He communicated that, I believe, to Doctor Dix. I found that later it had been given to the press. They of course have had adequate information therefore as to this witness. However, I am speaking about the policy. We cannot be under obligation to inform these counsel of the names of witnesses who will be called who are here in Nurnberg, but not in prison; the situation does not permit of that. Neither can we furnish transcripts of testimony or that sort of thing of witnesses in advance. the fair conduct of the trial they ought to have. They are now receiving much more than any citizen of the United States gets on trial in the courts of the United States, in some respects, as to advance information and copies and help and service, and I do think that to ask us to disclose to them in advance either the names or substance of testimony -oftentimes the substance would disclose the witness -- would be proper. It was stated yesterday that we would take up a witness today.
THE PRESIDENT: We have already heard two counsel on behalf of the Defense. Have you anything to add which is different to what they have said?
DOCTOR DIX (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): Yes. I believe that I can elucidate a misunderstanding and contribute to the simplification of the whole problem. May I address the Court?
I believe that there is a misunderstanding here. As to what was discussed before I do not know, but the situation so far is the following: between the prosecution and the Defense Counsel, as your Lordship knows. There is, as regarding documents, only an agreement regarding documents, which I do not have to repeat because the Court knows of it. So far as witnesses are concerned I believe that I may presuppose that we are all agreed that the wish of the defense to know ahead of time what witnesses will appear is justified.
is in itself justified, cannot be granted for security reasons. That is a matter which lies outside the determination of the Defense. But I believe that I understood Mr. Justice Jackson correctly in believing that if the press is informed what witnesses will appear the next day, then as a matter of course the same communication should be made to Defense Counsel. But that was only a happy concatenation of circumstances, an accident that can always happen, and which with mutual understanding and goodwill can be obviated in the future. As I said, I do not know what was agreed on before my presence here.
Consequently I cannot contradict my colleague, Doctor Stahmer, in this matter, but it is possible that the misunderstanding arose because the gentleman who agreed the documents should be submitted beforehand and be communicated to us forty-eight hours ahead of time. and that the film was to be shown gives my colleague the impression which I believe is justified that all such documents were to be submitted to them. wish that we be informed what witness is to be called as soon as possible; and I express the further wish that security considerations should be guided by the fact that the Defense Counsel are reliable people taking part in a disciplined trial and are determined to assist the progress of the trial, and that subsequently the cases in which the security officer believes that he should not communicate the name of the witness beforehand, that such cases should be reduced to an absolute minimum.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the submissions which have been made to them on behalf of Defense Counsel with reference to what should or what should not be communicated to them. With reference to the witness whom the United States desire to call, they will now be permitted to call him; and with reference to what I said about confining his evidence to the first count the Tribunal thinks that the best course would be for the other Prosecutors to have the opportunity now to ask any questions which they think right, and that they may have the opportunity, if they wish, of calling the witness later upon their own counts.
As to cross-examination by the Defendants' Counsel, that will be allowed to them in the most convenient way possible, so that if they wish to have an opportunity of communicating with their clients before they cross-examine them they may have the opportunity of doing so. Now we will continue.
COLONEL AMEN: May we have General Lahousen brought before the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: Will you stand in front of the microphone there so that you can be heard?
BY THE PRESIDENT: Q What is your name? A Erwin Lahousen. Q Will you please spell it? A L-a-h-o-u-s-e-n. Q Will you say this oath after me? I swear by God-A I swear by God-Q --the Almighty and Omniscient,-A --the Almighty and Omniscient,-Q --that I will speak the pure truth-A --that I will speak the pure truth-Q --and will withhold and add nothing. A --and will withhold and add nothing.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you think the witness had better sit down?
COLONEL AMEN: I think he should be allowed to sit down, particularly as he has a heart condition which may be aggravated.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; you can sit down. BY COLONEL AMEN: Q Where were you born? A I was born in Vienna. Q On what date? A The 25th of October 1897. Q What has been your occupation? A I was a professional soldier. Q Where were you trained? A I was trained in Austria, in the Military Academy in Vienna Neustadt. Q Are you regularly commissioned as an officer? A In the year 1915 I was commissioned as lieutenant in the infantry. Q Did you serve in the first World War? A Yes, as first and second lieutenant in the infantry. Q Were you promoted from time to time thereafter? A Yes, and finally I was promoted according to the normal regulations in Austria at that time.
