A. No. Of destruction or extermination nothing could be found such as I remember in the "Green Folder" Perhaps the exploitation of surplus which could be found there, especially in the field of food and raw materials which should be utilized for the entire war economy of Germany; but not to destroy them. I said in the "Green Folder" there were basic thoughts for the use of reserves which we expected to find which were considered surplus, but never to destroy then and in doing so to lot the Soviet population starve. That was not the case. I have seen these things myself and therefore I an qualified to speak about it.
Q You do not consider that plunder? I think brings us into a field which we do not need to discuss here. Everybody has a different use of words.
Q Very well, we shall not argue about it. My last question with regard to the attack on the Soviet Union is this: Do you agree that the method of behavior and of conducting the war in the East on the part of the German army differed radically from even the elementary conception of military honor and military necessity or wisdom?
A No. To that I cannot agree in that form; rather that the disintegration of the war against the Soviet Union and in the East occurred and was not to be attributed to the German Army but to those conditions which I have stated in an affidavit submitted by my counsel to the Court. I beg to ask that the Russian prosecutor should read it and see my opinion about it.
Q Very well. To conclude the questions with regard to aggression and to pass to another subject, I have the following questions here and I do hope that you will tell the Tribunal whatever knowledge you possess as the person closest to Hitler on the subject of military questions. My question is this; What were the objectives of the OKW? How were these questions posed before the German armed forces? What were the directives to the German armed forces in case a victory over the Soviet Union was final?
A I do not know what you mean by that; what is meant by that. Which demands were put to the military leadership in case the war should have terminated successfully? May I ask you to put this question again? I did not quite understand it.
Q I mean this: The problems for further conducting the war after the eastern campaign was concluded successfully, that is, what were the plans? landing of the British and American forces in France, in Denmark or in Germany. There were various possibilities of warfare which could have occurred which could not even have been anticipated.
Q I am not asking the questions in general but specifically. You undoubtedly do know some of the documents and plans pertaining to "C" or naval warfare, plans which were already ready by the 8th of August 1941, plans dealing with carrying on the war after the eastern campaign was concluded successfully, that is, plans about invading Iraq, Syria and Egypt.
You do knew the document dealing with plans of that nature? as USSR-336? I shall show it to you in a minute.
proceedings. It begins with the sentence:
"The Command of Naval operations has a draft Concerning the preparations."
This order or draft of the Naval Command I have never seen. The draft for a directive could only come from the High Command of the Armed Forces, that is the Armed Forces Leadership Staff, which represented the leadership of the army, navy and air force and it is quite possible that thoughts had been formulated and put down in the shape of a draft of a directive and it would have been made known to the members of the Staff. I cannot remember such a draft of the directive of the Armed Forces Leadership Staff but I believe that Colonel General Jodl is in a position to give us more information about that. I cannot remember it.
Q You do not remember that directive. aI shall not ask you about it in detail but you do see that the document contains plans for the seizure of Gibraltar with the active participation of Spain. It provides further for an attack on Syria, Palestine, Egypt and so on. And you say that you have no idea of what these plans were and that you do not know about this document?
A I will be glad to give information about that. An attack on Gibraltar, representing the entrance to the Mediterranean, had already been planned before, that is during the winter of 1939-40, but it had never been executed. It was nothing new and the other questions which have been mentioned were such which were based upon the situation existing north of the Caucasus in the course of operations. our minds but I do not remember every document or I have not read every document of the Armed Forces Leadership Staff, such as this draft. cerning the seizure of foreign lands, than what do you consider important? in war time one makes manifold plans and considers various possibilities which seen in reality cannot be carried out and, therefore, afterwards also historically such papers, documents cannot be considered the expression of the leadership operational and strategic plans.
this document is of no importance. But in discussing the plans of the German General Staff at the time it thought it would defeat the Soviet Union and from the viewpoint of analyzing those plans or objectives the document is important. However, I shall not ask you any more about this document. I shall pass on to questions of your relationship toocrimes.
Your attorney for the defense, Dr. Nelte, submitted to you the basic documents of the Prosecution on the subject of war crimes. For that reason I do not plan to enter into a detailed discussion as to these documents. I shall merely ask you about the basic contents of these documents, such questions particularly which were omitted by your counsel when he questioned you. in the region of the "Barbarossa" and of the special military measures to be taken by the armed forces. You do remember the document dealing with the subject? It was dated 13 May, 1941, that is more than a month before the beginning of the war against the Soviet Union. that elements suspected of anti-German tendencies must be immediately brought to the German officers and that it is the latter who will decide whether they will be shot or not? You do remember that directive, do you not?
You signed that order, did you not?
A Yes, indeed, I have never denied that. But I have given explanations as to how the document came into being and who was its originator.
THE PRESIDENT: The date of the document seems to have come through wrong. Did you say the 13th of May?
GENERAL RUDENKO: The 13th of May.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of the document?
