That is, he was being continually pressed by Keitel that something must at last be done in this matter. Our attitude was the same as in the matter of Weygand. All of us who were present rejected absolutely this new request to carry out a murder. Canaris was of the same opinion and Canaris thereupon went down to Keitel in order to induce him to leave the Military Abwehr out of all such matters, and as it happened at former times, and as he had already requested earlier, to leave such matters to the SD. Pieckenbrock spoke and I remember every word. He said it was about time that Keitel was told clearly that he should tell Hitler, his Hitler, that we, the Military Abwehr, were no murder organization like the SD or the SS, After a short time, Canaris came back and said it was now quite clear he had convinced Keitel that we, the Military Abwehr, were to be left out of such matters and the rest of it was to be left to the SD. this order had been given, said to me that the execution must be, will be, prevented at any cost. He would take care of that and I was to support him.
Q I don't think you have yet told us just who was present at this conference? which I have already mentioned; Colonel General Bentivegny, and I. Probably, too, General Oster, and possibly Buerkner, but I cannot remember. In my notes only those three chiefs are mentioned who already rejected the proposal. attention again? recorded, Keitel rang me up in my private department. He asked me what was happening with Gustav, "you know what I mean by Gustav." I said, "On Gustav, yes, I know." "How is the matter progressing, I must know, it is very urgent." I answered, "I have no information on the subject. Canaris has reserved this matter for himself, and Canaris is not here, he is in Paris." Then came the order from Keitel, or rather, or before he gave the order came one other question. "You know that the others are to carry out the order." By the others, he means the SS or the SD. I answered, "Yes, I know." Then came an order from Keitel once more to inquire how the matter -- how the whole matter is progressing. "I must know it urgently," he said. I said, "Yes." But went at once to the office of the Ausland's Abwehr, General Oster, and informed him what had happened. For his reply of what was to be done by Canaris and me in this extremely painful matter. I told him what Oster already knew, that the Canaris Abwehr had told the SD no words, or what the SD was intending to carry out., that is to say, the murder of Giraud. General Oster advised me to fly to Paris immediately and to tell Canaris, to tell Canaris, and to warn him. I flew the next day to Paris, and in a hotel while we were at dinner in a small -- we were in a small circle, and Admiral Buerkner was present, I told Canaris what had happened. Canaris was horrified and amazed, and for a moment he saw no solution. presence of other officers, it was Colonel Rudolph, and another man whose name I have forgotten, Canaris asked me when Giraudhad fled from Koenigstein, and the next day -- that is, when the assassination of Heydrich had been attempted, and I knew these dates, and told them in part when he had the three dates.
He was instantly relieved, and his face which had been very clouded, relaxed. He was certainly relieved in every way. I must say that in particular -- at the three days conference of the Abwehr Heydrich was present. It was a meeting between Amt Abwehr III and the co-ordinating people at the meeting of the Prague.
Canaris then based his whole plan on these three dates. His plan was to attempt to show that Heydrich at that conference had harped on the order to carry out the action. That is to say, his plan was to use the death of Heydrich to wreck the whole proposition. The next day we flew to Berlin, and Canaris reported to Keitel that the matter was quite in order, and that Canaris at the three days conference in Prague had given Heydrich the necessary instructions, and Heydrich had prepared everything, that is, a special purpose action had been started in order to have Giraud murdered, and there that same matter was finished and dropped.
COLONEL AMEN: There was a mistake I think in the translation back a little ways. If you don't mind will you please go back to where you first referred to Heydrich with Canaris, and repeat the story, because I think that the translation was incorrect. In other words, go back to the point where Canaris suddenly seemed relieved, and started to tell you what the apparent solution might be.
THE WITNESS: All these present saw that Canaris was much relieved, as he head from me the three dates. His whole plan is already maneuvered like as they did with Heydrich; to him it was intellectual, simply intellectual combination that he was making of the three dates. And the essential part was the date of the escape of Giraud, and the three day conference. If this conference had taken place before his escape, the combination would probably not have been possible, or it could not be made convincing.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Amen, what is the reason for the repition?
COLONEL AMEN: There was a mistake in the record. If it is the wish of the Tribunal, I shall not have him repeat it any further.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems clear to the Tribunal what was said.
COLONEL AMEN: Very well. concerned?
A Nothing more happened. Later, I only heard very much later that Hitler was first indignant about this escape, and said that the SD had failed miserably, that it had to be written down in the notes of the hauptquarter. The man who told me this is in the American zone.