Q By 1930 what rank had you attained? A In the year 1930 I was major--I beg your pardon, I was captain. Q And commencing in 1930 did you take any additional training? A In 1930 I entered the Austrian War School, which corresponds to the Military Academy in the German Army. I entered it for instructions to enter the General Staff. Q How long did this training last? A This training lasted three years. Q In 1933 to what regular army unit were you assigned? A In 1933 I was serving in the Second Austrian Division, the so-called Vienna Division. Q What type of work did you do there? A I was intelligence officer; that service for which I was trained Q. Did you then receive a further promotion?
during my training with the General Staff. A. I was promoted in accordance with the regular regulations in Austria, and roughly at the end of 1933 I was a Major. About 1935 or the beginning of 1936 I was taken into the General Staff--and, at any rate, in the summer of 1936 became Lieutenant Colonel in the Austrian General Staff. Q. And were you assigned to the intelligence division at or about that time? A. I entered the Austrian Intelligence Service; that corresponds to the-- to what is called in the German Army "Abwehr." I must add that a Nachrichten Abteilung was only added to the Austrian Army in about the time 1936; theretofore there was no such department. And for this reason within the limits of the Austrian Federal Army, that is to say, after the collapse of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, it was thus the intention to reestablish this department after that, and for that reason I was trained for this department in the recently established Nachrichten Abteilung to organize this service. Q. After being assigned to the Intelligence Division how were your activities principally directed? A. My responsible chief, that is to say, the responsible chief was at that time Colonel of the General Staff Boehme; the division chief to whom I was subordinate, the chief of the Intelligence Service, that is to say, the man responsible to me or rather the one to whom I was responsible, from whom I received my orders.
THE PRESIDENT: Can't you shorten this, Colonel Amen? We really needn't have all this detail.
COLONEL AMEN: Very good, Sir. It is, however, I think important for the Tribunal to understand more of this information than you ordinarily would by virtue of the fact that he was taken over subsequently to a corresponding position in the German Army, which I did want the Tribunal to appreciate. BY COLONEL AMEN: Q. Now, will you state to the Tribunal what your principal activities were after being assigned to the Intelligence Division?
What information were you interested in and seeking to obtain?
A. If I understand you correctly, I was a member of the Austrian Service and not in the German so-called "Abwehr."
Q After the Anschluss, what position did you assume? the High Command of the German armed forces, and did the same job there. My chief there was Admiral Canaris.
Q And what was the position of Admiral Canaris? of Foreign Abwehr--that is to say, Intelligence. of the principal departments of the Abwehr under Admiral Canaris?
A When, in 1938, I entered the Ausland's Abwehr, there were three Abwehr divisions. The division called, at that time, "Ausland"--at least, I was acquainted with this organization, as I shall state. How it was before that I cannot say.
Q And what were your duties? Abwehr Division I. That is the section that was concerned with collecting information on secret communications. I worked under the Chief, at that time, Chief of Section Colonel-General Pieckenbrock, as well as Canaris, whom I know from my Austrian past.
Q Admiral Canaris was your immediate superior? representative? representative--that is, Colonel Pieckenbrock-- was not present, or on those occasions when Canaris, for one reason or another, considered it necessary or advisable to have me appear as his representative.
Field Marshal Keitel?
Q. Did you also have contact with Jodl?
A. To a much less extensive degree, but occasionally..
Q. And did you occasionally attend conferences at which Hitler was also present ?
A. Yes, I took part in a few of the sessions or meetings at which Hitler was present and which he conducted.
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal whether the leaders of the Abwehr were in sympathy with Hitler's war program?
A. I must state in this regard that we chiefs, at that time, in the Intelligence Department were deeply influenced by the personality of Canaris , his inner orientation, which was perfectly clear to a small group of us.
against the Nazis?
