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.
lations of the laws of war, crimes against humanity, repeatedly points to orders, to documents, which bear your name. Many so-called Keitel orders, Keitel decrees, have been submitted. Now we have to examine and prove if and how far you and your activity are connected in a guilty and original sense with the happenings or the results of these orders. What can you say, or what do you wish to say to this general accusation? directives with which my name is connected, and it is also to be admitted that such orders many times presented deviations from the existing international la not rest on military bases and motives but on Weltanschaulich, or ideological points of view, and in this connection I am thinking of the group of directive which before the campain in Russia were issued, and those which were ordered subsequent to that time.
Q What can you say in your exoneration about these orders? which resulted from these orders and which are connected with my name and my signature, I assume that responsibility which is resultant from my position. were subordinate to me, I assume responsibility insofar as it is based on normal and legal principles. sition? forth. self with the text.
In this decree, Paragraph One, you will find "the authority over the whole Wehrmacht, of which from now on I personally take over the supreme command". What did that mean in connection with circumstances or conditions as they had obtained up until that time?
A Up until that time we had a commander in chief of the Wehrmacht. That was Fieldmarshal von Bomberg, and besides that there was the supreme commander and, according to the constitution, that was the head of the state; in this case, Hitler. With the doing away with or the resignation of von Blomberg, then was only one commander in chief, and that was Hitler. to issue orders to all three arms of the Wehrmacht: the army, the air forces and the navy, and he himself personally conducted this power of command.
It also says "from now on directly" and that was to establish unequivocally that any intermediary position, as far as orders were concerned, did not exist from that period of time on but that orders were to issue directly from Hitler, the supreme commander in chief, and that the orders were to go directly from Hitler to the various parts of the Wehrmacht.
It also says here "Direct and Personal Orders". That too had its contents and meaning, for the word "personal" was to show and was meant to express that--I should like to say "Deputizing" of this power was not to be had in any event.
Q I assume therefore that you never, when you signed, said, "In Deputy" or, "As Deputy"; that you never signed your orders that way? "In Vertretung", that is, as deputy. And according to military principle, if the question of a deputy had arisen there could only have been one person, and that would have been the next ranking officer.
Q In paragraph two of this decree it says, "The Wehrmacht office in the Ministry of War, which has existed up to that time, will now come under my direct decrees and orders." What does that mean in relation to the staff which was now formed? in the Wehrmacht Amt, in the Wehrmacht office; that is to say, in the War Ministry, and this Wehrmacht Amt was taken over by Hitler as Supreme Commander, and Hitler took over this body as his military staff. And with the doing of this this staff was to be his personal working staff. At the same time, with the elimination of the post of Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht the Reich War Minister was also done away with. There was no War Ministry and no Minister of War as they had existed in the previous sense. And with this it was clearly seen, just as Hitler wanted it to be seen, that between him and the various parts of the Wehrmacht, so far as the command channels were concerned as well as ministerial functions were concerned, that there was to be no bearer of office who was to be in a position to issue orders independently. the OKW, and that was a new office which was taken over by you. Will you please clarify whether this term "Chief of the OKW" is correct; that is, whether that which it seemed to say to the outside was actually the case? that this term in its abbreviated form does not really apply to me. For the exact meaning one should have said, "Chief of the Staff of the High Command of the Wehrmacht", and not the abbreviation, "Chief of the OKW", for from documents submitted by the prosecution I gathered that the "Chef" was interpreted as if I was a Commander Befehlshaber, that is, someone who could have issued orders.
And that of course is a conclusion, it is not right; it was neither a position of my being able to issue orders nor as might have been assumed or has been assumed that it was a sort of position of a chief of a general staff. That is not correct either; I was never Chief of the General Staff of the Wehrmacht. It was the very clear wish of the Fuehrer to have all power of orders and command in his own person, to have those powers rest with him. And that is not an ideal which I am establishing subsequently, but these things he mentioned to me and defined clearly on several occasions. Partially and in connection with those things, he told me repeatedly he could never put these ideas through with Blomberg. tion, a declaration put down by Field Marshal von Brauchitsch.
A Perhaps I might add a word or two. I was discussing the fact that it was not a position of Chief of the General Staff which I occupied, for the basic opinion and view of Hitler was such that the commanders in chief of the Wehrmacht branches each would have his own general staff, and that Hitler did not want that the High Command of the Wehrmacht, with the inclusion of the Wehrmacht Operational Staff, to take over the functions of a general staff. Therefore in practice with the Operational Staff of the Wehrmacht branches, where it was carried on in that manner, there in the Obercommand of the Wehrmacht--which was purposely kept small--a working staff established for Hitler in that way for strategic consultation, let us say, and for special missions. which I mentioned a few minutes ago, -- do you consider what he said correct?
