Do you know about this substance of this conversation , and do you know about the note?
I got to know this document when it was submitted to me here. It seems to we insecure.
We can not tell elearly just who was present at the meeting, what was talked about, and who had the responsibility for the nonsense that is expressed therein. It is a matter of course, but in the framework of the many expert conferences which took place many things were discussed and said which are entirely nonsensical and appear such. of there had been no war with Russia. Conditions were notas they seemed to be in this quotation, "In order to feed the German Army we would have to attack Russia." before the attack on Russia the German Army was fed and would have been fed thereafter. But if we had to march into Russia and march through, of course it was a matter of course that the army would be fed from the territory at hand in the country. one march in its larger scale and in its larger proportions, can not prove that many, many millions on the other side can therefore starve; for a soldier cannot eat so much on one hand while on the other it would not be sufficient for numbers three times that much. As a matter of fact and de facto, the population of Russia did not starve. Of famine there was the sphere of possibility, however, but not because the German Army was to be fed out of Russia, but because through the destruction of agricultural implements; through the transporting away of other agricultural implements; and through the destruction of seed. was partially destroyed by the retreating Russian troops, and this harvest could not be brought in in large proportions; and great dangers existed for fall and spring cultivating of the field, for implements and seed were not present. or transported everything away, but because Germany was very much obliged to use her on materials, that is, machines of an agricultural nature, and brought everything of that nature along, including seed. And the troops were not fed out of the country but received their supplies from Germany, and this had to be done so.
Beyond this hay had to be brought from Germany. Only through the greatest efforts of organization and administration and in cooperation with the local population slowly a balance could be met on the agricultural sector, and a surplus was achieved for Germany.
mentioned, In this connection, Leningrad was a fortress which was besieged, and in the history of war there isno similar example that thebesieger would supply the beleaguered city with foodstuffs so that they could resist longer and more strongly. The history of wars has always shown that blockaders will do everything to force capitulation by a cutting of foodstuffs and other supplies. Neither under international law or on the basis of historical law should we feed fortresses which were resisting us.
Q And what part did the Luftwaffe have in the attack on Leningrad?
A The Luftwaffe air defense of Leningrad was very weak. The north sector of our attack was very poorly supplied with air defense. We had several tasks. At notime was there a concentrated attack byour air force on Leningrad, like we had made on other cities, or attacks which had been made on German cities. The Fuehrer not once but repeatedly, in the presence of other gentlemen at briefing sessions, accused me that apparently the German Luftwaffe didn't dare go into Leningrad. I replied, "So long as my Luftwaffe is ready to go into the hell of London it will be equally prepared to go into the much less-defended area of Leningrad, but I lacked the means, and besides you must not give me too many tasks for my air force in the north of the front, such as the routing of supplies through the Ladoga Sea and other considerations." Bayniaby, and other targets which had Soviets stationed there. Force was interested in destroying museums, and he said that under oath.
But a later witness which was not under oath -- and I don't exactly remember the names -- was under the impression that my Luftwaffe was especially interested in using his cathedrals as a target.
I would like to call to your attention in this connection -- and it may even be comprehended by non-experts -- St. Petersburg was at the very front of the fighting, and it was not important to attack it so much, for heavy and light artillery was quite sufficient to attack the city. state property? question, and that was that much destruction allegedly took place in Russia, and moving pictures were shown to this effect which, impressive as they may be but not impressive to a German -- for they showed only a modest proportion of the destruction which we suffered in our own cities. But I would like to point out that much of this destruction took place in the course of battle; that it was not intentional; not for the purpose of destroying by artillery or from the air. And historical cities were involved; cities of art were involved when the battle was raging. highly honored, and we would not intend to harm any of their monuments and we never had any such intentions. it only such property that was confiscated. As far as I know, yes. Private property is mentioned in the official reports. So far as the winner of 1941 and 1942 there might have been in the matter of furs or perhaps fur boots, and some soldiers took some of these smaller articles from the people. But on the whole there was no private property, and as such could not be confiscated. I personally can speak only of a small fragment, and by that I mena the surroundings of the City of Winitza and the city of Winitza itself. my headquarters were at that city when I was there. I repeatedly visited the city and the outlying peasant estates, because I was interested in life there, and I saw poverty of such huge extent that I can not understand just what we should have or could have taken there. This is just an insignificant but constructive example; empty marmelade jars, empty tin cans, empty cigar boxes or cigarette boxes -- that the peasants were anxious to get these insignificant articles and were interested in trading eggs, for the peasants were interested in these articles and considered then very desirable.
concerned and learned personally and from Germans there were no theatres destroyed. I know just one theatre at the Winitza. I had visited the artists who were appearing there and I saw the ballet. I procured material, dresses, and allied materials for them because they were completely out of those things. concerned, there I attended the dedication of the largest church which for years prior to that time had been a powder magazine, and under the German administration was reinstated as a church.