A Within the Ausland's Abwehr office there were two groups which, so far as their intentions and actions were concerned, intermingled to a great extent, but which must, nevertheless, be discriminated between.
Q And what were those two groups? the personality of Canaris, who was the central point and focus of this group.
A Canaris was a personality of pure intellect. We relied on his inner, very unique and complicated nature, for this reason. He hated and abominated the war; he hated, also, Hitler, his system, and particularly his methods. Canaris was, in whatever way you may look upon him, a human being. tell me about each of those two groups and their respective memberships?
A One might characterize one of the groups as Canaris' circle. It included, in the Ausland's Abwehr, and particularly among the leaders of it, above all, Canaris himself, the spiritual leader of it; the General, at that time, Oster, Chief of the Central Division, the fuehrer of foreign Abwehr; my predecessor, Lieutenant-Colonel Grosskurt, who, along with Canaris in the year 1938, was still in Vienna. Further, the Chief of Abwehr Section I, Colonel Pieckenbrock, who was a close friend of Canaris; Pieckenbrock's successor, Colonel Hansen, who was executed on June 28; my successor, Colonel Freytag-Lorrindhofen, who was executed, or rather, who committed suicide on July 26, before his arrest; then Chief of Abwehr Section III, Colonel Bentivegny. Then there were, in all sections, various people who, for the most part--in connection with the events of July 20--were executed or imprisoned. but I knew of actions which were the prevention of or the failure to follow orders, the contents of which were murder or other atrocities. Chief Buerckner was aware of these things.
Those are essentially the leaders, whom I knew as members of Canaris' circle. its spiritual leader; namely, those people in the Amt Ausland's Abwehr who, as early as 1938; could clearly foresee the years 1939 and 1940 and the subsequent consequenced, and who, consequently, took active measures with plans and actions to prevent the conception of this catastrophe by doing away with Hitler by force.
Q What was the purpose of the group to which you belonged; that is, Canaris' inner circle?
AAs regards the political motives or aims, I was not oriented. I can only reiterate the train of thought that is best known to me because I was one of Canaris' most intimate confidants. He determined the basic attitude, his inner attitude, which determined the actions not only of myself but of the other people whom I mentioned, an attitude which was known and which is as follows:
We did not succeed in preventing this war of aggression. The war signifies the end of Germany and our own end, and as such it was a misfortune and a catastrophe of the greatest proportions. However, a misfortune that would have been even greater than this catastrophe would have been a triumph of Hitler. possible, to prohibit and prevent such a triumph. I am speaking.
Q. Now, did this group of which you and Canaris were members meet frequently? as an organization in the technical sense, or any sort of conspirators' club.
That would have been a basic contradiction of Canaris' essential nature. It was, rather, a spiritual organization of people of the same convictions, of people who were perspicuous, of people who understood and who acted but who maintained, each for himself, his complete inner individuality. beginning. Each individual did not demand the same thing; rather, Canaris turned, at any one time, to the person whom he knew from his personal knowledge of the character of that person, to be the person most fit to carry out such and such a task. Canaris expressed his views with respect to the use of force in Poland, for example? in our circle. They were, as a matter of course, repudiated. its commencement? broken, and informed us of the fact that the situation had become serious, although it had appeared theretofore that the situation might be saved. He told us that this was the end. your group with respect to eliminating Nazis from your staff? I received instructions from Canaris to admit into his office in Berlin absolutely no National Socialists. I was also instructed, in my section, whenever it might be possible, to admit no Party members or Party sympathetic officers -- that is, to admit them to high positions. Thus the actual organization -
Q Did Canaris keep a diary? of the war -- a diary to which I personally contributed many portions.
Q Was it part of your duties to make entries in that diary? out as a matter of course that, as regards those conferences which I attended as Canaris' representative, or at which I was present, I recorded such conferences in his diary.
Q And did you keep copies of the entries which you made in Canaris' diary?
A Yes, I kept copies, with Canaris' complete knowledge and approbation.
