No. 310 is another German summary of facts without any sources indicated. will turn back to the first page of my notes, it is the first eight documents on that page, down to No. 45. They are all allowed. There is no objection to then, except No. 12, which is the announcement of the Reichstag election results. It does not matter one way or the other whether that is in.
No. 45 is Lord Wallace's book "Warnings and Prophecies" of predictions and prophecies, I think which the Prosecution contends is not relevant evidence in this case.
The next lot of miscellaneous ones is on page 2, Nos. 70 to 73. No. 71 is the German-Lithuanian treaty about Memel, and there is no objection. No. 70 is thought to be rather irrelevant. No. 72 and 73 are objected to because they deal with the Fourteen points of president Wilson. right at the bottom, No. 296. That is a speech by Hitler on the Rhineland. You have all the evidence that has been given. It appears to be rather cumulative, if it is not in already. I have not actually checked whether it is in.
No. 298, on the top of the next page, is, in fact, superfluous. It is the same as No. 274 Down at the bottom of the last page, My Lord, 311, is a paper written by the defendant Ribbentrop on the Fuehrer's personality.
THE PRESIDENT: That has already been ruled out.
MR. BARRINGTON: That, I think, has been ruled out by My Lordship. No. 312 is an affidavit of Frau von Ribbentrop. No. 313 is an affidavit of Dr. Gottfriedsen. I understand from Dr. Horn that, although he had been allowed Dr. Gottfriedsen as a witness, he thinks it will save time if he read the affidavit or a part of it. perhaps, if Your Lordship will allow the Prosecution to make what comments they think fit when he comes to do that, it would be the best way of treating it.
Those are all my points, My Lord. There are just the low countries in the Balkans.
MR. DODD: May it please the Tribunal, Mr. Barrington has spoken for all of us, and I do not intend to go over any of these documents, except, that because I fear there is some question in the minds of the members of the Tribunal about our objection to documents running from 76 through 116, 118 to 122, and 114 to 148, the Polish documents, we also say, of course with Mr. Barrington that they are cumulative, but it seems to me there is a much more basic objection.
They all have to do with the alleged incidents inside of Poland and they were published in these White Papers. These incidents involved the mistreatment of polish citizens inside Poland, who were perhaps of German extraction, bell, it is our view that such documents are irrelevant here because it has no defense at all to the charges, and we cannot permit, we say, a nation to defend itself or these defendants to defend themselves on charges such as have been preferred here by proving that citizens of another state, although they may have been of German extraction or of any other extraction, were mistreated inside that state. These are beginning with 76, running through to 116; 118 through 122; 114 through 148; and 151 through 152. It is 124; through 148, rather than 114 through 148. The last one is 151 and 152.
M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: I will ask the Tribunal's permission to make two short reports on documents which are part of the fifth and sixth group, and which concern documents which are exclusively French and which have been taken from the German White Book. It is only in this way that the French Prosecution have taken cognizance of them contrary to what the Tribunal believes. The French Prosecution has not yet received a translation of the documents submitted by Dr. Horn. The first group, documents Nos. 221 to 245, are military documents, which Dr. Horn, it seems wishes to draw conclusions from to the effect that England and France violated the neutrality of Belgium. If we ask the Tribunal to reject the twentyfive documents, it is exclusively because we see the possibility of the Tribunal's using its time uselessly in discussion. We do not wish to present discussion, but we feel that it would be found that France and Belgium both scrupulously respected the pact which they had, that is to say, to respect the neutrality of Belgium; and, secondly, to respect the pact in which they had to guarantee the neutrality of Belgium.
or France or England that violated the neutrality of Belgium. Well, this matter has been asked of the accused, Ribbentrop, by his Counsel, and the accused has answered in the clearest manner possible -- at Saturday's session -- which the Tribunal certainly will remember. Ribbentrop stated that it is quite clear that "it is always very difficult in such a war to violate the neutrality of a country and one does not believe that there are things which we did lightheartedly." wherefore there is absolutely no reason for us now to discuss the matter of these twenty-five documents and whether they are pertinent.