GENERAL RUDENKO: Document C-50, dated the 13th of May, 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY GENERAL RUDENKO: the subject of this order, nevertheless I have to ask you this question in a somewhat different form. Did you consider that the right of the officers to shoot people on the spot was not permissible -- did that exist or did it not exist?
against our enemies military courts which could always be established, consisting of one officer and one or two soldiers who act as judges. That is what we call court martials but there has to be one officer at least to decide in this court. But as a matter of principle I have to repeat the statement which I have made yesterday.
Q Just one moment. I am asking you to reply to this question. Did not this document abolish court procedure and trials with regard to suspects and did it not give the right to shoot civilians to the officers of the German Army, is that not so? is a court martial with judges and there is a Standgericht which/consists of soldiers and they have the right to execute.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not answering the question. The question is what right does this document give, not what the orders in the German Army are. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q Can you reply to this question? Did this document do away with court procedure and trials and did it give or did it not give the German officers the right to shoot persons who were suspected of anti-German attitudes?
A That was an order which was given to me by Hitler. He hadissued that order and I put my name under it and what consequences that had, what meaning it has, I have explained that in detail yesterday.
Q You, Mr. Field Marshal, signed that decree, you as a Field Marshal. Even considering the decree was not incorrect did you not understand the consequences of that decree? If you did then why did you sign it? measure of responsibility I may have assumed in my position by doing so.
Q And one more question. On the 13th of May, 1941, which is the date of the decree, in other words, almost a month before the beginning of the war against Russia, plans were already made for procedure of that kind, for assassination really.
A That I do not understand. It is correct that this order was issued about four weeks before the beginning of the campaign "Barbarossa" and another four weeks before that it had been given to the generals in a statement by Hitler. They knew that weeks before.
Q With regard to how the decree was applied you are informed? interrogator of my opinion and about the fact that generals have spoken to me about this order and it has not been mentioned here that is says specifically that the higher commanders have the right to suspend this order as soon as a pacification took place in their area. I have answered that to everybody who asked me about the interpretation of this order. I said that it specifically stated that you could suspend this order as soon as your area is pacified. That was the subjective possibility for the commanders and it is included. Did this order actually establish an atmosphere or position, a situation where German soldiers or German officers could go unpunished for shooting civilians or being lawless in general?
A Within certain limits. The limit was given in the oral order to the generals, that is to say by using the most extreme amount of discipline on your own troops. established from documents submitted to the Tribunal.
I have the following question to ask. On the 12th of May, 1941, a plan was developed with regard to how to treat the Soviet prisoners of war. Do you remember that document?
AAt the moment I cannot recall which one you mean. It is not clear to me what you are referring to. the procedure by which political commissars, political workers, of the Red Army be not recognized as prisoners of war but be annihilated.
AAbout that I have only seen the remarks. I do not recall the document but I know about the facts. I cannot recall the document from memory at this moment. Could I see it please?
Q If you please.
THE PRESIDENT: What number is it?
GENERAL RUDENKO: 780-PS, dated May 12, 1941, and under the subject of treating Soviet prisoners of war and political workers in the Red Army. National Defense, with the remark that decisions by the Fuehrer have been required, and that memorandum contains the suggestion for an order. I remember that and I have seen it. The result of the report to Hitler is not mentioned; only the suggestion is made of regulating that problem. As far as I know, that was then reported to the High Command of the Army as having been approved by the Fuehrer or having been discussed or taken care of between the Fuehrer and the commanders of the army.
Q What do you mean by "regulating"? There are so many terms known to us from the German terminology, such as execution, special regime. In using all those terms meant just one thing; they meant assassination, putting people to death. Just what do you mean by "regulating"?
A I do not know which word means regulating. I have said that, in the sense of that memorandum, according to my recollection, directives had been issued by Hitler to the army at that time; that is, an approval to the suggestion which has been made in that paper. more than a month before the beginning of the war, projects were already there to annihilate or do away with the political commissars or political workers of the Red Army? You do not deny that such plans were there?
A No, that I do not deny. That was the consequence of directives which had been worked out in writing by the generals.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn now.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 6 April 1946, 1000 hours).
BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q. I am asking you in regard to the order concerning so-called Communistic partisan movements in the occupied territories. Yesterday your counsel showed you this order. This order is dated 16 September 1941, R-98. I remind you of one phrase out of this order. It said in it that discontent should be suppressed and in order to do it, it is necessary to take immediately cruel measures in order to safeguard the authority of theoccupational powers and to prevent further dissemination of Communistic movement; and furthermore, one has to keep in mind that human life in countries affected absolutely does not cost anything and that intimidating action is possible only by means of applying extraordinary cruelty. You remember this basic idea of the order, that human life absolutely doesn't cost anything. Do you remember this sentence?
A. Yes.
Q. You signed this order with this statement?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you consider that this order was called for by necessity?
