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?
(At this point there was a mechanical interruption.) My question was to this effect: Reich's Government, that is, after the taking ever of power, had he any influence at all on the decisions of the Reich's cabinet?
A He had no influence of any sort on the decisions of the Reich's cabinet, for his task was of a different nature. this case I am interested to knew from your lips whether, while exercising this function in any way aside from these of Mr. Goebbels, so far as propaganda policies were concerned, what his tasks were while he was in the Ministry. Secretary for the Press, that is, for checking over and treating press matters. But purely propaganda activities were carried on from the beginning by Goebbels. Funk was purely a press leader, and he was called in purely for organizational purposes in the Ministry. He was to bring in now members of the press, new papers to support the press, and his experience and knowledge along these lines were to be utilized.
Q Then, when Dr. Schacht retired from his office in November of 1937, Funk, in the year 1937, that is, November 1937, became his successor as Minister of Economics in the Reich? His appointment took place in November of 1937 but he entered the Ministry in February 1938 and assumed his official duties at that time. Can you tell us why that was so, and also who took care of the Ministryof Economics in the interim? the Ministry from November 1937 to February 1938. I directed the Ministry of Economics so that the development of other economic offices which had any connection with the Four Year Plan could be brought back into the Ministry of the Interior, so that I could still give directives to this Ministry.
to have the same trouble. Schacht had been relieved of the same office in November, 1937.
His successor as Plenipotentiary for Economics, Funk, was appointed in the year 1938. What were the reasons for that?
A That he was made General Plenipotentiary in 1938 was based on the reason that in 1938 he took over the Ministryof Economy.
According to the old regulations, the General Plenipotentiary for Economy was identical with the Ministry of Economy. At that period this was just a matter of form, and I said that from the minute when I took over the Four Year Plan actively, I personally, de facto, was the real General Plenipotentiary for Economy. some officers remained for purely prestige reasons, things which really do not have any significance any longer. The Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan was the sole General Plenipotentiary for the entire German economy, since there sould be no two such men, and, as a matter of fact, one was just a figure on paper. it would be that Dr. Funk, in his capacity as General Plenipotentiary for Economy and as president of the Reichsbank, had to follow your directives as head of the Four Year Plan. to comply with my economic directives as far as the Ministry of Economy and the Reichsbank were concerned. That was the reason for the change, because I could not follow this procedure with Schacht, but from the beginning Funk understood my wishes. The directives whichFunk received in his capacity as Minister of Economy and president of the Reichsbank are my responsibility. before the Polish acmpaign, I believe around the 25th of October--which Funk sent to Hitler, in which he thanked the Fuehrer for something or other. In this letter Funk mentioned that he had prepared and executed certain measures, which inthe case of war would apply in civilian matters and in financial matters. You perhaps remember this letter, because it has been read already.
Q Now, do you remember when you entrusted Funk with these special duties? This letter is dated about the 25th of August 1939, and at what time were these duties given over to Funk by you? for mobilization, have to be continued and have to keep pace with the political situation, whether it is tense or not tense or just how the changes go, in the same way, as I mentioned in my concluding remarks yesterday, economy and natters of economy kept pace in the same way.
the duty of the president of the Reichsbank and of the economic factor also to take all preparations which would put me in the position in the event of a war to have the utmost security for the German people. The exact period I cannot tell you, for it seems to be a general basic directive which was always present. for the leadership of economy in occupied countries? The general directives he received from me would show just what directives he would have to interpret for his own purposes in the occupied countries. What further directives he gave out as having been transmitted from me I cannot say, but it was all my responsibility. special plenipotentiaries and organs who had to carry out your directives, excluding Funk?
A In a part of the occupied countries it was so. In other parts I used the existing offices in the occupied countries, and if I considered it necessary I issued directives to the Ministry of Economy, and they had to transmit and issue further orders in the countries concerned. the spring of 1940. Is it correct to say that during the course of the war, in increasingly large proportions, the spheres of jurisdiction of the Minister of Economy, and at the end the entire civilian production, were transferred so that at the end the Ministry of Economy was really a Ministry of Commerce? then Minister Todt was the head of it. This purely munitions ministry became an armament ministry, under Minister Speer. Gradually, more and more spheres of activity were transferred to this Ministry. The Ministry for Armament was at the head of economy, and everything else was subordinated to this ministry. There were some of the tasks transferred to the Armament Ministry from the Economic Ministry. The entire production was turned over to this ministry, and at the end the Ministry of Economy on a large scale was really a matter of form and had just subordinate departments left.
Q Now, I have a final question regarding Funk. The question is in connection with the matter of central planning, that is, in connection with the question of foreign workers.
I am interested in in knowing what you can tell me. Was Funk present at the meetings of this Central Planning Board at the end of November 1943, and never before that time? Do you know about that? interfered in the actual working. I cannot tell exactly when Funk entered into this Board, but as far as the securing of foreign labor is concerned he had nothing to do with that.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, if you will permit me, I have several questions for the Defendant von Schirach. BY DR. SAUTER: department of the "Flying HJ" were trained?
A The "Flying Hitler Jugent, HJ" were interested in air training, and after this training was completed these men were taken into the National Socialist Flier Corps, the former Reichs Luftsport Verband, and were then further trained in aircraftflying.