Now, I come to the second group, Group No.6, General Staff Documents, which Germany pretends to have seized, and these concern events in the Balkans in 1939 and 1940. The French Prosecution asks you to reject the twenty-two documents submitted by Dr. Horn for the following two reasons;
That they have absolutely no character of authenticity; secondly, that they are not relevant; their authenticity -- as they are all extracted from the White Book, and the Tribunal knows the point of view of the Prosecution on this point. Moreover, a great number of these documents are documents which are represented to have come from Allied General Staffs. The individuals are not submitted. It is not said where they came from, and not one of these is brought in evidence in full. They all concern plans studied by General Staffs in 1939 and early 1940, and these plans of French or British intervention in Yugoslavia or Greece supposed, of course, that the Governments of these countries would agree or the plans would never be put into effect. unfortunately, to abandon all such plans. The documents are of 1939 and of 1940, and the Tribunal will remember that the aggression against Yugoslavia and Greece occurred on April 6, 1941, at a time when the government of Hitler had no mere reason to fear any plans of 1939. to the present discussion, and that is why the French Prosecution asks the Tribunal to reject them.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Horn?
(Dr. Horn approached the lectern) Dr. Horn, before you speak, the Tribunal thinks that possibly you may, in viewof the evidence given by the Defendant von Ribbentrop, find it feasible to withdraw some of these documents, in view of the time that has been taken up.
The Defendant von Ribbentrop has dealt with the subject very fully and it may be, therefore, that you will be able to withdraw some of these documents in order to save time.
DR. HORN: Certainly, Mr. President, any documents which might be cumulative I willwithdraw. I want to do that.
THE PRESIDENT: If you let us know now what it is you wish to withdraw-
DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President.
May I state my position as to a few basic questions? That is the probative value of reports by Embassies and in White Books. I would like to point out that these documents were decisive in forming a political opinion. That applies to von Ribbentrop as well as Hitler. And in addition, I would like to point out that the Prosecution in large scope has referred to similar reports, and I would ask for equal opportunity to the Defense in this connection. French General Staff. These documents which were found in the City of La Charitie during the course of the French campaign. If the doubts and misgivings as expressed by the French Prosecution are shared by the High Tribunal, I ask that the Commander of Heeresgruppe C be summoned as a witness -General loeb -- to show that these documents were all found in the City of La Charitie. the Polish Foreign Ministry, and as to that, the then Commander-in-Chief, Colonel General Blaskowits, can testify. And in this case I would wish to summon Blaskowitz as a witness, if the Tribunal has any doubts or misgivings in this connection. to only if incorrectness of the documents is shown by their contents, or if it can be proved that the documents were forged.
All other documents such as White Book reports or Ambassadors' reports, I ask that the Tribunal at least admit them as evidence. to point out that the Prime Minister Chamberlain himself considered the minority question as the decisive question between Germany and Poland, and this problem was equally as important as Danzig and The Corridor, and this question is therefore a reason for war. treatment of minorities -- violations on the part of Poland -- be admitted in evidence. judicial notice those documents and to quote certain vital phrases. And I would like to tell the Tribunal which documents and which parts I will dispense with.
DR. DIX (Counsel for the Defendant Schacht): I should be very grateful to the High Tribunal, aside from Ribbentrop's own case, as a basic principle, and not only from the point of view of the Defense, but purely objectively and basically, if I should be permitted to point out and take a position on the various questions which the High Tribunal must decide, whether it be a question of testimony of a witness or perhaps the matter of documentary evidence a request but I believe that we can abbreviate future discussions and debates in this manner. For I believe the High Tribunal will agree with me that the Defense will be saved lengthy speeches later on. Of course, I leave it up to the High Tribunal whether they consider this theproper time or whether I shall wait until my colleague, Dr. Horn, has completed the submission of documents. However, I would like to say this before the High Tribunal rules on the requests of the Prosecution and of Dr. Horn's: I would like to put the following question to the High Tribunal, whether it is agreeable to the High Tribunal that I briefly take a position on the questions, which in my opinion are rather important, before decision and ruling by the High Tribunal. May I do so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. DIX: I believe, without judging the legal basis of the exposition made here, and without judging them as to their legal worth, that certain fundamental concepts have been confused and presented.