It says here, "It Hitler had decided to reach his political aims through military pressure or through the using of military means of power or to support his aims in any way, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, if he was to participate in this, first of all received his instructions orally as a rule or received an order in accordance with the plans. Thereupon the OKH operation and deployment plans were worked out after they had been submitted to Hitler orally first as a rule, has been approved by him, and then a written order of the OKW went out to the various branches of the Wehrmacht, is that correct?
A Yes. In principle it is correct so far as the final formulation of the mission with which the commanders-in-chief of the army were charged, in that it took place in the form of a Weisung (directive), as we called it; and on the basis of the already submitted and approved plans. This work was done in the Wehrmacht Fuehrung Stab (Wehrmacht Operational Staff), which wasn't an independant unit when giving out orders, and did not treat matters independently. But the Wehrmacht Fuehrung Staf and I took part in the approval of some of these proposals and formulated those ideas, which were then carried out by Hitler as Commander-in-chief. We transmitted these orders, so to speak.
Q Then I have an affidavit by Lt. Col. Halder which deals with the same subject. You know this affidavit number one, and for the purpose of evidence I am submitting affidavit number one by Halder, and I wish to use it at this time. It has been submitted by the prosicetion. The prosecution submitted a further statement on this without assigning a special number to it, and this supplement deals with the basis for the organization of the German Wehrmacht. That is the tittle of this supplementary document.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this the document which you say the prosecution offered in evidence but didn't give a number to:
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, this document was given to us by the prosecution, I believe by the American prosecution. We received it on the 26th of November 1945. I don't know -
THE PRESIDENT: You mean it never was deposited in evidence by the prosecution ?
DR. NELTE: I do not believe I can decide on that. I assume that a document which is submitted to us is submitted at the same time to the High Tribunal if not as evidence then for official notice, anyway.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the document? Is it an affidavit or not?
DR. NELTE: It is not an affidavit; it is really a composition by the American prosecution. And as I assume it is a basis for the prosecution against the organization OKW, and so forth -
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got it in your document book or not?
DR. NELTE: No, it is not in the do document book, for I assumed that was at the disposal of the High Tribunal. It is, Mr. President, just a very small document.
Mr. DODD: If I could see it I might be able to be helpful, I am not familiar with it. It is probably one of the documents which we submitted to the defense but which we did not actually use in evidence, and that happened more than once, I think, in the early days of the trial.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I am just referring to a single paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. NELTE: I am referring to just a small paragraph and I would like to quote this brief passage. Perhaps through that we can obviate submitting this material.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you offering in evidence the whole of the affidavit? I don't mean at this moment, but are you proposing to offer it?
(Dr. Nelte nodded).
You are?
DR. NELTE: I assume the Prosecution has already submitted it. I am just referring to it, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The whole affidavit? What is the number of it if it has been submitted?
DR. NELTE: This affidavit does not bear any number,
THE PRESIDENT: It has not been submitted if it hasn't a number on it, then. It is suggested to me that possibly the Halder affidavit was offered and then rejected.
DR. NELTE: No, Your Honor. At that time a series of affidavits were submitted -- affidavits by von Brauchitsch, Halder, Hausinger, and several others, other generals who are interned at Nurnberg, and all of these affidavits had no exhibit numbers. None of these affidavits had any exhibit numbers.
MR. DODD: This affidavit was put in by the United States as an exhibit. I don't have the number handy, but I think it was submitted at the time Colonel Telford Taylor submitted the case on behalf of the Prosecution against the High Command and the OKW. This Halder affidavit, the first document which Doctor Nelte referred to, is not an affidavit. It was a paper submitted to the Tribunal and to the Defense by Colonel Taylor. It set out some of the basic principles of the organization of the High Command and the OKW wholly before he presented his part of the case. It is really just the work of our own staff here in Nurnberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Doctor Nelte, as the document you are referring to, not the Halder affidavit, appears to be a mere compilation, the Tribunal thinks it shouldn't go in as an exhibit, but you can put a question to the witness upon it BY DR. NELTE: the following: after 1938 there were four divisions, that is, OKW, High Command of the Wehrmacht; OKH, High Command of the Army; OKL, High Command of the Air Force; OKM, High Command of the Navy; and each had its own General Staff.What can you tell us about that?
