Q Was the OKW officially connected with these questions?
A No, the OKW had nothing to do with it. These matters were handles through the well known channels--the supreme commanders of the army and then through the military commander in France or Belgium, but, of course, the essential departments were those at home in the Reich, but the OKW has never had anything to do with this. territories? armed forces had been excluded from any administrative or executive powers. In those territories, therefore, the armed forces and their subdepartments had nothing to do with it either. Only in those territories, which were still operational areas for the army did we have executive powers, the military troops, the supreme commanders, so an and so forth. The OKW was once again not included in the service channels. gation which has been submitted here, said that it was a matter for you or the OKW to instruct the military commanders of the occupied territories and that he, during his recruiting campaigns, had had their support. What can you say of that? by the fact that he neither knew the official service channels nor the jurisdictions that were used in the armed forces. Also, on one or two occasions, he may have seen me present during discussions regarding the furnishing of laborers, and, thirdly, on occasion he came to see me when he reported to me after he had his orders. It was probably by Hitler's orders that he went to see the Chief of the OKW, but the OKW had nothing to do with it. It had no right to give orders, but I did agree to represent the General Quartermaster and Saukel in any matters connected with the OKW, but any orders to military commanders or any such service departments in the occupied territories have never been given by me. It was, in fact, not one of the tasks of the OKW to do so. Stapf and Nagel had agreed to ask you to exercise pressure or coercion during the recruiting campaigns in the East.
That, at any rate, is the statement made by the Prosecution.
Do you know this story? presented. It was obviously an attempt on the part of Stapf, who had worked under me for a long time, to got some cooperation of the Fuehrer through me as an intermediary. An attempt had obviously been made by Stapf, who was the Director of the Economic Staff East at the time, and General Nagel, who was also mentioned in this connection, who had the Economic Inspectorate Department in the East, an attempt to include me in the problem and, according to the document, to try to have some pressure brought to bear from above, but I took no steps at all on that as I had nothing to do with these matters.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we might adjourn now.
( A recess was taken.) directives regarding the safeguarding and confiscation of objects of art, libraries, and so forth. Before the campaign in the West or in the East, were there any military orders, directives or general principles laid down which would apply to objects of art and how these things were to be treated?
A. No, according to my knowledge, nothing existed about these matters at all. We had thought carefully and thoroughly, but in this respect, nothing had been done, and I do not know that any directives or any instructions of any kind existed. the French Prosecution--in which you are mentioned in connection with the special staff of Rosenberg. These are documents PS-137, PS-138, and PS-140. They are documents by the Chief of the OKW to the commander in chief of the army in France and in the Netherlands.
A "For the leadership of economy or general directives of the Eastern territory the Wirtschaftsfuehrungs Stab Ost, which belonged to the Four-Year Plan and the Plan Barbarossa Oldenburg, was responsible.
All State Secretaries were responsible. Responsible for the execution of all measures of economic and armament matters was the Wirtschaftstab Ost under the direction and command of the Reichsmarshal.
Q What were the relations or the conditions in the West? the Quartermaster Corps in the West at a later phase of occupation--as far as anything beyond a continuous supply for daily needs of the troops, including fuel, was concerned, there was a special directive beginning with June that has already been explained by the Reichsmarshal, and the power for that was given over to the Four-Year Plan and the plenipotentiary for that. That was the Fuehrer decree. tioned, and it was laid down by General Thomas on page 304. I don't need to read this and ask that the High Tribunal permit, so that questions on this matter might be presented, that the affidavit of the defendant in Document Book No. 2, for the Wirtschaftsruestungs Amt (The Economic Armament Office) in the OKW would be considered as Document K 11 to be submitted in evidence. I assume that the Prosecution will agree with this procedure.
THE PRESIDENT: What number is it in Book 2?
DR. NELTE: Document Book No. 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but -
DR. NELTE: No. 4 in this Document Book No. 2. It is page 27 and following, Document Book 2, which has been submitted to the Court. The document is dated 29 March 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: What date did you say it is?
