Prosecution concerning the organization of the German Armed Forces?
Q I Will have it shown to you. (Witness was handed document.)
of the OKW, do you consider that correct?
A No, it is not correct. On top you can see the words "Commander in Chief of the Wehrmacht," then a line and then below "Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces," and from there on the Army, the Navy and the Air Force.
That is wrong.
in relation with the protocol department of the Foreign Office. As Minister and Chief of the Chancellery.
It was his job to maintain of the Reich.
It was his function as assistant to the Fuehrer not concerned, had a higher position within that machinery.
After he as it used to be expressed before, the Maison Militaire (Military House), became the High Command of the Armed Forces, the Wehrmacht.
function in fact. At that moment he needed an instrument, a staff In Germany, in a military way, the word "Chief" has a different meaning than Commander in Chief.
The responsibility and right to give Chief.
His assistant in the staff leadership, the working out and staffs.
Thus, General or Colonel-General Keitel was also Chief of the Wehrmacht.
That meant for one that the entire machinery of the apparently used in different ways; first as the Staff of the High the Armed Forces, that is to say, Hitler, is that right?
A That is correct, as such, but it is not very clear. The to the Commander in Chief of the Air Force.
The orders could only be issued upon command of the Supreme Commander, signed "I.A.," that is to say, "Im Auftrag" (by order).which belonged to that staff.
An order or a command or directive form.
The letter began, "The Fuehrer has ordered . . " or "Upon command of the Fuehrer, I hereby inform you . . " May I express it quite emphatically.
At one time I told Colonel General Keitel, "I am only bound by orders given by the Fuehrer and only decrees or complied with.
Directives or orders which start, Upon command of the Fuehrer,' or 'By order of the Fuehrer' go to my chief of staff elements.
Whether they are signed, 'By command of the Fuehrer, Keitel, Colonel General,' or 'Meier, P.F.C.' doesn't make any difference to me.
But if they are signed by direct command from you which you want bearing for me.
I am Supreme Commander and immediately subordinate to the Fuehrer and the Fuehrer only."
different attitudes and conditions?
Q Does the same apply to Himmler as Chief of the SS? Forces. There existed, since the beginning of the war, the Waffen SS divisions and corps. That was a purely fighting unit. It was subordinate tactically and strategically to the respective offices of the Army; as far as personnel and equipment were concerned, it was subordinate to Himmler, and he had nothing to do with the OKW. Here again, it could only happen that the Chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht, with regard to the Waffen SS, transmitted orders or decrees from the Fuehrer. during the examination of Field Marshal Kesselring by Justice Jackson. Field Marshal Kesselring spoke of the Waffen SS as guard units. Then he was asked "When did they have to guard?" In speaking of the word "guard", we do not mean it the way it has been translated, as sentries, but in the opinion of the Field Marshal, that means just elite troops, just as in the Russian language there are guard corps. In the old Imperial Army there was a guard corps, and also formerly with other armies. The Waffen SS was not designed as a unit to guard anything, but was an elite unit as far as equipment and personnel were concerned, during the first years of the war. relations between Adolf Hitler and Field Marshal Keitel, that is to say, how these official relations were thought of by Hitler when he created the office of the OKW. That is to say, I should like to know: what was Keitel supposed to be and what was he really after 1938 in his official functions?
AAdvisor is a disputable expression. I may take advice from somebody as to whether he thinks it will rain during the coring three hours if I want to go riding, but I may ask for advice also in important and decisive questions. That depends on the temperament and the attitude of the person who is willing to seek advice, and the one who wants to give advice.