piece of evidence -- and that applies to witnesses as well as documents -relevant? Point 2, is a piece of evidence as such, effective, and does it have value? Point 3, is a piece of evidence cumulative and therefore is it to be rejected on that count?
cumulative, then the request for evidencemust be turned down at this stage in the proceedings. If, however, the question of the credibility of a piece of evidence is concerned--that is the question of whether the answer of a witness can be believed or not or the question of whether the content of a document is to be considered creditable, as for instance, whether expositions set forth in a White Book are to be believed or not to be believed--that, in my opinion is a question which can be decided only when the piece of evidence at issue has been submitted and taken into the proceedings. no cause to say that this document is not to be used for it is a part of a document book of the German government. That a White Book, an official publication of any government, can be relevant nobody will doubt. Whether the passage that is read is of such value that the High Tribunal can give it credence, that is a question that will have to be decided after the piece of evidence has been submitted and after the piece of evidence has been admitted and the Tribunal has taken official notice of it. and the British Prosecutor has stated that reports of the German ambassadors to their Foreign Minister are, per se, not effective and should not be used. At least, that is the way I understood him. Only if the Prosecution wishes to use them can they be admitted; only if the Prosecutor wishes to use them can they be considered relevant. defended. The member of the British Prosecution cited Article 21 of the Charter, but Article 21 of the Charter does not concern this question. Article 21 of the Charter says only, so far as I have it in memory and I believe I do know the contents of it, says only that the investigation of the Victory powers, that crimes against war which more committed in their own countries do not have to be enumerated but merely to submit them forjudicial notice, but this question has nothing to do with the question of relevancy. The quest of a report by a German ambassador to his Foreign Office does not concern this problem. Whether this report is to be admitted can be decided by whether what it is to prove will be considered relevant by the Tribunal.
If the things which are to be proved are considered relevant by the High Tribunal and a basis is given, then this report should be admitted, and after its admission the High Tribunal can decide on the creditability. Therefore, a clear differentiation between relevancy, effectiveness and usefulness of evidence is to be considered, and whether objective or subjective creditability is to be given.
Now, as to the question of the cumulative problme. All jurists must be agreed, that cumulative pieces of evidence should not be admitted. Whether a piece of evidence is cumulative should not be treated mechanically or formally. I can very well picture a question which seems to be verbatim to a question already put, not for those reasons which I will enumerate in just a minute, and that one question may be similar to another and may not be cumulative at the same time, for the witness gave the same piece of evidence but only used different words. That a question which has been previously put and may be like it in words but does not necessarily have to be cumulative is proved by the old proverb "Si non facium idem non est idem." If, for instance, I question a witness who was a fanatical adherent of the Nazi regime and then put the same question to a witness who was a fanatical anti-Nazi, then these two questions are certainly not cumulative. Therefore one has to consider the witness to judge whether a question is cumulative. has previously been put but which need not be cumulative is that if I put the question to the defendant and then I put it to a witness who is concerned. I am not concerned with the testimony, and I do not wish to make derogatory remarks about statements being made under oath by a witness; basically, testimony of the witness is alike, but there is a great difference to take up the time of the High Tribunal for too long, but my purpose was only to request the High Tribunal in its decision--first of all, relevancy; second, usability--to differentiate as to the inner value which is to be decided upon after such evidence has been admitted, and, as far as the cumulative value is concerned, not to be guided by the outward appearance of the document but to examine whether it would not be in the interest of truth and give a deeper insight to put the same question to different people, or to put the same question and to have it confirmed through documents put down by different people.