The clergy requested me to be present at this dedication, but I had to decline because I do not belong to theOrthodox Church.
store in the Winitza that was completely empty. tioned by the French Prosecution? destroyed industry everywhere that this accusation is incorrect and that for our own purposes we had to reconstruct industry. I would like to call attention to the dam of Dnieper Potrowsk as the determining factor for the electrification of the upper region. earth policy, the policy that had been decreed by Russia and which had been executed by Russia. This scorch earth policy created a very curious situation, and it took much effort on our part to meet the situation. Therefore, from the economic point of view, we had much reconstruction to do. that over and beyond that which took place in the course of battle, there were parts of cities that had been mined and at the proper time went into the air, and, of course, had many German victims. I can cite Odessa and Kiev as special examples.
NowI am coming to the question of Camp Dora. This is the first time that I have had knowledge of this concept. Of course, I know of the subterranean works which were near Nordhausen. I personally never visited them, but they had been established quite early. Production was carried on there. lieve that they are exaggerated. Of course, I knew that subterranean works did exist, and I was interested in having material manufactured for the Luftwaffe, and I can not see that subterranean works should be of an especially serious or perhaps a destructive character. I had one important subterranean work at Kala for Luftwaffe armament. German workers, to a large part, were there; some Russian workers and some Russian prisoners of war were there, and I personally saw what was going on and found everyone in good spirits, and saw that they received additional rations and brought cigarettes and other things to them.
internees were not put into existence. That I requested inmates of concentration camps for the armament of the Luftwaffe is correct and it is to be taken as a matter of course. I was not aware of the inner workings of the concentration camps. I knew that many Germans were in concentration camps. Some of them had refused to join the Army, who were politically unreliable, who had been punished in other ways. During times of war, such conditions existed in other countries also, and, as in other countries, everyone had to work in Germany. Women were taken into the labor front, including those who had never worked before in their lives. In my own home, parachutes were manufactured. Everyone had to participate in this work, and I could not see why, if the rest of the German population were working, the inmates of prisons and concentration camps should not also work and be put to use for the work essential to the war.
concerned, from what I know today, it was better for them to work in the aerial armament works than perhaps in their own concentration camps. course, and that they worked for armament purposes is a matter of course, but that that work would mean destruction is a new concept. It may be that it might be envisaged, but I for my part was interested in having these people work rather than having them destroyed and to have them produce value, and I was interested in having them do the same work as the German people did -that is, aerial accessories. I was not interested in having them destroyed. those batteries which were in certain localities and were permanently stationed there. We were concerned in this case with volunteers. These were chiefly Russian prisoners of war, but not entirely so, so far as I remember. think alike. Certain East battalions were made up of volunteers, and a large number of volunteers arose when the announcements for flak batteries were made. We had an entire division of volunteers -- Russian prisoners-of-war -who were ready to fight against their own country. I was not especially impressed with these people, but during war, you take what you can get, and the other side did the same thing. The volunteers were ready to go into the flak work because there their work was less; their supplies were better, and whatever other reasons they may have had I do not know, but if a local German flak battery in, say the year 1944 or 1945, were to be looked at, I will admit that it created a rather strange impression. There were young men -people of fifteen to eighteen -- old men between fifty-five and sixty, some women, some volunteers of all nations, but they shot, and that was the deciding thing.
A I already mentioned this. In the Four Year Plan in 1938 there was a general plenipotentiary for the labor frnt.
It was decreed in the year 1936. In the year 1942, after he had been ill and had beenrepresented by somebody else, through the direct calling of a new general plenipotentiary for the labor front. It was told me by the Fuehrer. I was surprised I had not been consulted. At that time the fuehrer had acted independently in the matter of all problems. He did so in this. The labor problem became increasingly more difficult from day to day. It had been suggested to him to put in a new man, but a Gauleiter of a different name who came from Silesia, but the Fuehrer decided on the Gauleiter from Thuringia, Sauckel. He made him plenipotentiary. This order was countersigned by Lammers, not by myself, but these are just inconsequential remarks. He was formally taken into the Four Year Plan, for the Four Year Plan had the general authority for all things of the economy. Even Goebbels, a plenipotentiary for total war with which I was not connected in any way, was taken into the authority for the Four Year Plan, and the authority of the Four Year Plan had grown up gradually. from the Fuehrer, for the Fuehrer increasingly acted more independently. I hailed the appointment of Sauckel for I considered him one of the calmest Gauleiters and was convinced that he would give his full attention to the task. The connection of the offices of the Four Year Plan was kept, and when important measures were concerned, Sauckel and the officers of the Four Year Plan worked together.