Q Where you acquainted with Colonel Rowehls?
Q Who was he?
A He was an officer. He was a colonel of the Luftwaffe group.
Q What was the work of the special squadron to which he was attached? the Auslands Abwehr reconnaissance, in certain respects over certain states.
Q Were you ever present when he reported to Canaris?
Q Do you recall what Rowehl told Canaris on those occasions? first Abwehr -- Amt Abwehr I was responsible for this, and scrutinized these results. been made over? I cannot say in any greater detail what territory, and what state in the southeast, but I know that this squadron was stationed in Budapest for such reconnaissances.
Q Did you personally see some of these photographs? reconnaissance flights over London and Leningrad were being made?
A I can not give the exact date. I only remember being present at the Abwehr with Canaris, or with Bentivegny who was there sometimes; that this reconnaissance flight did take place, and photographic material was furnished, and that the squadron operated upon Hungary airfields, and sometimes they flew back to Berlin.
I knew some of the pilots from their activities. say, when these reconnaissance flights were being made?
Q And were these flights being made from Hungary, if you know? Jews in certain territories? III, and I have copies made for Canaris and for no, and copies of that report made for Canaris, and a copy for myself.
Q Is that an official report?
A Yes, and it is reported. The files would show from what office it came to us. In this connection Borison is the particular none in connection with this shooting of the Jews. I never knew very well.
COLONEL AMEN: Now may it please the Tribunal I should like to offer in evidence a photostatic copy, or copies of the entries made by the witness in every detail, together with a photostatic copy of the report. The originals are here in court, but cannot be lifted out of the box in which they are contained. They are so much damaged by a bomb explosion that if they were to be lifted out of the box, they would be destroyed beyond use, but we have had them photostated, and the photostatic copies are new available. That letter would be Exhibit U.S.A. 80-3047-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand, Colonel Amen that only such portions of this document as are read in court will be offered in evidence?
COLONEL AMEN: Well, these have been used by the witness to refresh his recollection.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know they have.
COLONEL AMEN: And none of them have been read in full in court, but they may be so read at any time, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: If you want them to go into evidence as documents, you must read then, of course. Colonel Anon, do you want to use the documents any more than you already used then for the purpose of refreshing the witness's memory?
COLONEL AMEN: I do not, sir, except having used then in this fashion, I now think it is only fair to offer then in evidence for the information and scrutiny of the Tribunal; for my own purpose they have served their purpose.
THE PRESIDENT: If the defense counsel wish to see them for the purpose of cross-examination, of course, they may do so.
COLONEL AMEN: Oh, yes, sir. I have offered already sir, to be Exhibit U.S.A. 80-3047-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: But otherwise they may not be put in evidence?
COLONEL AMEN: Correct. the plans of the German Reich for waging of war?
THE PRESIDENT: From this damaged paper, it seems to contain a report on the execution of the Jews in Borisov.
COLONEL AMEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That again will not be in evidence unless you read it.
COLONEL AMEN: Correct, sir. We will include that in the offer which I just made to you, that unless what we are offering is desired by the Court, I will not offer it in evidence but only read it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Court does not desire it.
COLONEL AMEN: Very well, I will repeat the question. plan of the German Reich for waging of war? for these matters. which was not available to an ordinary person, or to an ordinary officer in the army?
A Yes, certainly. It belongs to my office. in your group come to any decisions as to whether or not the attack on Poland, for example, was an unprovoked act of aggression?
THE PRESIDENT: Well -
THE WITNESS: Would you be kind enough to repeat the question?
THE PRESIDENT: That is one principal question which this court has to decide. You cannot produce evidence upon a question which is within the province of the court to decide.
COLONEL AMEN: Very well, sir. The witness is now available for cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it the Russian Prosecutors wish to ask any questions of this witness?
THE RUSSIAN PROSECUTOR: You have made definite replies to questions, and I should like to have certain details. were under the direction of German Wehrmacht? Germans?
A The commandos perhaps is not the right expression. They were people who were together in camps, and had had an apparent military training.
Q What was the function of those commandos?
A They were organizations. They came from the Caucasian, they come from the Caucasian Ukrania, and had worked together with the office of the Abwehr.
Q What was the actual function of these troops? beginning of hostilities. There was the field commando line of officers to which I belonged.
Q What functions did those troops have?