Q. You have the original of some of those copies with you here today?
A. I do not have them on my person, but they are here at one's disposal.
Q. And you have refreshed your recollection in reference to those entries?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the purpose of Canaris in keeping such a diary?
A. If I answer the question I must, in the interests of truth, repeat the words that Canaris addressed to me on this subject. Others know also what I am saying now.
The purpose of his diary--and it is Canaris' voice speaking now through me--the purpose of his diary was to inform Germany and the world, once and for all, how those people were guilty who were guiding the fate of this people at this time.
Q. Now, do you recall attending conferences with Canaris at the Fuehrer's headquarters just prior to the fall of Warsaw?
A. I and Canaris took part in a conference which did not take place in the Fuehrer's headquarters, but in the so-called Fuehrer's train, and which took place shortly before the fall of Warsaw.
Q. And having refreshed your recollection from reference to the entries in Canaris' diary, can you tell the Tribunal the date of those conferences?
A. According to the notes at my disposal--that is to say, according to Canaris' diary--it was the 12th of September, 1939.
Q. Did each of these conferences take place on the same day?
A. The conferences in the Fuehrer's train took place on September 12.
Q. And was there more than one conference on that day? Were they split into several conferences?
A. I cannot call them sessions; they were discussions, conversations, of some duration, but not actually conferences.
Q. And who was present on this occasion?
A. Present, depending on time and space, were the following: Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop; Keitel, the Chief, at that time, of the OKW; Chief, at that time, of the Wehrmacht Fuehrungsstab, Jodl; Canaris; and myself.
Q. Do you see Ribbentrop in this court room?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you indicate for the record where he is sitting?
A. Over there--(indicating)--in the first row, third from the left.
Q. Do you also see Keitel in the court room?
A. Yes; he is next to Ribbentrop.
Q. Do you also see Jodl in the court room?
A. Yes; he is in the second row, next to Herr von Papen.
Q. Now, to the best of your knowledge and recollection, will you please explain, in as much detail as possible, to the Tribunal, exactly what was said and what took place at this conference in the Fuehrer's train?
Ribbentrop, particularly as regards the Poland regions. These political aims came up in the following conference at that time of the OKW. He explained them. In fact, as established by the notes I took on Admiral Canaris' commission immediately after the conference, while we were still in the train of the Chief at that time of the OKW, Canaris expressed serious scruples regarding the bombardment of Warsaw. Canaris pointed out the devastating foreign political repercussions of such a bombardment. The Chief at that time of the OKW, Keitel, answered that these measures had been agreed on and established directly between Goering and Hitler and that he, Keitel had had no influence on these decisions. He said at that time -- and this I can repeat only after having read my notes -- the Fuehrer and Goering telephoned frequently back and forth; sometimes I also found out something about what was said, but not always. namely Canaris, had found, out about to wit: the projected shooting and extermination measures that were being directed particularly against the Polish intelligentsia, nobility and clergy, as well as all elements that could be regarded as embodiments of the national resistance movement. Canaris said at that time, more or less verbatim, the world will at some time make the armed forces under whose eyes these events have occurred also responsible for these events. to say is based on my notes - that those things had already been determined by the Fuehrer and that the Fuehrer, the Commander in Chief of the army, had made it known that if the armed forces did not want to have any part in those things, it would have to satisfy itself with the fact that the SS and the SIPO and such organizations should appear at the same time on the field with it and that those organizations would then carry out these measures. Thus, all military commanders would be given a corresponding civilian official. That is to say, on the extermination measures and the policy of shooting.
Q Was anything said about a so-called political house-cleaning?
expression which, at any rate, had its origin in Hitler and which characterized these measures as "political house-cleaning". This expression remains very clearly in my recollection without the aid of my notes. measures did Keitel say had already been agreed upon. agreed upon as regards the bombardment of Warsaw and as regards the shooting of those categories of people who I characterized before.
Q And what were they? course, the Jews.