DR. NELTE: The 29th of March 1946. I believe there is no date found in the copy on the document book. I will present the original. The date is on that original.
THE PRESIDENT: How is it described at the head of the document? We have a document dated 4 March 1946, "The Economic Armament Office of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht".
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
DR. NELTE: It is possible, Mr. President, but there does not seem to be any doubt about the identity of the document. BY DR. NELTE: again beforethe High Tribunal, a topic which seems to be very difficult on the account and especially since very little understanding is known as to why these questions are put. In any event, you have been accused of the fact that in your capacity as a member of the government, as the Prosecution contends, you had knowledge, and must have had knowledge, of these things which took place in concentration camps. Therefore I am obligated to put this question to you: Just what you know about the existence of the concentration camps--how much you knew and in what connection you had contact with them. Did you know about the existence of concentration camps? Did you know that they did exist? camps andat that time I knew of two camps, and I surmized and assumed that beyond these two which I knew of there were other concentration camps. As far as further particulars are concerned about the existence of concentration camps, I didn't have them. As far as internees in such camps were concerned, I knew that habitual criminals were there and political opponents, and as Reichsmarshal Goering has said, that was the basis of these institutions. That was the reason for having them. Shall I continue?
Q Did you hear anything about the treatment of internees?
A No, I had no particulars and heard nothing. I assumed that this was an apprehension place where severe measures would be taken, or severer measures would be taken, and were taken; but as to actual conditions and as far as mistreatment of internees was concerned, as has been shown here, I didn't know about that. Once I was concerned with the freeing of Pastor Niemoeller, and that was in connection with Raeder. I tried on the request of Grand Admiral Raeder to free Pastor Niemoeller from the concentration camp, this this attempt did not succeed.
I made a second attempt on the request of a family in my home village where a farmer was in a concentration camp because of a political matter, and in this case I succeeded.
The individual involved was freed. That was in the autumn of 1940. I talked with this man, and on the question of just what did take place he gave me an answer which really didn't tell me anything; but anything beyond that I did not hear from this man. Beyond that I knew nothing of other cases. had happened to this man?
A Undoubtedly. I didn't see him directly after his release. I saw him later at my own home and talked with him, because he thanked me. He didn't say anything about having been badly treated or anything like that at all. had been officers of the Wehrmacht. Himmler. I was invited by him personally, once. That waste visit the Camp Dachau that he wanted me to see; and I know that officers in delegations of a larger or smaller number visited to inspect and see what was going on. But I am not able to say just what took place, especially in connection with what has been shown. As a supplement I would like to say it was not-one would hear that all sorts of things took place in concentration camps I do know that if any one had voiced these rumors to me and one would have said, "What do you know and just where do you know that from"? this person would always say, "I really don't know; I just heard this myself." You could never pin a person like that down. One might have had thoughts about these things, but as far as actual knowledge of these things was concerned, no one had any real knowledge and couldn't have it.
and that that allegedly took place in connection with higher channels. I would like to know whether you personally, or you in your official capacity, had knowledge of that.
A No, neither in my official capacity nor in any other way; I never heard anything about these medical experiments. by the prosecution that you intended, or, in any case, were participating, in aiming to have General Weygand and Giraud Assassinated. that Admiral Canaris, since November of 1940, was being pressed by you to do away with the Chief of the French General Staff, General Weygand. Lahousen said further that Canaris told theheads of his departments that, after having talked with you.
Did you talk with Canaris about this case of General Weygand? intelligence reports that General Weygand was traveling in North Africa, that he was inspecting colonial troops as well, I consider it as a matter of course that I told the Chief of Counter-Intelligence, Canaris. It would have to be possible to determine the aim of his journey, at which spots he was traveling in North Africa, and whether any military significance should be attached to this visit, whether there were any intentions on his part towards any activation of the Colonial Troops in North Africa. He was to try, through his department to find out just what was taking place.