Q Otherwise, in what territory? that is to say, in a concrete case about those natters, to say, particularly in Poland.
Q In this case of Poland, what was the sabotage and other activities?
military administrations. I have just described the activities in general. That is to say the destruction of important military installations.
Q I am asking you, what else? Whether any militaristic acts as to its commands?
A That the Abwehr officer didn't give them their political, but the Auslands Abwehr, these were given to them by the confidentes service of the Reichs.
Q You have misunderstood me. You are speaking about sabotage, and I was asking you about terroristic acts. Do you understand me. Wasn't there terror? New, I am not clear. May I again repeat. As well as to sabotage acts, was there any terror acts in there?
terrorism. From whose side was the question of terror?
A Well, that was the whole point at the time. The military OGPU in various forms was always being asked to use our purely military organization for political or terroristic purposes; for example, as can be shown by notes in the files, in the preparation of the campaign against Poland. upon as a logical enemy and was subjected to special measures, what do you mean by special measures? I repeat the question. You have said that Red Army man was locked upon by you--I mean, by the German High Command as a geographical enemy and was to be subjected to special measures. What does it mean? What do you mean by saying "special measures"? taken, which I have already spoken of, and I should like to add that there was much, much more of it than I can say from my after all restricted point of view. commandos which were picked from the prisoners of war. I understand that the picking was done--one was to be killed and the other one was to go to labor? cerned with the execution of those selected among the prisoners of war. as to who was to die? Reinecke. It was the leader of those special purpose squads who had to decide who was to be looked upon as Bolshevistically tainted or not. do with them?
A. Up to the date of the discussion in which I have participated with Canaris, that was one of the points of this discussion. against those orders, and so forth. What were the results of these protests? modest that you can hardly call them results at all. The fact that executions were to take place out of sight of the troops instead of in sight of the troops, I can hardly call real results. ject, and had Mueller made any concessions? You told us when you were asked by General Alexander--You were questioned by Colonel Rosenblith, a representative of the Soviet Union. I am sorry, I made a mistake. Perhaps you will remember your communication to Colonel Rosenblith regarding the conversation with Mueller and the concessions Mueller has made. I shall ask you to tell us that again.
A But I am not quite clear about the name Alexander. I do not know what Alexander means in this connection.
Q Alexander was a mistake on my part. Forget it. I am interested in the question of Mueller about shootings, and so forth. selections. I gave a concrete example for the message; a particular incident was the Crimean Province, that is, with Soviet soldiers who came from the Crimea, Those who were Mohammedans were declared, for certain reasons, to be Jews and were executed; so apart from the brutality of all these measures, that shows what irrational views were responsible for the choice, views that a normal person cannot explain at all. I have already pointed that out.
THE PRESIDENT: He doesn't hear you. Carry on. Go a little bit more slowly. BY THE RUSSIAN PROSECUTOR:
Q Have you finished your conversation with Mueller?
A No, I didn't quite finish. I had many discussions with Mueller. All the subjects about which I have given evidence were subjects of conversations with Mueller, He was the person responsible, at least in one sector. I submitted, Reinecke gave the decision either from below or from me. I would be grateful if you would tell me what particular points you would like to have explained, and I would gladly repeat it.
Q You have spoken about murders, and so forth. I am interested about the shootings. What did you say about it? How were the shootings to take place after you protested about it? done in a separate place, if the troops are so distrubed by it, and if their morale suffers; that was the main meaning of what he said.
Q That was the result of your protest?
Q And the last question. Well, the conditions of the concentration camps where Soviet prisoners were taken, mass destruction of the prisoners, it was the order of the German High Command? the Reichshauptamt--I must declare that at the time I did not read the order but only heard of them through discussion with Reinecke, Reinecke as representative of the OKW, and similarly Mueller--it was in these discussions. sittings? Reinecke was not in the chair. I was not there as "Lahousen", but as a representative of the Ausland Abwehr.
they have come to you direct from the German High Command? very high place in the Reich, according to what Reinecke said at these discussions I have not seen it with my own eyes, as I repeatedly declared. these orders and when they were discussed?
A The discussion, certainly; I have already described this, of course. and burning of cities? but the commands that had been given, in respect to the prisoners.
Q About the murders only?
A (No answer)
THE PRESIDENT: Does the French Prosecutor wish to ask any questions? BY THE FRENCH PROSECUTOR:
Q Who gave the orders for the murder of the commandos?