have already given as to the function of the High Command is not in line with that. There were not four departments like that; there were only three: the High Command of the Army, the High Command of the Navy, and the High Command of the Luftwaffe. The OKW, the High Command of the Wehrmacht, was not an independent department, as I have already stated. The commanders-inchief of the various Wehrmacht branches were commanders who had the authority to issue orders and use this power over these troops which were subordinate to them. The OKW did not have the power to issue orders. Neither did it have any troops which were subordinate to it and to which it could have issued orders. Therefore it was not correct, if I recall the speeches of the Prosecution, when the expression was used that "Keitel was commander-in-chief of the Wehrmacht." I am mentioning it only to emphasize this point. I would like to refer to the last page. There is a diagram on the last page. I would like to call your attention to that diagram.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, this diagram shows the Wehrmacht and its parts. It is a diagrammatic expectation of the entire Wehrmacht and its various parts.
THE WITNESS: I believe therefore, and I feel I should refer to this diagram briefly, that just this diagram was the reason for the misleading belief, for here the High Command of the Wehrmacht is designated as a special department or branch. It is shown as such on this diagram, and as I have stated before, that is wrong.
Q What was your task in this military sector as the Chief of the OKW? documents, with a large group of reports which he desired. That is, in connection with the evaluation by the Wehrmacht Fuehrung Stab, I had to supply the necessary material and information to him.
I would like to say that the Wehrmacht Fuehrung Stab in this connection carried out the function which one might term -- that this staff give Hitler immediate and close relations to the General Staffs of the various branches of the Wehrmacht and attended to these tasks. an allied nature which were demanded daily was a second function, all conferences in which the commanders-in-chief of the various Wehrmacht branches participated and the chefs of their staffs and the Chief of the Wehrmacht Fuehrung Stab. As a rule, all of these men were present and had to be present, for on those occasions immediately a series of oral orders was given, and these orders, in line with military principle, were later on confirmed in writing. Only in this way could we prevent mistakes or misunderstandings that would arise, that is, through the confirmation of these orders to those who had already received oral orders. It was put down clearly in writing. This is the aim and meaning of the order. by you? exclusion were signed by me, and indeed they were orders which had already been given and which, in military channels, had already been transmitted and were being acted upon. There was., as can be seen from the tremendous amount of material on hand, the form which I made it a matter of habit to use; that is, after a few preliminary words I always said; "The Fuehrer has therefore ordered." In the large majority of cases this order was no surprise. For the departments receiving this order it was nothing new to them, It was only a confirmation. And in a similar way, although this was not organizational, as far as directives and orders were concerned, I had these matters dealt with under my supervision and transmitted them. In that way, I should like to point out especially, I in no case sent through orders without having shown this order again to my commander-in-chief, in order to make certain that I had not misunderstood him or that I was issuing something which, and I would like to emphasize even in the verbatim, did not have his approval.
A. May I perhaps add a few workds?
Q. Please do.
A. In order to clarify mis-statements the documents which are at issue here, those which Hitler personally signed had a heading "The Fuehrer and the Command-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht." There are some exceptions in which such directives were signed by me, and I would like to explain this matter as to how this came about. corrections entered by Hitler personally now were given to me, and somehow the Fuehrer was prevented from signing himself and I signed, but never as deputy but always "as per instruction." Then matters took their course, as I have already described them, in the form of directives which were signed by me; and I would like to mention also, if a series of documents under the heading "Chief of the OKW" appeared there might have been some change in that, as "A. Jodl." I would like to say that it can be shown almost automatically that I did not happen to be there at the time; otherwise I would have signed; and I would like to say that he was the recognized Chief of Staff who, according to military regulations, had to sign these matters.
Q. The memorandum which you have before you contains the following sentence: "The OKW agreed or contained in itself the activity of a staff and of a ministry. We were concerned with those matters which previously the Reichs War Ministry had treated in its capacity and which had been taken over by OKW."
A. This formulation as set down in this document is not exactly incorrect or untrue, but in its vital points is open to misinterpretation, for it wasn't at all such that the OKW exercised all functions which the War Minister had exercised in prior years, and that these functions all were taken over by the OKW. Many functions which the War Minister in his capacity as minister and responsible for them and as responsible to the various parts of the Wehrmacht and their commanders-in-chief, this minister could decide, and did decide those matters which I never received authority to deal with as Chief of the OKW.