Q And I assume to have him watched? Africa?
A I believe so, yes, by way of Spain and Spanish Morocco. There were had connections to Morocco by way of Spain, and he made use of these channels. France, an official possibility existed to visit North Africa.
A Yes, of course. After the armistice there were Disarmament Commissions, and these commissions were in North Africa, as well as in France.
Many departments of the Army were connected with the control of the armament of the North African troops.
Q Could there have been any interest in wishing General Weygand ill? Was he a specific opponent of Germany? Could it have been for political reasons or what reasons? might be considered uncomfortable -- there is no basis for any statement like that. At the end of September and the beginning of October of the same year, connections with Marshal Petain had been started then, on the well-known collaboration policy, which, in the winter of 1940-41, reached its climax. It was absurd to even think of wanting to do away with the Chief of Staff of not to be thought of because we had many officers and professional soldiers in the Colonial Army in the winter of 1940-1941. We freed them from their imprisonment and gave them to the French Government for their use. Among them there were generals,and I remember General Juin, who, according to our knowledge at that time, had been Chief of the General Staff of North Africa for many years At my suggestion this man was put at the disposal of the Marshal, with the aim of using him for Colonial purposes. or to think of anything drastic. and Laval took place about a general operation in Africa and an enforcement of West Africa?
A Yes. Among the documents of the French Armistice Delegation there must be a large number of documents in which all conceptions regarding North Africa and Central and West Africa were asked for in connection with the fact that even in the winter of 1940-41, in French Central Africa, riots had taken place, against which the French Government wanted to take measures.
I believe in the spring of 1941, in Paris, a conference of several days' duration took place, with the French General Staff, for the preparation of measures in which the German Wehrmacht would participate.
with Canaris something must have been said which could lead to this misunderstanding. Can you tell me anything at all which might have brought about this misunderstanding? testimony, perhaps at a later meeting I said, "Just what about Weygand?" Then Lahousen might have drawn the conclusion in that sense, as he pictured it here. He said, "Dem Sinne Nach", in the sense to have him put aside, and, in answer to the question, that was, he said, to have him killed, and it is to be inferred in that way. brought the chiefs of his departments along. In these discussions which we had alone, I believe he was frank with me. If he had misunderstod me, we would have discussed it, but he never said anything like that. considered at all, it would have been an act of high political significance?
A Yes, of course. In the collaboration of Hitler and Petain that would have been one of the most remarkable political acts which would have been possible resulted?
Q You mean with consideration of the personality of Weygand?
Q Can you say anything at all to clarify this matter? Can you state any reason why some things which never did take place -Germany, and the occupation of the so far unoccupied Southern France -- I can tell you only what I was told by the Fuehrer himself. He had decreed that there was to be an interning in his own home, without disturbing the General.
It was to be an honorary guard, but not at all a prisoner of war state. That was in the year 1942.
Q. Therefore, you dispute conclusively and repeatedly under oath that you ever gave an order or in any way expressed yourself that the conclusion might be drawn that you intended or you wished that General Weygand be put aside?
A. Yes, I can confirm and assert that again.
Q. The witness Lahousen also talked about the case Giraud and gave a picture similar to that of the case Weygand, In both cases he was not, because of his own knowledge, in a position to say that you had ordered that, but he did report what Canaris had told him and illustrated his testimony through later happenings. The case Firaud created a sensation at the time. I would like to have you give us your picture as you saw it and your part in the conversations about Giraud.
A. The flight of Giraud from the Fortress Koenigstein near Dresden on the 19th of April, 1942, created much attention, and I was accused of laxity in guarding a military fortress. The escape was successful despite all attempts to recapture him on his way back to France -- to apprhend him either by the police or through the military. and Alsace-Lorraine -- to supervise these border stations most exactly so that we could recapture him. The police were taking part in this humt too. had arrived home in France safely. If in this period any directions were issued by me, in the preliminary interrogations I have already stated these words which were probably used -- "We have to have the general back either dead or alive." Something to that effect I am sure I must have said. He had fled and was now in France.