Sauckel himself lectured to me on several occasions after he had visited with the Fuehrer, and told me of those reports which he sent to the Fuehrer.
If not in detail, on the whole I was informed.
Q In March of 1944, 75 English fliers, Stalag Luft 3, escaped. As you no doubt knew, 50 of these officers after their recapture were shot by the SD. Did this order for shooting come through you, and didyou know about this measure? attention, unfortunately, at a later period of time. When the attempt at escape of the 75 or 80 English flier officers occurred in the last third of March, I was at that time on leave, as I can prove. I heard, one or two days later, about this escape. these escapees had been brought back into the camp, I assured that in this case the sane would apply. couldn't give me the exact figure at the time, of these escaped fliers had been shot, and knowledge of this was in the Luftwaffe, and there had been conversations and reprisals were expected. I asked from whom he had had his information. He said he knew only that a part of the escaped men had been recaptured by the guards in the vicinity of the camp and had been done to those men. On the other hand, those who had been recaptured at a greater distance from the camp, he knew only about their fate that part of them had been shot. a definite figure, and said that he had received this order from the Fuehrer. I called his attention to the fact that this was really impossible, and that the English officers had been duty bound to try one or two escapes and that we were fully cognizant of this fact. He said he had contradicted the Fuehrer in this matter, but that the Fuehrer had insisted absolutely, and the Fuehrer had said that these attempts at escape were endangering security not understand such measures, and if he had received such orders he would please inform me before carrying them through so that I would have the possibility to prevent such orders from being carried through if possible.
and the Fuehrer confirmed that he had given this order, and told me why. He gave the reasons as I have just given them to you. I told him why this order, according to our opinion.
was completely impossible and what repercussions would be on my fliers in the West.
answered that the fliers which were flying against Russia would be beaten to death immediately on emergency landing, and that the fliers going to the West should not expect a special privilege in that regard for themselves. I told him that these two things really had no connection. lieve it was General Quartermaster--to write to the OKW. I asked thatthe Luftwaffe be requested that these camps would be taken away from them, that I did not wish to concern myself with camps if cases of this nature were to be repeated, and this document described thiscondition, and this is what I know about this condition. 1944 the Fuehrer decreed strictest measures against the so-called terror fliers. Did you comply with this Fuehrer decree and give instructions to shoot enemy terror fliers or to have them taken in by the SD?
A The concept "terror fliers" was confused. A part of the population and of the press called everything "terror fliers", called everyone a terror flier who attacked cities. There was much excitement among the German population because of the heavy and continued air attacks on German cities, attacks by which the population in part saw that the industrially vital targets were less frequently hit than houses and non-military targets. Then in that way some German cities had been hit to the utmost in their residential districts without the industry which was nearby in the same cities being hit, or at least vitally hit. These attacks in part were on military targets and in part non-military targets. Reports came repeatedly to the Fuehrer, and I too received word of these reports, that the civilian population was attacked with machine guns and that some vehicles which were definitely known to be civilian vehicles, some vehicles which were Red Cross property, had been attacked. terribly excited about it--that a group of children had been attached that way.
Men and women who stood in line in front of stores had been attacked that way, and these activities were designated asthose of terror fliers.
The Fuehrer was unusually excited about it. The populace took to mob law and lynching, and we tried to curb these activities. I heard that the police and Bormann had instructions not to do anything. These reports multiplied, and the Fuehrer decreed that these terror fliers should be shot, or expressed himself in that line of thought. terrogated these fliers had said that their superiors had prohibited such attacks, that they were only to attack militarily known targets. sources which might be concerned in this were called in, and we were of the opinion, as Brauchitsch has already declared, that not only the people in the Air Force, but OKW and other military offices were of the opinion that it would be hard to formulate and to defend a decree; that the concept of the terror fliers would have to be established once and for all. In order to do this, four points were set down, and those points have already been read. opinion that these fliers, since they were prohibited by their own superiors to do these things, that they could be prosecuted by a military court.