but I tried to clarify the picture, and I hope that I have partially succeeded, so that we can abbreviate future debates on this subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, the Tribunal would like to know how long you are going to be over these documents, because we are getting further and further behind. I mean, how long do you anticipate that you will be? Have you made up your mind yet what documents you are prepared to withdraw, if any
DR. HORN: Mr. President, I believe that I need two more hours, without objections on the part of the Prosecution, and I believe that I may read the most important parts of my documents, and I believe that I can conclude in about two hours--but, I repeat, without objections by the Prosecution; I would say two hours.
THE PRESIDENT: You have heard the Prosecution's objections. We have heard them. We will consider them, and we will consider any answer that you make to them, but we do not desire at this stage, when we have all these other defendants' cases to be heard, that you should go into these documents in detail now and read then, and we hope that you will not think it necessary to read from these documents after you have answered the objections of the Prosecution to certain of the documents.
DR. HORN: I have the intention-
THE PRESIDENT: Have you the idea that you have finished your argument in answer to the Prosecution's objections or not? Did you intend to deal further with the admissibility of any of these documents or not?
DR. HORN: I intended, as the Tribunal wished me to do the other day, to submit these documents and also, in each group where the Prosecution has objected, to make a few remarks at those points, but I had no further intentions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, you see, the position is this. The prosecution have objected to certain documents, on certain grounds, and we want to give you a full opportunity to answer those objections. When you have made your full answer to those objections, we think it will be appropriate that we should adjourn and decide upon those objections and upon your arguments. Do you see? That is, after you have given your answer to the objections, we should adjourn and decide which of the documents we rule to be admissible in evidence.
DR, HORN: If the High Tribunal intends to rule after I have taken my position on the objections of the prosecution, then I ask that I have this opportunity now, first of all -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Dr. Horn. You see, it is 5 o'clock, and we shan't be able to conclude it tonight.
Dr. Horn, if you could conclude your argument in answer to the questions of principle which have been raised by the prosecution now, we think it would be the most convenient course if you could do it in a fairly Short time. I mean, you have heard what the prosecution say about these various groups, and it would be more convenient, we think, if you could answer that in the space of a quarter of an hour now.
DR. HORN: First of all, I would like to refer to documents numbered 48 to 61. As far as these documents are concerned, 48 to 61, I might use the sheets used by the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: Documents 48 to 61 were rejected for the reason that they were irrelevant, but these documents concern themselves with rearmament, or preparation for war, all on the opposite side. Only if I can present the German evidence in contradiction to the evidence of the other side can I present the motives which determined Hitler and Ribbentrop in basic questions I cannot treat the violation of law of a matter if I do not show the complete picture, and for the complete picture we need the demeanor of the opposite side. Therefore, I consider these documents as highly relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: The next decisive group contains those documents which deal with the Polish minority problem. The prosecutor has said that through a German-Polish agreement of the 5th of November 1937, the minority problem was sactioned by both countries.
That is, any violation of international law, so far as minorities were concerned, which had antedated this year, would be considered a closed chapter. However, that opinion is certainly not true, because one agreement cannot justify the violation of a prior agreement. 1934 between Germany and Poland, as I can prove with those documents, it was agreed that after a general political agreement, regulation or a settlement of the minority question was to take place, as well as the settlement of the Danzig and Corridor question. negotiation and agreement, and the documents which deal with the violation of international law and minorities cannot be rejected or turned down because of this agreement, because this agreement, as I wish to emphasize, foresaw another agreement for the solving of this question. minority problem was called irrelevant. Just a moment ago I stated that the British Prime Minister Chamberlain realized the need for the settlement of the problem. I will submit this document; it is document number 200 in my document book. This question was considered necessary of solution by all politically concerned, and I ask that the document in question be admitted. These documents cannot, as has happened here, be called cumulative and refused since, on the strength of that document, I am proposing to prove that since 1919 the contract regarding minorities had been violated. the League of Nations at Geneva, showing that these violations took place during a period of over 20 years. raised by the Soviet Delegation, I accept, and I withdraw the documents 286 to 269.