The second, phase: Through the embassies Foreign Minister Ribbentrop made efforts to have the feneral returned, voluntarily to a state of prisoner. The general declared himself ready to come to the occupied, territory and discuss this matter. My opinion was that it might be possible that the general far as the freeing of French generals from prisonership was concerned.
this meeting was effected with General Firaud and the discussion of his return took place. By telephone I was advised of the presence of the general in occupied territory. It was in the hotel where the German officers were billeted. wish to return voluntarily it would be very simple to apprehend him. The approval for this was categorically refused by me, for I considered it a breach of confidence. The general had come in confidence and he returned unmolested.
Third Phase: The attempt and the wish in some way to have the general book in military custody might be traced back to the fact that Canaris told me that the family of the general was in territory occupied by German troops, and it would be a matter of course that the general would try to see his family, perhaps only after a certain period of time after calm had returned to the situation. He suggested certain measures to me, so that if the general was carrying out such visits to recapture him at that time. Canaris said that he personally would take these preparations through his offices in Paris. course I asked -- Lahousen was with Canaris and other men were with him -what happened in the case of Giraud or just what was taking place on the question of Giraud. The words used by Mr. Lahousen were : "It is very hard but we shall lo everything." That was his answer. Canaris did not reply at all. That is something which I am just seeing today for the first time, although it wasn't significant at that time.
Shall I continue? This is the fourth phase: Hitler now told me, "This is just nonsense. We are not getting any results. Counter intelligence is not concerned with this and can't handle this matter. I will turn this matter over to Himmler and let us keep the counter intelligence out of this, for they will never reapprehend the general."
if General Giraud set foot in the occupied territory he would take the necessary security measures through the French secret state police and perhaps a conflict might ensue. But it was well known that the general was a very doughty soldier, and at the age of sixty he had lowered himself by a rope over a precipice That is how his escape was effected.
Fifth phase: According to Lahousen, the giving over of the task to the Secret State Police, the chiefs of the divisions had done this because I again asked "How are matters with Giraud?" He wanted to be rid of such troublesome problems. Canaris came to me and asked me whether he should transmit this mission to the police or the RSHA and I said "Yes"; for the Fuehrer had told me repeatedly that he wanted to transmit this mission to Himmler.
The next phase: Some period of time later Himmler came to see me and confirmed to me that he had had the order from Hitler to supervise and guard Giraud and his fam ily unobtrusively and said I should stop Canaris concerning himself with this case. He had reports that Canaris was trying to carry on matters along parallel lines. I agreed. about "Gustav". I wanted to direct Canaris immediately to stop all of his activity in this mission, for the Hitler decree had come out. other things, that things were looked at in a mystic way, as he describes it-this is more the creation of fantasy rather that reality, I had Canaris summonsed to me, for he was at Paris rather than Berlin. In the beginning he had done nothing, and he considered himself in a very uncomfortable position as far as I was concerned, for he had lied to me. When he came I said, "Do nothing more in this matter; keep yourself entirely away from it.
Then the next phase: The escape which took place without any trouble-- the escape of the General to North Africa by plane-- this was reported before the invasion of North Africa by the Anglo-American troops, That concluded the case. did I even use the words "To do away with the General." Never did I use such language. true nevertheless. The general, in 1944--perhaps in February or Larch--took a plane or had a plane sent from North Africa to the region of Lyon in France, with a liaison man who reported to the Ausland Abwehr and asked whether the General could return to France and what was to happen to him on his landing in France.
The question was turned over to me. Colonel-General Jodl is my witness that these things actually did take place. The chief of the counter intelligence was with me, and the answer was that he was to have the same treatment as General Weygand who was already in Germany. Nothing actually did happen, and I have no further knowledge as to what took place later on; but these events actually did take place.