was not in order, and one had to be on very good terms with him. That is to say, one had to have great influence -- and I ask you to understand me correctly -- such as I had beyond doubt for many years in order to assist the Fuehrer in major questions not only by advice, but also by suggestions and even protests, without being asked. On the other hand, if this relation to the Fuehrer was not given, suggestions were brushed aside curtly wherever he had made his decisions, or where he did not wish to let the advisor reach a position where he could have influence on him. decisive questions, certainly was not an advisor. In current, everyday affairs, he may have been an advisor in the way that he may have suggested here and there what the Fuehrer would say to the various commanders, or that he could point out this or that question concerning problems of deployment. After all, advice by the Chief of the General Staff is still more important than advice fromthe chief of an organization or staff office. In strategic and tactical decisions, of course, the Chief of the General Staff would have sane say. In other questions, it would be more the Chief of the Leadership Staff. Organizational questions were to be discussed with the Chief of the High Command primarily, because the Fuehrer himself, as I have explained before, had established several supreme offices. He had to limit himself in his signatures. It took weeks, sometimes, until one could get the necessary signatures for the Fuehrer, especially during the war, in view of the tremendous amount of work, so that the business of signatures was transferred to the respective staff offices. That explains why there was hardly any decree or order which the Fuehrer had given which was not signed by Keitel, who was very industrious.
Q Wasn't the job that Field Marshal Keitel had a very thankless one? I mean, frequently he came into a position where he had to mediate between the various offices which were under the Supreme Commander.
A That depended very much on the personalities. It goes without saying that if it cameto a clash between the Fuehrer and myself, or other determined supreme commanders, the Chief of the High Command was hit from both sides, stepped upon. He came between the two strong personalities; the one protested that in speaking to the Fuehrer, he had not done enough; the Fuehrer rejected him and said he himself would take care of it.
remember that once Field Marshal Keitel approached me and asked me whether I couldn't see to it that he be given a front-line command, that he would be satisfied, though a Field Marshal, with one division if he could only get away, because he was eating more rocks than bread. Whether thankless or appreciated did not make any difference as far as the task was concerned; he had to do his duty wherever the Fuehrer commanded it. that he could not get his personality through with the Fuehrer? the Army, and groups of the Wehrmacht, and it was easy to make that reproach because they were far away from Adolf Hitler and they themselves did not have to make reports. I know that especially after the collapse, quite a number of generals took the position that Keitel had been a typical "yes-man." I can only say I should be interested personally if I could see those who considered themselves "no-men."
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal doesn't think -- at least I should like to ask you; what relevance do the charges against Keitel have to the gossip on the General Staff? or any reproaches which may have been made to him by the General Staff? What has that got to do with the charges against Keitel?
DR. NELTE: If one wants to do Justice to the defendant Keitel, that is to say, if one wants to try to establish what role he has played in the terrible tragedy, then that is only possible if one establishes clearly what his function was, his responsibility, and then, if one takes into consideration -
THE PRESIDENT: I know that perfectly well and we have spent three-quarter of an hour in hearing the defendant Goering describe what his relationship was and what his function was. What I asked you was what it had to do with this case, the criticisms or gossip of the General Staff about Keitel? I say we have spent three-quarters of an hour in hearing what the defendant Goering says his function was, and what his relationships with the Fuehrer, and nothing else.
DR. NELTE: I have begun with the organization of the OKW. I wanted to determine the chain of command between the OKW and the chief of the OKW on the one hand and the parts of the Wehrmacht on the other, and then I have tried to clarify the repsonsibility which as chief of the OKW following the will of hitler he had to have and how he executed these. during the last few minutes, during the statements of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: My interruption was made because you asked the Defendant a question about somebody being reproached for something or other by the other members of the General Staff, and that seems to me to be totally irrelevant.
DR. NELTE: The last question which I put was whether there had been any possibility of Field Marshal Keitel asking for his release from his position. May I assume that this question is relevant?
THE PRESIDENT: You may certainly ask that question, as to whether he asked to be relieved of his command.
THE DEFENDANT GOERING: If you please -
THE PRESIDENT: As a matter of fact, Dr. Nelte, that question was asked before, the question at which I interrupted you, and I have the answer written down, that Keitel asked for a command not even of a division.
DR. NELTE: That was the question which he put to Roach Marshal Goering. He came to him, Goering, and asked him. Now I want to ask whether there existed any possibility with Hitler of achieving a release. has played an important role in these proceedings generally. One has to distinguish between the two phases - peacetime and wartime. prominent and decisive position and very well known. if he was very well kno to the Fuehrer, that went without question. If he was in an important position and well-known to the Fuehrer, then the Fuehrer used his persuasion and appealed with all means at his disposal, if he so desired, that the man remain at his post.