Since the book "America in the Battle of the Continents" has been objected to by the Tribunal, I also withdraw document 290, 1 to 5. Apart from that, I have referred to that book under several numbers, and I also withdraw all these numbers which refer to the book "America in the Battle of the Continents". the principal statement which has been made by my colleague, Dr. Dix, a few minutes ago.
I am convinced that, principally speaking, and on the strength of the legal arguments raised -- and also because of the fact that the prosecution has made wide use of such reports -- the defense also should be granted the privilege of referring to such reports, particularly since those reports were the bases for the formation of opinions on the part of political German departments. It has been stated, under 221 to 268, that these documents are supposed to be irrelevant. They are not irrelevant, because we had pacts of neutrality with those countries, and in these pacts it had been agreed that Germany would respect any neutrality as long as the other party would also respect it. Since it would now be possible to prove that the other party did not respect this neutrality, the proof-
THE PRESIDENT: One of the points of M. Champetier de Ribes' argument was that France was out of the war by 1940. Therefore, documents which were drawn up by the French General Staff in 1940 had no relevance in 1941. Isn't that so? That is the point that he was making.
DR. HORN: You mean the French Prosecutor?
DR. HORN: Yes. However, the fact that breaches of neutrality have been committed by France, which were known to the German Government at the time, that fact alters the legal situation completely. You can't say that Germany waged an aggressive war against these countries when, on the strength of news at our disposal, it was known that the opponents intended to, and did realize that, by sending staff officers out to occupy these countries. For that matter, violations on the part of the opponents occurred, and files which have been found prove the intelligence reports which we had. pact in this connection.
those reasons, as being relevant. when I submit the documents to the Tribunal in the presentation of my case?
THE PRESIDENT: You see, Dr. Horn, we want to rule upon it when we have hard your arguments; we don't want to have to rule again over every document. We want you to take them in groups, in the way the prosecution did, so that we may make up our minds and rule.
DR. HORN: Yes. Well, these are the main objections which I have to make to the procedure adopted by the prosecution. May I ask the Tribunal once more to differentiate between the principal objections or considerations raised by Dr. Dix, and the factual considerations which I have raised with reference to the various groups?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, and we will adjourn now.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 3 April 1946 at 1000 hours).
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has read and considered every one of the documents produced by Dr. Horn on behalf of the defendant Ribbentrop and the Tribunal rules as follows. the Tribunal rejects them, that is to say, documents to which no objection is taken or allowed with the particular exceptions which I make. rejects numbers 12, 45, 48 to 61 inclusive. It allows document 62. It reject documents 66, 67 and 69. It allows document 70. It rejects documents 72, 73, 74. It rejects documents 76 to 81 inclusive. It grants document 82. It rejects document 83. It grants documents 84 to 87 inclusive. It rejects documents 88 to 116 inclusive. It rejects documents 118 to 126 inclusive. It allows document 127. It rejects documents 128 to 134 inclusive. It reject documents 135 to 148 inclusive. It rejects documents 151 and 152. It allows documents 155 and 156. It rejects documents 157 and 158. It rejects document 161. It allows document 162. It allows document 164. It allows documents 165 to 183 inclusive. It rejects document 184. It allows documents 185 and 186. It rejects document 191. It allows document 193 and 194. It rejects document 195, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4. It grants document 195 paragraphs 5, 6, 7,,8, 9. It rejects documents 196 and 197 and 198. It rejects document 204. It rejects document 207. It grants the whole of document 208. It grants document 210. It rejects document 211 (a) and (b) and document 212. It grants document 213. It rejects 214.
