanders in chief as to what proposals Terboven was making.
And what happened? These proposals, of course, were too much even for the Fuehrer. But it is not one of our proposals.
it. It may be accented. The document speaks for itself.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you read the subject description? Orientation about Reichs Commissar Terboven's report to the Fuehrer?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes.
Q That is the subject, isn't it, the beginning? Orientation about Reichs Commissar Terboven's Report?
Q That is your department, is it not?
A Orientation about the 20th Mountain Army; that is General Boehm-General Boehm was the Commander in Chief of the 20th Army Group,--is advised about the reports which Reichs Commissar Terboven made to the Fuehrer, so that he would know what his man, Terboven, was suggesting. It is no more than an orientation about the words which Terboven said to the Fuehrer, and I can not tell you who was present there. This entire thing does not originate with me. I had never even seen it. 28th of October, 1944. That is with regard to evacuation east of Lyngen. I do not think I need read that. Now the next document is a teleprint of the 6th of April, 1945, from SS Oberfuehrer Fehlis to the Operational Staff, and it say: "In accordance with the instruction of the Supreme Command of the Armed forces(operational staff of the Armed forces), dated 29-3-45, members of the Norwegian Resistance Movement who appear in organized units and who are easily recognizable as combatants owing to armlots or other insignia are to be treated as prisoners of war." And then the SS Oberfuehrer says: "I consider this instruction completely intolerable. Iexplained this clearly to Lt. Col. Hass and Major Benzo from the Operational Staff of the Armed Forces who stayed her. Up to the Present, there have been isolated appearances of uniformed groups in Norway, but so far there has been no fighting. According to an order of the Military Organization which was found, inquiries were made from the Defence High Command, in London as to whether armed resistance should be offered in case of Germany as Norwegian police action. So far there has been no partisan or other fighting in Norway. On one occasion, captured members of the Military Organization in uniform claimed the right to be treated as prisonersof war.
If this demand were met at the present moment, the result would be that active fighting on the part of the Military Organization would be set going. Therefore, please obtain cancellation of the order of the Operational Staff of the Armed Forces." And you voted for the exemption being removed, did you not? "Norway has a government in its own country. Whoever fights, against it in the country is a rebel. It is another question in the case of Norwegian troops who were taken to England and from there are again brought into the struggle under England's orders." That is your notes?
Q And you stick to that, do you? I mean that is your opinion today?
A Yes. I am of the opinion, on the basis of International Law, that members of a resistance movement against their own Norwegian government are not to be considered as normal troops but as a rebellion instead. But if Norwegian troops were taken to England and returned to Norway, then they were soldiers. And that today is my opinion on the basis of International Law. which was set up by the Germans?
A In any event, it was a government by Quisling at that time; and in any event, we spoke according to International law. We occupied the country, and, according to International Law we were justified in giving out laws and in forcing through their execution. That is applicable and admissible under International Law, and resistance all over the world is considered rebellion and the some applies to us in Germany here today. then I have finished. I want to deal first of all with what you have said with regard to Hitler's suggestion to revoke the Geneva Convention. You say you were instrumental in preventing him from renouncing that Convention? which is GB 209. It is not in a document book. This was put in with regard to the case against Doenitz. It is headed Extracts from Minutes of the Hitler Conference on the 19th of February, 1945: "The C-in-C Navy was not present at the Hitler conference on 18-2-45. The Fuehrer is considering whether or not Germany should renounce the Geneva Convention.