However, if a General had asked to be relieved by the Fuehrer and had given his reason that principally he was of a different opinion politically, then without a doubt it would have come, though not on the same say, to a retirement -- but at the same time it brought on an extraordinary suspicion by the Fuehrer for this personality.
In wartime conditions were entirely different. The General, just like any soldier, was told to carry out orders, and the Fuehrer generally, not only for Generals but for all important personalities of the state, had stated he did not desire to see any applications for retirement. He himself would decide if a person had to leave or not, and he personally could not retire if he wished, and he considered that to be desertion. wartime and that had been rejected, he certainly could not insist. If he did he violated a law and could be accused of desertion.
Field Marshal Keitel could well say to the Fuehrer, "Please have me transferred to a different station, but the Fuehrer did not like to change the personalities in his immediate circle and in wartime -- that I know of him personally -- he would not have agreed to a change, particularly concerning Gield Marshal Keitel, with whom he was used to working, unless the Field Marshal had become ill or unable to continue his duties. apparent when Field Marshal von Brauchitsch was retired? Fuehrer had also discussed it at length with me previously. the command of the Army or leave it to somebody else, So we were discussing candidates for the succession. The Fuehrer at that moment did not agree with the leadership of the Army by the High Command of theArmy on the Eastern Front. The Supreme Commander was Brauchitsch and the Chief of General Staff Halder. I suggested to the Fuehrer at first that he remove the Chief of the General Staff, because I thought he was the less capable.
The Fuehrer wanted to di it first, then made a decision of his own and told me that he, the Fuehrer, was determined to assume the Supreme Command, in order to create order at the Eastern Front, and therefore it seemed more important to retire the Supreme Commander, although he agreed with me that the Chief of Staff was the weaker one. I suggested that both be sent home. him in unmistakable terms to retire. Supreme Commander of the Army, in order to assume, in person, supreme command over the Army, and from that time on the Fuehrer was not only Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces but also in fact Supreme Commander of the Army. Keitel had been a member of the Reich Defense Council. We discussed this question yesterday, and I can point out that you said that Field Marshal Keitel, although he belonged to the Reich Defense Law he belonged to the Reich Defense Council, the Reich Defense Council had never been constituted. That, you ought to know, because you were chairman of that Reich Defense Council, according to the law, is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, do you not, that the Tribunal is directed to hold an expeditions trial and for that reason they are not going to hear cumulative evidence? The Defendant has already given us an answer to the question you have just put to him. The Tribunal do not wish to hear the same answer given again.
DR. NELTE: I have not seen yesterday's transcript yet, and -
THE PRESIDENT: You were in court and you can take it from me that the answer was given.
DR. NELTE: The questions are not always as clear -- and the answers -if one reads the transcript.
Q Can you tell me whether Field Marshal Keitel was a Minister?
A He was not a Minister. He had just the assimilated rank of a Minister.
Q Did he have the right to take part in Cabinet meetings? work he could be called by the Fuehrer to attend Cabinet meetings. Did that make him a Minister?
A No, it remained the same. He had the rank of Minister. He could not attend Cabinet meetings of the Reich Cabinet because he only became Chief of the High Command in 1938 and at that time there were no Cabinet meetings. three, consisting of the Plenipotentiary for Economy, Plenipotentiary for Administration and the Chief of the OKW. Can you tell us something about that political General. Do you know anything about that? political activity. The only exception -- and that was due to the peculiar nature of my position -- was myself, being at once soldier, General, along with policy -making as a politician. The rest of the Generals, as the Fuehrer very clearly pointed, out, had nothing to do with politics. Marshal von Reichenau, and that was the reason the Fuehrer, in spite of his personal sympathies and the strong positive attitude of Reichenau toward the National Socialist Party, rejected, him, the reason the Fuehrer refused to make him Supreme Commander of the Army. The Fuehrer did not tolerate any political Generals. political means were included, and that such decrees were sometimes defined by Keitel.
general directives. The preamble of an important decree was made up of political requisites, so that it should be explained why the Fuehrer had decided upon a military action. But that has nothing to do with the fact that a General was a politician. had occasion to make state visits, formal visits, or hold receptions where Ministers were present,and from that, the Prosecution has drawn the conclusion that he was a political General. understood that the chiefs of the most important offices attended -- the Chief of the State Chancellery or the Reich Chancellery, depending on who came; and the Chiefs of the High Command were there, because questions would be discussed for which the Fuehrer needed military material of some kind. And then, of course, it was also a matter of ceremony. Whenever I had important visitors myself, my military staff surrounded me.
die not participate? Keitel had exerted pressure on Hacha by threatening the bombing of Prague.