A I didn't understand that--the destruction of the commandos? What was it exactly that you mean? Presumably the killing of members of the commando troops?
Q Who gave the orders for the execution? in our circles about this subject the idea came from Hitler himself in reorganizing the SD, but who else has helped in the reforming of the SD, I do not know.
Q The Defendants Keitel, Jodl, what orders did they handle; what orders did they give?
Q What are the reasons for these orders, as far as you know? my opinion, but as was said at the time, and I think also was in the order, and I didn't read it--it was supposed to have a prohibitive effect in order to crush and paralyze resistance.
Q Who gave the order to have General Giraud executed or murdered?
A I am sorry, Weygand and Giraud. The order to liquidate, that is, to murder Weygand and Giraud, Canaris told me it came to Keitel, but for the rest, through personal observations Keitel made to me in the case of Weygand, in the course of a lecture on the 23rd of December, 1940, at which I was present at this when Canaris was with Keitel, I was told about this order direct. In consequence, when I was asked about the progress of the affair about Weygand, and the fact that in the case of Giraud, the order went from Keitel to Canaris, I heard from Canaris himself, just as the other men who were present, and for the rest, the second time, on the occasion of a lecture when I was with Canaris at Keitel's room in July, 1942. It was communicated to us in much the same way as in the case of Weygand. And lastly, I heard it directly in the telephone conversation which I already described here. I heard it from Keitel in the form that it was a matter of extreme urgency.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to ask any questions, Dr. Nelte?
DR. NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): The witness, Lahousen, has given very important evidence, particularly -
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to make a speech now?
DR. NELTE: My client, the Defendant Keitel, would like to put numerous questions to the witness after he has had a discussion with me. I therefore ask the Tribunal to allow either that there may be a considerable adjournment how or that at the next session this question may be discussed in cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. You shall have an opportunity to crossexamine at ten o'clock tomorrow. Does any member of the Tribunal wish to ask any questions of the witness now? BY THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): of the Russians and in connection with the treatment of the prisoners were in writing?
Q. Were they official orders?
A. Yes, they were official orders, but it was the actual order that was brought out in a circumlocutory way. It was explained in words by Reinecke and others. It was in this way that I had my knowledge of these orders. I didn't read the orders myself at the time, but I knew that it was not merely oral arrangements, because I knew that there was something written, but I cannot say whether it was one order or what kind of orders or whether they had signatures, but my knowledge comes from discussions, from reports from which I learned quite clearly the existence of such orders.
Q. Do you know to whom or to what organizations such orders were usually addressed?
A. Orders of this kind, they went principally to the OKW, because it was a question for such matters of prisoners of war which were matters for the OKW, and Reinecke was the representative of the OKW.
Q. So usually the members or some of the members of the General Staff would have known of such orders, would they not?
A. Certainly, according to their contents, many members of the Wehrmacht must have known of the contents of these orders, for the reaction of the Wehrmacht against these orders was tremendous. Apart from the service view, which is what I have reported here in Cassino and elsewhere, these things were discussed a great deal, because all these things were matters which were likely to have the most unfavorable effect on the troops, particularly the front. Officers and high-ranking Officers either did not transmit these orders or sought to evade them in some way and this was discussed a great deal in many places. I have named some of these Officers; some of them are contained in the records. It was not an every-day occurrence, but it was the topic of the day.
Q. And were the orders known to the leaders of the SA and SD?
A. They must have been known to them, for the ordinary soldiers who watched all these proceedings knew it, and even some of the civilian population; civilians came to us, people who came from the front and wounded soldiers who had heard far more details about these matters than I could tell here.
THE PRESIDENT: General Nikitchenko wants to ask a question. BY THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): murder of prisoners of war and brutal treatment. You received these orders from Reinecke?
A Well, I must correct something that I said. We didn't get the order in the Ausland Abwehr because it had nothing to do with us, but we only knew about it, and we went into these conferences as representatives of the Ausland Abwehr. But we ourselves had nothing to do with the treatment of prisoners of war, and certainly not in this negative sense. were such instructions ever given? Were there any meetings of the high command headquarters about killings and ill-treatment of prisoners of war? subject, but I was not present at them, so I can't say anything more about it.
Q In the headquarters?
Q In the headquarters of the German Army? because our office had nothing to do with prisoners of war in this sense. We were interested in the proper treatment of prisoners. killing them and murdering? At these meetings, Ribbentrop was also present?