No definite decree was ordered and no office of the Luftwaffe has ever received any instructions to undertake any steps in this direction. conference between Himmler, Ribbentrop and myself took place at Oberursel. My adjutant von Brauchitsch told me that he had received a document that such a conference had taken place, but it does not say it actually took place. Now, the day of 6/6/44 is an important day, for it is the day of the invasion - or D-Day. I cannot tell just exactly where I was, but I think it was at Klessheim. Klessheim is a castle near Berchtesgaden and served the purpose of housing fliers. would take place, I, as Chief Commissioner of the Luftwaffe, was not present for each of these visits. It made no difference whether it was Bulgaria, Rumania, Finland, or whoever it was; it might even have been Italy. I made it a point not to be there in such cases so that the Fuehrer would have an opportunity to say, "I must first consult with the Commissioner in Chief of the Luftwaffe" whenever they demanded help and machinery. my estate near Nurnberg, and the accompanying physician can testify to that if necessary. In the morning hours I learned about the invasion. This actually had been proclaimed as an invasion. I thought it might be an invasion or just another measure. I left after luncheon and arrived at Berchtesgaden in the early evening. It is a 4 1/2 hour journey and therefore I did not take part in the conference with Ribbentrop or anyone, and I would like to emphasize this point. The conference was carried on by my adjutant Von Brauchitsch and he was the one who told the OKW that it was my opinion, without first consulting me, that it would be the thing to have a proceeding. The decisive thing is that none of the offices of the Luftwaffe gave instructions of this notice as the Fuehrer ordered, and did not make or issue any such decree.
A document which has already been read concerns Luftgau No. 11, about the shooting of American fliers. I believe they were Americans, The Luftgau No. 11 is concerned in this document.
I looked into the document very carefully, together with its appendices. It is stated very definitely that the Luftgau No. 11 reported that the fliers who had had a forced landing at the lake had been aided by the police, that they had not all been shot. The Luftgau reported its proceedings, and in its appendices each of the men is mentioned by name, and its proceedings, and in its appendices each of the men is mentioned by name, and what happened to them. Some were taken to hospitals, others were shot. It made no difference whether it was our own fliers or hostile fliers, as it was an emergency landing, but a report of our own or hostile craft and the reason for landing was to be put down on a report sheet. They had to say what happened to these fliers, whether they had been brought to a hospital. The shooting by the police is recorded. we have hundreds of these reports, and the reports which came to our office were in connection with matters of this kind, and our documents show that in all clarity. were present at briefing sessions with the Fuehrer every day. It happened that the Fuehrer, in an uncordial tone of voice, told me that he wished to know the names of some of the officers we had protected fliers from the population, and that he wanted these officers punished. I never punished these officers, and I in turn told the Fuehrer that they had already been punished, and also pointed out that some of our own fliers who had made emergency landings had been mistreated by our own people because they did not recognise them. and the Fuehrer, when I again pointed out these things, very sharply said: "I know that. Both air forces have come to an agreement." I told him that we did hot have an agreement but that fliers are always comrades, even though they fight each other. Force, when it came to the punishment of subordinate soliders who committed crimes in the occupation territories?
hours in the solving of these problems. I put more stress on the fact that first the adjutant of the Luftwaffe should be heard on this point. In many cases I rescinded the judgments because they were too mild. Especially if they were involved in the death sentence which had been passed by a Tribunal, I always upheld the death sentenceunless there was an appeal for mercy by the party condemned. Some of the families of Luftwaffe men had been sentenced to death and I confirmed this sentence, because they had murdered some of the people who lived, in the occupied countries of the East and the West. If, for example, in France, Russia, Holland, or any other country, the local civilian inhabitants would help hostile fliers to escape, or if they sabotaged aircraft or engaged in espionage, the state of war made it necessary. Ingeneral, I would like to emphasize in this connection, of course, that the death penalty which had been described was also put into effect. air force, I decreed mercy and never confirmed a sentence for a woman. into consideration whether these measures were in agreement with the Hague Convention?
A The Hague Convention was for land waffare. When I scanned it over on the eve of the Polish campaign, I was reading the Articles and I was sorry that I had not studied them much sooner. If I had done so I would have told the Fuehrer that with these rules as they had been put down, paragraph by paragraph, a modern war could not be waged, but that in a modern war, with its technical improvements, the stipulations of 1906 and 1907 would have to be changed in order to have a new type of warfare. Those stipulations made in the Hague Convention were for land warfare. I questioned these stipulations through logic, because these regulations up to 1907 were for land warfare, and from 1935 and thereafter there was not only land warfare but also air warfare.