French Prosecution has mentioned that later, in a later phase, the family of General Giraud had inconveniences or disadvantages of a rather serious nature. In this connection with the investigation of Giraud, you remember at this time he was in occupied France, did you cause them any trouble? Did you give them any directives which would limit the family in any way?
A No. It was an unobtrusive supervising of the residence of the family so that a visit whichhe might have had planned -- so that we would know about it. But no measure of any kind was taken at the time. There was nothing like that. anything having taken place?
Q General Giraud is still alive and I again ask you. Can you confirm or assert -- did you give an order or a directive which might be interpreted that General Giraud was to be milled?
A No. I never gave an order of that kind. That would have been silly, The sentence "To have to have him back, dead or alive," it did not have anything to do in that connection. I never gave any order of this kind.
DR. NELTE: I have concluded my direct examination of the Defendant Keitel. I will ask that you permit me the affidavit -- the last one -in document book number 2, Affidavit No. 6. I would like to submit that affidavit in evidence. It is on page 51 following and ........
THE PRESIDENT: Didn't you put that in as EK-12 yesterday?
DR. NELTE: K-13, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: I have K-12.
DR. NELTE: Today I submit it as K-13.
THE PRESIDENT: This affidavit that you want to submit now, where is it and what's the date of it?
DR. NELTE: It's page 51, following, and it is dated 9 March 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.
DR. NELTE: This affidavit has-also been attested to by Colonel General Jodl and I ask that when he is called on the witness stand that I may ask him about this affidavit and submit it to him for his confirmation at that time?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. DODD: If the court please, we have looked into the matter of the so-called interrogation of General Von Falkenhorst referred to yesterday and Dr. Nelte, insofar as we can determine, this paper was never offered in evidence by any members of the Prosecution. It was referred to by M. Dubost, I mean, it was not referred to b him but it was included in his brief. I did not refer to it and I did not offer it in evidence. That is how it came into the hands of Dr. Nelte, but not in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Dr. Nelte want to offer it in evidence now?
DR. NELTE: I ask to submit it as K-14, as exhibit No. K-14.
THE PRESIDENT: Has it got a PS number or another number?
DR. NELTE: No, Mr. President, it has no other number.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Now, do any of the other Defense Counsels want to ask questions?
DR. STAHMER (Counsel forDefendant Goering): Dr. Stahmer -- for Defendant Goering. question of your counsel with certainty saying that Reichsmarshall Goering was not present at the conference in which Hitler gave directives about the fliers which had fled from the Camp Sagan and after that you further said that a briefing conference with Gearing in Berlin did not take place. I only have the following question. Several weeks after that escape, were you informed by the General Staff of the Air Force in a letter -- were you informed that the Luftwaffe wanted to relinquish these prison camps? sent it to him.
DR. STAHMER: I have no more questions.
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): Dr. Seidl -- Counsel for Defendant Dr. Frank. The defenda,t Dr. Frank, was, at the beginning of the war, a Lieutenant in the Regimental 9th Army, is that correct?
a letter from the then General Governor Dr. Frank concerning the fact that he wanted to rejoin the Wehrmacht? The purpose of that letter was to be relieved of his office. to the Fuehrer who, by a typical Hitler gesture -- it was a simple gesture rejected the matter. Through the officer who at the time was with Frank I let him know about that decision.
DR. DIX: (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): Sir, it is three minutes to one and it won't take me very long, but it might take me beyond 1:00 o'clock, so that if we could adjourn now I could put my question to the witness after it is over.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will adjourn until 2:00 o'clock.
(The tribunal adjourned until 1400 hours.)