It rejects 215-A and B. It grants document 217 and 220. It grants documents 221 to 245, except document 238, and it also excludes all comments contained in thos documents. It rejects document 246 to 269. It rejects 270 and 271. It rejects 275. It rejects 276. It grants 277 and 278. As to 279, the Tribunal would like Dr. Horn to inform them what that document is because it is in the copy that they have got it is unidentified. That is 279, Dr. Horn, in book 8, 1 think.
DR. HORN: This document No. 279 contains the non-aggression pact between Germany and the USSR, dated the 23rd of August, 1939, and I wish to hand a copy of this document, which has been attested to, to the High Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat that.
DR. HORN: The document contains the con-aggression treaty between German and the Soviet Union, dated the 23rd of August, 1939. It contains the text of that treaty.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well, then that will be allowed.
280 and 281 are granted. 282, 283, and 284 are granted. 285 is rejected. 286 to 289 were withdrawn. 290 was withdrawn. 291 is granted. 292 is rejects 293 is granted. 298 to 305, inclusive, are rejected. 306 is granted. 307 is rejected. 308 is granted. 309 and 309-A are both rejected. 311 had already been ruled out. 313 is granted. 314 is rejected. 317 is granted. 318 is rejected. Well, 312 is granted; it had not been objected to.
Dr. Horn, I do not have a note of 315 and 316; are they asked for?
DR. HORN: 315, Mr. President, is the reproduction of PS-1834, and has already been submitted and need not be asked for again.
THE PRESIDENT: Does that apply also to 316, Dr. Horn?
DR. HORN: 316 is also a PS number and need not be resubmitted for that reason.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, that deals with all the numbers, I think.
DR. HORN: I will dispense with No. 312, and instead I wish to ask for 317. 317 contains an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: 317 is granted.
DR. HORN: Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Horn, will you deal with the ones which we have left in, as far as you wish to deal with them. If you wish to comment upon any of the ones that we have allowed, you may do so now. We do not desire you to do so but, if you wish to do so, you may.
DR. HORN: May I say, Your Lordship, that me exposition will be very brie but may I ask that I may present my exposition at a time to be determined by the High Tribunal so I can prepare myself and need not take up your time? All my documents are attached together and it would take rather long for me if I would try to set forth my exposition now, rather than present my selection later. Will you please rule on a time when I may make my presentation of these documents?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that possibly would conclude your case, would it not?
DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President. Then I will have concluded my case and will need only a relatively short period of time to comment briefly on some of the documents but not on all of them, of course.
THE PRESIDENT: If Dr. Nelte is ready to go on with the case of the defendant Keitel, the Tribunal suggested you probably might be able to deal shortly with your documents at two o'clock.
DR. HORN: Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be agreeable to Dr. Nelte?
DR. HORN: I will consult my colleague Dr. Nelte.
Dr. Nelte has just advised me that he is leaving the Tribunal room to pick up the documents and then he can proceed with the presentation of his case immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Apr-3-M-RT-7-1 (Dr.Nelte returned to the court room.)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal is much obliged to you for presenting your argument now.
DR, NELTE: (Counsel for the Defendant Keitel): I would like to begin my case, Mr. President, by summoning the Defendant to the witness-stand. I shall interrogate him, and the documents which I will need and will use in this interrogation, that list of documents was submitted to the High Tribunal yesterday; and I hope that those documents are at your disposal so that the Tribunal will be able to follow my questions, to the service of our mutual best interests.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you will call the Defendant Keitel.
DR. NELTE: Yes, Mr. President.
(The Defendant Keitel took his position in the witness-box.) WILHELM KEITEL, one of the Defendants, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you state your full name?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me: whole truth, and will with-hold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down if you wish. BY DR. NELTE:
Q Please describe your military career for me, briefly? officer. At the beginning of the First World War, in 1914, I was the Regimental Adjutant of my Regiment. I was wounded in September, 1914, and in the beginning of November I became chief of a battery of my Regiment. After Spring of 1915 I served in various General Staff capacities, first of all in higher command positions, later as a General Staff officer of a Division. Towards the end I Apr-3-M-RT-7-2 was in Flanders with the Navy.