Q Yes, I know that; I just wanted to clarify it. Do you remember that about the middle of July 1944 -- in June 1944, when negotiations about that question between the various departments took place, that you were waiting with Field Marshal Keitel and discussed that question? have frequently talked to the Field Marshal about that. Keitel at that time approached you and stated that he was against the idea of lynching, which was demanded by the Party. sidered an official warning or a note -- and I remind you of the case of Dieppethat he considered that appropriate?
AAbout that question, it seems to me we spoke frequently. I was of the opinion that in the case of definite terror fliers -- that is to say, those who violated the orders of their own superiors -- that there we should have trials. Keitel said that was hard to differentiate and to carry out. It would be more appropriate to send a note that if that were not stopped, measures would have to be taken, and also other people were of the opinion that first negotiations should take place.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, on the occasion of my application, I sought to have Field Marshal Goering characterize Field Marshal Keitel. In the session of 25 February, it was determined that this characterization should be submitted in the presence of Reichs Marshal Goering. Am I now permitted to read this characterization which you have received in the original, to read it now, or may I refer to it as in evidence if I just submit it?
I ask this question because part of the description which is contained in the affidavit has already been expressed by the witness in this interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the document that you are referring to? What is the origin of it. Is it a document drawn up by the defendant Goering?
DR. NELTE: An affidavit signed by the defendant Goering, entitled "Description of the Character of Field Marshal Keitel," It is announced in my application as an affidavit, and much which is contained here has already been expressed by Reichs Marshal Goering.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Goering is giving evidence on oath. Therefore, nothing in the shape of an affidavit ought to be put in. If you have any questions of him, which he has not already answered about the defendant Keitel, you may put them now, It is inappropriate to put in a written, sworn statement, when you have a defendant giving evidence under oath.
DR. NELTE: In the session of 25 February 1946, this affidavit was approved, with the explanation given that it would shorten the proceedings if an affidavit would be read and the witness could say then, "That is correct." I have a copy of on extract from the transcript of that session, in case the Tribunal should not remember it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May the Tribunal please, I should not care to object to this upon the ground that it is written, because I think there are occasions when the writing out of the testimony of a witness might be mere expeditious than their examination. it in. It starts off, "Keitel gives the impression of a military man, an officer of the old school." That is not testimony that gets us anywhere. I admit that. He always impressed me that way. "His philosophy is dominated in the main by militaristic ideas and concepts."
Let Keitel give a picture of his mind, if we must have it. I think an examination of it must show that it consists of matter that has been covered or consists of matter that never ought to be interrogated about of another witness. I object to it upon the ground that it has no probative value.
THE PRESIDENT: As you are aware, Dr. Nelte, any decision which the Tribunal made about documents was expressly made provisionally and with the condition that the decision about the relevancy of the document should be made when the document is produced.
If the document had been produced before the Tribunal, they would have been able to look at it.
They have not seen the document. which has any evidential value at all, and as the defendant is at present giving evidence under oath, the Tribunal will not look at the document.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, if the Tribunal has examined this document and then found out that it is irrelevant, of course I agree with that decision, but it seems to me as if the Tribunal -
THE PRESIDENT: We are not preventing you from asking any questions which may be relevant of the witness, but we do not desire to read another document from the same person who is giving testimony.
DR. NELTE: I forego, therefore, the submitting of this document. BY DR. THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): the NSDAP, and in this function, did he, or otherwise personally, did he have an influence on the foreign political decisions taken by Hitler? seizure of power, was not once consulted by the Fuehrer on foreign political questions which arose within the Party could be dealt with centrally. In detail I would not be informed about the methods of that office, but Rosenberg was not consulted, as far as I know, after the coming to power in foreign political questions. Rosenberg had a determining influence on Hitler in the Norwegian question? cerning the question of Quisling and Rosenberg. persecution of the churches by the police? by the police because he had nothing to do with the police, and I would not have permitted him to say anything about it. suggested or asked you to evacuate Jews from Germany, say, to Lublin?