DR. DIX (Counsel for defendant Schacht): May it please the Court, this witness is competent and has full knowledge in order to give the Tribunal definite figures about the expense for armaments undergone by the Reich but the witness is certainly not in a position to have these figures ready at all times. My colleague, Professor Kraus, therefore, during my absence, was kind enough to mark these figures down in cooperation with the assistance of the witness and this written statement at that time, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, was signed by the witness. In order to assist his memory or recollection concerning these figures, I ask now to be permitted to have submitted to the witness this statement which he had signed. Of this document, I have had translations made into three languages in question and I now submit to the Tribunal eight copies. I also have four copies for the four delegations of the prosecution, and in German I have copies for the defendants' counsel, of Keitel, Jodl, Raeder, Doenitz, and the OKW. May I ask for just one moment so that the witness can read it? BY DR. DIX:
has the title "Total Expenditures," the second and third column, which sub-divide these sums and show that they have been raised by the Reichsbank on the onehand and on the other side those are figures which I should like to have certified during the interrogation of Schacht himself, because those were the results of calculations of Schacht, and the witness here cannot give any information about these, but may I ask you concerning these armament expenditures of the Reich from 1935; that is, the fiscal year from the 31st of April to the 21st of March. May I ask you whether the figures which we have here, of 5 billions for 1935, 7 billions for 1936, 9 billions for 1937, 11 billions for 1938, and 20.
5 for 1939, are those figures correct?
AAccording to my conviction these figures are correct. May I also add that I had an opportunity during the beginning of my period of captivity to speak to the Reich Finance Minister about these figures and we found coordination of our opinions. on the 1st of April 1938. Is it correct to say that at that time there existed 24 infantry divisions, 1 armored division, no motorized division, 1 mountain division, and 1 cavalry division, and that there were in the process of being established, 10 infantry divisions and 1 armored division, and if I may limit it further, that of the three reserve divisions on the 1st of April 1938, none had been completed and only 7 to 8 were in the process of being established, which was expected to be done by the 1st of October 1938.
this affidavit.
DR. DIX: That is as far as this documents goes. I would like to put two more questions tot the witness which have not been discussed with him and concerning which I do not know whether he is prepared to give us the figures in question. BY. DR. DIX: portion between the Reich, on the one hand, and Czechoslovakia on the other hand that is the relation of strength at the time of the march of Hitler into Czechoslovakia; that is the relation of strength (a) concerning the armed forces and (b) the civilian population.
A I could not give accurate figures about that at present. In a previous interrogation I have been questioned about it and I believe that I gave quite correct figures, saying that in the fall of 1938-
Q You said 1938?
Q I mean now the time when Hitler marched into Czechoslovakia. That was in 1939. as figures are concerned, there were less divisions in Germany than Czechoslovakia could dispose of. In the fall of 1938 they may have been equally strong as far as divisions are concerned. In the spring of 1939, when we marched in, the proportion of strength which was used then was lessthan what had been prepared in the fall of 1938. Accurate figures, if they are important to this Tribunal, you could rather get from General Jodl. in March 1939, could you tell us anything about that?
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you will actually offer this document in evidence when the defendant Schacht gives evidence. Isthat what youintend to do?
DR.DIX: I am going to submit it and it will be included, in my book of documents.
Therefore, it is not necessary now that you keep it. You will find it again in the document book at the time when the Schacht case comes up. But I would like to suggest that the copy which I have given to the witness should become a part of the record because my questions have referred to this document. Therefore, it may be necessary to make this copy a part of the record.
THE PRESIDENT: If you want to make it a part of the record it had better be given a number now. It had better be S-1 had it not?
DR. DIX: Yes. Your Lordship, may I suggest SCH-1?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: Dr Stahmer, for Dr Servatius for the defendant Sauckel, BY DR. STAHMER: manpower.
Q Were you present? that the demand could not be fulfilled?
Q What reasons did he give? which he was supposed to recruit manpower, the strong activity of partisan bands, the difficulty in obtaining sufficient police forces at his disposal and similar reasons. I do not know any more details about that. BY DR. KRANZBUEHLER (Counsel for defendant Doenitz): the capitulation with which the war in Europe was terminated?
Q When and where did that take place? 9th of May, 1945.