A No, certainly not. These discussions, I mean the one conference about which I have given testimony, took place after the fact. Everything had already happened; executions had already taken place, and the results had already been shown. Protests of all kinds had been made, had come from the front and come from other places. For example, from our own office, Abwehr, these conferences were intended to show the necessity of giving the reasons for the orders which had already been given, some of which had already been carried out, and these discussions took place after the beginning of operations, after the orders which had been given had already been carried cut.
All that had been touched upon had already happened and its effect had already been felt. Facts that had already happened were being discussed with the idea of making one more attempt on our part to rectify them.
Q All these reports about results?
A That's what I talked about, and that was the subject of the discussions with Reinecke. I did not take part in the other discussions. and burning of towns and villages?
A I must make something clear. Am I being asked about the conference in the Fuehrer's train or the case of Warsaw? According to the entries in the diary, it took place on the 12th of September 1939. The meaning of this order which Ribbentrop gave and which Keitel gave to Canaris, and which was again discussed by Ribbentrop and Canaris, was the cooperation of the national youth organizations in military operations. They had cooperated. The object of this cooperation was to cause revolution in Poland -- to exterminate the Poles and the Jews, that is to say, above all such elements as were always being discussed in these conferences. When Poles are mentioned, the intelligentsia especially is meant, and any persons who would be tokens of resistance. These connections I have already described and it has already been noted in the files. The idea was not to kill Ukrainians but, on the contrary, to carry out these objects together with the Ukrainians. The cooperation had actually occurred in the connection of Ausland Abwehr and these people, who were only about five hundred or a thousand. All this cooperation can be seen by the diary. There was a pure preparation for military sabotage.
Q These instructions were received from Ribbentrop and Keitel?
A They came from Ribbentrop. Such orders which concerned the political contents couldn't possibly . . .
Q I am not asking you whether they could or could not. I am asking you where they came from. files. This is the note that I made for Canaris.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Doctor.
DR. DIX: I have three short questions. May I put them?
THE PRESIDENT: It is now past four, and we have to hear the requests of the Defendant Hess, and the Court has to be cleared for them. So I think you had better postpone them until tomorrow.
(At this point a short recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: I call upon counsel for the defendant Hess.
DR. von ROHRSCHEIDT (Counsel for the Defendant Hess): May it please the Tribunal, I an speaking here as counsel for the Defendant Rudolf Hess. has to decide on the question whether the defendant is capable of being heard or not, and also whether the condition are present which would make him entirely irresponsible. opinion, and has asked those who are expressing their opinion--the experts-to say whether, firstly, the defendant is in a state in which he can plead against the charge; secondly, about his mental stability. And the question here was formulated as to whether the defendant is mentally sound or not. the Tribunal has asked the experts certain questions as to whether the defendant is sufficiently in possession of his mental faculties in order to understand the proceedings, and whether an adequate defense can be undertaken --that is, whether he can understand evidence given. several different days and given their expert opinion to the Tribunal. I, as his defense counsel must, because it is my duty, after having studied these experts' opinions--I couldn't do it sufficiently thoroughly, because time was short--I personally, after having looked at these documents, and in conjunction with my experience with Defendant Hess in almost daily discussions, am of the opinion that the Defendant Hess is not capable of pleading. ing application: quashed; secondly, in case his inability to plead should be admitted by the Tribunal, I should request the Tribunal not to carry out the proceedings if the Defendant is not there. But in case the Tribunal should consider Hess fit to plead, I should ask for an arbitral expert opinion in order to decide the question.
on behalf of the Defendant, that he, Hess himself, thinks he is fit to plead and would like to tell the Court so himself.
I would now like to give the reasons for my application: like the proceedings against Hess to be temporarily quashed. The experts come to the following result--I should like to call one of them the main expert. This was given by English, Soviet, and American experts, bearing the date of 15 November, 1945. I should like to cite textually from this. In this opinion it is said that the capacity of the Defendant Hess is reduced. That is to say, his capacity to defend himself and to face a witness and to understand the evidence. I have cited this formulation because it is closest to the question put to the experts by the Tribunal.
The opinion says that even if Hess' amnesia does not prevent the defendant from understanding what is going on about him and to follow the proceedings in Court-
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Would you speak a little more slowly? The interpreters are not able to interpret so fast. reports to which you wish to draw our attention?
Do you understand what I said?