Q Did Hitler express to you his satisfaction as to the fact that Rosenberg had not protested against the non-agression pact with the Soviet Union?
satisfaction -- because if Rosenberg had protested, Hitler probably would have expressed his dissatisfaction in a very unmistakable manner. He has stated, however, that it seems that even Rosenberg understood that political step. any influence on the Arbeitseinsatz, or manpower, question? Was he in a position to avoid the use of eastern manpower? existed between the offices of Rosenberg and Sauckel, but not in the sense that Rosenberg could have prohibited the recruiting of eastern workers in contravention of the Fuehrer.
improvements in the Ukraine? in the occupied Eastern territories and of the cultural affairs of these people, and as much as I can remember the conversation dealt with the continuation of an established university in Kiev. The Fuehrer agreed in his presence, I believe, but after he was gone, Rosenberg, the Fuehrer told me "That man has peculiar worries. We have mere important things to take care of now than universities in Kiev." That I can remember.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better adjourn now for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken)
Doctor Seidl; One moment, I want to speak to Doctor Nelte first. document which is called "Characteristics of General Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel", the Tribunal has investigated that matter and have referred to page 4987 of the shorthand notes, which possibly you may have had in mind; but you seem to have failed to notice that this very document "Characteristics of Keitel" was denied in the order of the Tribunal in paragraph 2, which contains the position of the Tribunal, after the argument in court, and which is set out on that page of the shorthand notes to which I have referred. Therefore, in the opinion of the Tribunal, you have no right to offer that document which the Tribunal had already denied.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I don't have the entire minutes of the session before me, but I do know that this evidence was refused with this reason; that in such cases the affidavit is not to be submitted if the witness is called personally, and that seems to be the case at this time. For that reason Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, in quoting the number of the document and my document book, stated the following: "The Tribunal may perhaps remember that in the case of the witness Doctor Blaha the practice was followed of questioning the witness", and this affidavit belonged to these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, I am quite aware of that and I have already referred you to the exact page of the transcript which I have consulted, but defendants' counsel must be perfectly well aware that the Tribunal has given no decision in open court upon these applications for witnesses and documents, and the Tribunal made it perfectly clear that they would afterwards consider the applications that had been made, and in each case a written order, which was perfectly clear, has been issued to the defendants' counsel, setting out the witnesses who are allowed, the witnesses who are denied, interrogatories that are allowed, and the interrogatories that are denied, the documents that were allowed and the documents which had been denied.
In paragraph 2 of the order which was made in the case of Keitel the second document which is denied is "The characteristics of Keitel." Therefore, in the opinion of the Tribunal that document should never have been offered. That is all.
DR. NELTE: I am just trying to point out why I arrived at this assumption that despite the refusal of the affidavit the material could be used in the presence of the witness.
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the defendants Funk and Von Schirach): On behalf of the defendants Funk and Von Schirach, I request to be permitted the following questions. First of all, pertaining to Funk. At that time, as you know, he was the editor-in-chief of the Berliner Boersenzeitung. Do you know that on the basis of his capacity he received prestige in the press or in the circles of the German Economic Reich? honored and I know that he had many connection in the economic circles. his activities he was operational in supporting the taking over of all power of the Party, and I am interested to know from your lips whether Funk, before the taking over of power by the Party, played any role in the Party, or is it correct to say that after the giving up of the editorship of the Berlin paper, hehad edited a so-called economic political survey not only for the Party but for all circles, including the other parties? What do you know about this matter?
A I would like to reply briefly to this very lengthy question. Before the taking over of power I know only of the activity that is mentioned of the editor of the Boersenzeitung, and when I talked with economic people it was mentioned. After the taking over of power I was told generally that Funk had been in the Party prior to that. His connection with the Party and his activities were not of tremendous significance or I would have noticed it and it would have been brought to my attention. So far as the economic political survey is concerned, I know nothing about that. Reich Government. Doyou know that?
Q Then he became State Secretary in the Propaganda Ministry. Do you know about that? capacity as Press Chief. Did he, in any way, influence the decisions of the Reich's cabinet?