That, of course, was not included in the stipulation. Hague Convention. But that is not the decisive point. phases of war: the war of weapons by land, on the sea, and in the air; the economic war which is an integral part of every modern war; and, third, the propaganda war, which is also an important part of warfare. On the basis of logic you take these into consideration. considered part of the booty of war. I must say that today, in modern war, the weapons of our opponents have only little value, that raw materials such as steel, aluminum, copper and tin have much more vital use as far as booty is concerned, and are much more useful than abandoned weapons which we may take. Beyond that we are concerned only with raw material no matter who has it. The Hague Convention provided that those things can be confiscated which are necessary, but that is not a decisive point. You can agree to that. war. In this case, in the economic war, a question of manpower is of the utmost importance, much more so than in 1907. The Russian-Japanese war, the English-Boer War, might be cited in 1907, but they have come up by different causes. In those days it was a war of army against army and the population itself did not seem to be involved. It cannot be compared with the total war of today which involves everyone, even the children, through bombing attacks. the economic war and he should be utilized. I am not saying that warfare should be exploited in such a way that a person's property should be damaged. His working power is to be utilized as much as possible.
occupied territory where fighting was still going on for 1, 2, 3 and 5 years and other men were still coning in. As far as the question of labor is concerned, it was established as a measure of security and we are duty-bound to feed the occupied countries. If possible, it was our duty to distribute manpower and at the same time, those who did not have work in their own countries might have become a danger through the resistance movement against us, and it would be in our interest to eliminate these people. Therefore, we should use them in Germany, and we did use this labor for security reasons so that they would not be active in their own country and would not work against us. On the other hand, they served to help in the economic war. I am being very brief in all of these matters concerning propaganda war. and that we consider a matter of course. Propaganda is very important, and propaganda as waged by radio -- and no one knows better than Germany, through experience. The many dangers of the resistance and underground movements, and also sabotage by the Allied forces -- these things happened and they hay be traced back to propaganda. to govern modern warfare, for in its essential aspects it does not take into consideration the air war, modern warfare, or propaganda warfare. greatest war leaders and our enemy, the former Prime Minister of England, Winston Churchill used: "In the struggle for life and death there is no legality."
THE PRESIDENT: The court will adjourn.
"The Tribunal adjourned until 16 February 1946 at 1000 hours.)
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I have just one more question which I have not asked directly before, that is, of Goering to maintain peace in the months of July and August, 1939, before the outbreak of the war. I have several reasons for which I have not previously asked that question, as I had the intention of asking Goering only after the questioning of the witness Dahlerus about this, because Dahlerus had not arrived at that time, and I wanted to avoid any interruption is the reason I have not called Dahlerus before. defendant Goering on this point again after having examined Dahlerus, who has arrived in the meantime. For reasons of saving time I consider this is important, because in my opinion I would save quite a number of questions thereby, or, whether I can hear him after the cross examination as to this question. If this is granted I shall put the question to him, but it seems to me more important to put this question after examining Dahlerus, who, as I say, has arrived in the meantime.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Honor, perhaps I can help on this point. If the Tribunal could consider this application without its establishing a precedent in other cases, I should have no objection for this reason, that with Dahlerus we are to understand that some one will have to go into the matter in detail as to the events that happened within the last fortnight when it might well be a saving of time if that detail were only gone into once, and that it would be rather difficult for Dr. Stahmer to examine the witness Dahlerus humself without going into the details. While I feel strongly with the Tribunal the defendant should not be recalled except in the most exceptional circumstances, I think in this case it might conceivably bring about a shortening of time.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that if the witness Dahlerus were called, it might obviate the necessity of calling the defendant Goering in reference to those events?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might obviate that necessity, and it would in any case mean, I should think, that the defendant Goering would only have to answer very few questions, but if it were opened up now, it would be difficult to avoid both witnesses covering the same ground.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is only concerned with the saving of time, and as the Tribunal is informed by the defendant's counsel, Dr. Stahmer, that it may save time, the Tribunal is prepared to adopt that course, and to allow the witness Dahlerus to be called before these questions are put to the defendant Goering, but it must not be taken as a precedent for the recalling of any witnesses.
DR. STAHMER: Thank you. Thank you, sir. Then I have no more questions at this time to ask the defendant.
DR. OTTO NELTE: Counsel for the defendant Keitel. defendant Keitel in connection with orders, directives, and so forth. They were always quoted as Keitel's orders, Keitel's decrees, and so forth, and the prosecution based its indictment against the defendant Keitel on these things. I would like to clarify by questioning you on the position of Field Marshall Keitel; what was his authority, and what responsibility he had as chief of the OKW; or in any other official function. Do you know of that decree of 4 February 1938, which I hand you, by which the OKW was created, and Keitel was appointed?