Then I volunteered and entered the Reichswehr. Beginning with the year 1929 I was Abeilungsleiter -- chief of a division in the Reichswehrministerium. That was the Ministry of War. There was an interruption 1933 to 1935. On the 1st of October, 1935, I was chief of the Wehrmacht Department (Wehrmacht Amt) of the Reichswehrministerium, That was Chief of Staff of the War Ministry. During my service at the front I became Generalmajor. At that time I led an infantyr brigade. On the 4th of February, 1938, surprisingly, I was appointed chief of staff, which was called by the Fuehrer. Chief of the OKW -- Oberkommando der Wehrmacht. On the 1st of October, 1939, I became General of the Infantry and subsequently to the campaign in the West I became Field Marshal.
Q Were you a member of the National Socialist Party?
A No, I was not a member. According to military law I could not become a member.
Q But you have the golden Party emblem that you received. What is the background of that?
A That is correct. In April, 1939, Hitler presented this golden emblem of the party to me, and at the same time that the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, General von Brauchitsch received it. The Fuehrer said it was to be a commemoration of the March into Czechoslovakia. The golden emblem was dated the 16th and 17th of March. could become members of the Party. What did you do at that time in this respect
A That is correct. In the late summer or autumn of 1944 the Wehrgesetz (military regulation) was changed to the extent that active soldiers could become Party members. At that time I was invited to join the Party, I was asked to submit my personal data, in order to be enrolled on the Party membership list. At the same time I was asked to send in a donation of money to the Party. I sent in my donation, but to my knowledge I did not become a member. I never received a membership card.
Q In what way did you participate at Party functions?
Apr-3-M-RT-7-3 participated several times at official functions of the Party. If I may cite an example, I was present at the Party rallies in Nurnberg, also when the Winter Help campaign was inaugurated I was present at those festivities; and in accordance with orders, on the 9th of November every year, together with a representative of the Party I had to be present at the graves of those who had died on that day in 1923. I had to attend the service in their memory. That was in memory of the conflict in November between the Party and the Wehrmacht-the Armen Forces. ship of the Party, I want to say that I never attended any of these meetings or gatherings, as the Fuehrer had told me that he did not wish my presence at those meetings and gatherings. For example, on the 9th of November every year I was at Munich, but never participated in the gatherings which the so called Hoheitstraeger (bearers of sovereignty) of the Party attended. I never attended those meetings.
Q What decorations did you receive during the war? received the Knight's Order to the Iron Cross. Other German war decorations I did not receive.
Q Do you have any son? war. The youngest one died in battle in Russia in 1941. The second was a major in Russia and has been missing in action, and the oldest sons, who was a major, is a prisoner of war. put the following basic questions to you. toward the problems with which you came in contact in your capacity and in the nature of your work? and conviction. For more than 44 years without interruption I served my country and my people as a soldier, and I tried to do my best in the service of my profession. I believed that I should do this as a matter of duty in a restless effort and in the complete surrender to those tasks which came to my lot in my many and diverse positions. I worked ceaselessly under the Kaiser, under President Ebert, under Fieldmarshal von Hindenburg, and under the Fuehrer Adolf Hitler. I worked the sane way under all of then.
Q What is your position and your view today? responsibility for what I have done, even if it should have been wrong. I am grateful that I may have the opportunity here and before the German people to give an account about those things, such as what I was and about my participation and my part in those things which have taken place. Whether guilt or circumstances brought about by fate is something that is hard to differentiate but one thing I do consider impossible. That is that the man in the highest position and the leaders and the sub-leaders at the front should be charged with guilt and the highest leadership should reject responsibility. That, in my opinion, is untrue, and I would consider that undignified. I am convinced that the large mass of our brave soldiers were basically decent, and that where the boundaries of what is permissible were overstepped, our soldiers acted in good faith and in the belief of military necessity, and that they were guided by the orders which they received.