Q What, if anything, was said about cooperation with a Ukrainian group? of a directive that apparently he had received from Ribbentrop in connection with the political intentions of the Foreign Minister. He explained them in connection with the Foreign Ministry. Keitel explained that in the Ukraine a resistance movement was to be called forth that should have as its goal the extermination of Poles and Jews.
Q At what point did Hitler and Jodl enter the meeting? took place, or just at the conclusion of this discussion, and Canaris had already begun his report on the situation in the West: that is to say, the news that had cone in in the meantime regarding the attitude of the French army at the West Wall.
Q And what further discussions then took place? of the OKW, Canaris left the train and had a short talk with Ribbentrop, who, returning to the scene of the Ukraine, told him once more that the uprising or the resistance movement must be so arranged -- and what I say now is well known to me and well recollected -- should be so arranged that all houses and all dwellings of the Poles should be consumed by fire.
Q Who said that? Canaris. I was standing next to him.
Q Is there any slightest doubt in your mind about that?
A No. I am not in the slightest doubt about that. I remember it with particular clarity. I remember it in particular because of the formulation that all dwellings should go up in flames because previously the talk had been of such things as liquidation.
Q Was there any note in Canaris' diary which helped to refresh your recollection on that point also?
Q What, if anything, was said on the subject of France? of the OKW' s train. Canaris presented the matter in this way; namely according to this information, a great attack in the region of Saarbruecken was being prepared by the French. In this conversation, Hitler, who had entered the room in the meantime, took over the conversation and expressed an- opinion different from that which Canaris had just expressed, giving arguments which, as I look back on it now, I must recognize as factually correct. Ribbentrop said anything about the Jews? of the Chief of the OKW, Ribbentrop was not present. conferences Ribbentrop said anything about the Jews? the train, no. have referred to the Chief of the OKW, you were referring to Keitel?
campaign?
Q Did that undertaking have any special name? this undertaking that took place just before the Polish campaign, was given the name Himmler. required? the most mysterious actions which took place in the atmosphere of the Abwehr office. Sometime -- I believe it was the middle of August -- the precise date can be found in the diary of the section, the Abwehr Section, as well as my section, Abwehr Section 2, was charged with the job of turning over Polish uniforms and equipment, as well as identification cards and so on, to turn over such things to Himmler or to make them available to him. As the diary which I kept -- or the diary which I did not keep, my representative Canaris received it from the Wehrmacht Fuehrungs Stab or from the Landesverteidigun -- National Defense.
Q Do you know where this request originated?
A Whence the request originated I cannot say. I can only say again it reached us in the form of an order. It was, to be sure, an order on which we, those chiefs of sections who came into the question, had our own notions, without knowing what in the last analysis it was about, but the name Himmler was eloquent enough. In the notes and diary of the section, expression is given to the fact that I asked the question why Mr. Himmler was to receive uniforms from us.
Q To whom was the Polish material to be furnished by the Abwehr? some man from the SS or the SD -- the name is on the official diary of the War Department -- fetched them.
was to be used? was concealed from us. We at that time had a very understandable suspicion that something crocked was afoot, particularly because of the name of the undertaking.
Q Did you subsequently find out from Canaris what in fact had happened?
A The actual course of events was the following: When the first bulletin came that spoke of the attack of Polish units on German territory, Pieckenbrock, who had the report in his hand, observed that it was the uniforms that we had provided that appeared in this action. Whether it was on the same day or a few days later, I can not say at this time, but at any rate Canaris discovered that it was these uniforms in which people from concentration camps had been disguised and had pretended to make a military attack on the radio station at Gleiwitz. to know the details of this action; that is, to know where it occurred and what happened in detail, as a matter of fact, we could imagine it, but we did not know for sure. tration camps that were the Polish uniforms and created the incident? I spoke about these matters in the hospital in which I was confined with the SS Hauptsturmfuehrer who was there then, and I asked him how events had actually taken place. The man--his name was Birckel--told me, "It is peculiar but even we in our circles only found out about these matters much, much later, and then what we did find out was only by implication. So far as I knew, all members of the SD who took part in that action were put out of the way; that is to say, were killed." That is the last that I heard of this matter. Weygand was under discussion?