Q Then another question: As long as von Schirach was head of the Hitler Youth, did any conferences take place between you and him which concerned themselves with the question of military training, or pehraps a pre-military training, of youth in flying? Did you have any such conferences, or didn't you? tell you. Officicially there were no conversations, because the position was entirely clear. The Hitler Youth were interested in gliding, and after they had received preliminary training they were taken into the flying companies. half other participants. Among them were von Schirach, along with Buhle, Bopitz, Dietrich, and Gehrecke. For that reason I would like to put the following question to you: Was Schirach ever a member of the Reichs Cabinet, or what functions or rights did he have in this connection? Ministers. We differentiated between two kinds of sessions, regular Cabinet sessions and ministerial directors sessions. course of events, the Ministers and their State Secretaries. In some cases, from the special departments or ministries, ministerial directors or higher officials could be called in for short discussions. Then there were so-called top Reich offices, and among those was the leadership of the Reichs Jugend, the Reichs Youth.
If a question of this leadership was to be discussed in the Cabinet with the purpose of legislating, then Schirach as leader of the Youth Movement, if he had been informed on this matter, could request to be called into this meeting; and the Chief of the Reichs Chancellory could command him or ask him to come in for the reason that you have just mentioned. that I have just mentioned. I believe I took part in all of these sessions, and I know that von Schirach never took part. In contrast to that were the Council meetings in which only Reichs Ministers could be present without anyone else attending.
Q Then, I am referring to the period of time after the fall of Mussolini, when Badaglio took ever power of Government in Italy.
Do you remember, witness, that at that time, von Schirach sent a wire to you and made certain suggestions to you?
Q Please tell me about that. What did he suggest and what were his motives and purposes? Foreign Office and to replace Ribbentrop by von Papen.
Q Then, my last question for von Schirach. Do you remember, witness, another letter which the Defendant Schirach, and as far as I know, in the spring of 1943, wrote? It was a letter which had been motivated through a letter of Bormann's and so that you will know just which letter I have in mind, I will give you the connection in brief. Bormann at that time wrote to all Gauleiters and according to that, the Gauleiters were to report whether they had any connection abroad with foreign countries. Schirach knew at the time that this letter wasmeant only for him, for the other Gauleiters had no relatives in other countries. Schirach at that point wrote a letter which, as far as I know, had wrote, and which you intervened allegedly in favor of von Schirach. Please clarify this letter, what kind of letter it was, what endangered Schirach and what you and others did to prevent this danger to von Schirach? exactly. This letter of Bormann's was not directed to the Gauleiters to know whether they had connections with abroad. Bormann directed, according to a directive of the Fuehrer, a letter to all Gauleiters and it was not a matter of form and was not meant only for von Schirach. It was meant for all, and in that sphere of influence they were to check the political leaders to know whether one of their co-workers or political leaders, which were subordinate to them, had relatives or other connections abroad, so that through this, the individuals might have conscience conflicts so that their reliability might be questioned. It was a general directive of the Fuehrer and it was meant also for the Officer Corps and could not be applied solely to the case of Schirach. I was at headquarters when Schirach's letter arrived and gave Bormann's letter to the Fuehrer.
Schirach said, before he would take any steps towards his collaborators or subordinates, he would have to have a clarification on the part of the Fuehrer as far as his own person was concerned, and new in his letter mentioned his relatives abroad, some of whom were living in the United States of America, and these were relatives on his mother's side.
In his letter he also said that his connections with his relatives abroad was a very cordial one and he wanted to know whether, among these prevailing conditions, he could regain as a Gauleiter and whether his position was still tenable to the Fuehrer. At that time the Fuehrer had not been kindly disposed to von Schirach for several months and had already considered retiring him from his office. At this opportunity he said -- and that is how I came into possession of this letter -- he gave me this latter and said "Schirach seems to make plans for saving himself in the future. I have mistrust of him;" then very definitely, in the presence of Bormann, I told the Fuehrer that such mistrust was entirely unfounded; that I could not see his position as far as von Schirach was concerned, and von Schirach had done the only decent thing he could do before he had taken steps to dismiss any of his subordinates; that he had wanted to clarify his awn position, Since his position was known, and that I did not think von Schirach had ulterior motives in writing the letter. rather strange suggestions for proceedings against Schirach seemed to have been made? basis of this letter, on the strength of this letter, and he tried to give this letter an entirely different interpretation and wished to motivate the Fuehrer to call him, call von Schirach back and to eliminate him, but just how far the suggestion of Himmler went, I do not know, or whether he meant to have him apprehended. I heard about these things from other sources later on.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, I have no further questions.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Dr. Kranzbuehler, counsel on behalf of Doenitz.
BY DR. KRANZBUEHLER:
Q Reich Marshal, when did you get to know my client? Admiral and Commander of the U-Boats, I met him during the war, in fact, I remember that was in 1940, and I met him at a conference in my special train, I believe, in France.
Q Were you concerned with military or political questions? for the future could do reconnaissance for U-Boats in the Atlantic and the then Admiral Doenitz complained that reconnaissance was too weak and it was only sporadic and requested me urgently to strengthen same and as far as I remember, to have reconnaissance increased by 30%. further conference with him? plane (emergency sea plans) plans to save flyers who have been Shot down in the Channel? who had to land in the Channel, in the English Channel, as the decree shows, and that decree applied to German flyers as well as Allied flyers.
Q Can you describe these planes? the Red Cross.
Q Were they armed?
Q And how were these emergency planes treated by the British? were any number of cases in which, while they were doing acts of mercy, they were shot down. These cases came to be increasingly larger and more numerous and I said it would be more expedient not to use the Red Cross as a mark any longer, to have these planes armed and to try and save our comrades from the ocean nevertheless.