A. The background of this order has been explained by me yesterday and I have drawn your attention to the fact that his directive or order was predominantly directed to the supreme commander in the southeast and his departments. This is the Balkans I am referring to. Considerable partisan activities and bandit warfare was taking place and was assuming incredible proportions; and secondly, similar observations had been made in certain limited parts of the occupied Soviet territory. They had been observed there, too.
Q. It means that you consider that this order was quite correct and apt?
A. My basic views regarding all orders which were made with reference to the treatment of the civilian population have been explained to you. I have signed that order and within my official jurisdiction I am assuming the responsibility.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that you are not answering the question. The question was perfectly capable of an answer yes or no and an explanation afterwards. It is not an answer to the question to say that you have already explained to your counsel. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q. Once again I ask you, do you consider this order -- and I mean to emphasize this particular order -- in which it is stated that human life absolutely does not cost anything, do you consider this order right?
A. It doesn't contain these words but the fact that in some eastern territory and in certain parts of the Soviet territory human lives were not respected. That was the effect which I had know during the previous years.
Q You said that these words are not in the order.
AAs far as I know it does not say absolutely. It merely says that human lives were not worth very much in those territories. That is the way I can recollect it. on the 9th of November, 1945, and to a question in regard to the essence of this sentence you made this reply;
"This sentence I must admit is a true sentence but the Fuehrer personally himself included this sentence."
Do you remember this explanation you made?
Q I can submit this order to you. I did not present it to you because yesterday you locked at it.
A I did not read it all yesterday. I merely recognized the fact that it existed.
THE PRESIDENT: It would help the Tribunal if you got a translation of the document. When you are cross-examining upon a document and as to the actual words of it, it is very inconvenient for us not to have the document before us.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Now, Mr. President, I shall submit this order to the defendant.
(witness handed document)
THE PRESIDENT: Is it 389-PS?
GENERAL RUDENKO: Yes, this is document 389-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: When you are citing a document it would be a good thing if you would cite the number rather slowly because very often the translation does not come through accurately to us.
GENERAL RUDENKO: I understand, all right, Mr. President. I named it R-98 but it really has a double number, R-93 and 389-PS. I cited paragraph (b) of this order. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q Defendant Keitel, you have familiarized yourself with this? affected by this human life quite often had no value.
Q And further?
ing off which can be achieved by being extremely hard as the price for the life of a German soldier.
Q Yes, it is clear now. And in the same order in paragraph (b) there is also stated that as redemption for the life of a German soldier there should be the execution of fifty to one hundred Communists. The method of execution should increase the effect of intimidation. Is that correct?
A The German text is slightly different from that. It says:
"In such cases, generally speaking, the death sentence must be passed for fifty to one hundred people."
Q For one German soldier?
A Yes. I know that and I have seen this.
Q That is what I am asking you about. Once again I ask you-any more? manner your own opinion as to these cruel measures, that is you had agreed with Hitler? therein represent alterations which had been made in that order, personal alterations by Hitler.
Q And what figures did you present to Hitler?
A Five to ten. That was the figure which was contained in the original. was only as to figures but not as to the fact or the essence thereof? order would be if the death of several victims was demanded.
THE PRESIDENT: That was not an answer to the question. The question was whether the only difference between you and Hitler on this docu ment was a question of figures.
That admits of the answer yes or no.
Was the only difference between you and Hitler a question of figures?
THE WITNESS: In that case I must say that with reference to the basic thoughts there was a difference of opinion which, however, in its final effect does not have to be justified by me since I merely signed the document on behalf of my department.
There was a basic difference regarding that entire question. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q. All right, we shall go on further. dated the 16th of December, 1942, referring to the so-called struggle against partisan bands. This document was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit USSR-16 I shall not examine you in detail in regard to this order. This order was presented to you yesterday by your defense counsel.
A. I have no recollection of that, general, I am afraid. I do not remember that it was shown to me yesterday, I mean.
Q. All right, if you do not remember I can present it to you in order to refresh your memory.
GENERAL RUDENKO: This document was submitted by the Soviet Prosecution as USSR 16.
THE PRESIDENT: I just took down that it was USA 516 but I suppose I was wrong in hearing. It is USSR 16, is it?
GENERAL RUDENKO: Yes, USSR 16.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
(Witness handed Document) BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q. I shell ask you, defendant Keitel, only one question in regard to this order. In paragraph one of this order it is stated -- pleas pay attention to the following sentence: measures in this struggle without any restriction and also against women and children if it is condusive to success."
Do you find that place?
A. Yes.
Q. No you find that the order calls for using any kind of measures without any restriction against women and children?
A. All means can be employed without any restriction upon women and children, if necessary.
Q. That is exactly what I am asking you about. you consider that this order is right when it states, to employ any means in regard to women and children?
A. Measures, yes, insofar as it means women and children from these territories where there was bandit warfare but there were never any killings or any cruelties of women or children.
Q. And the German term, "to do away" really means to kill?
A. No. I do not think it would even have been necessary to tell German soldiers that they must not kill women and children, that was forbidden.
Q. You did not answer my question. women and children or do you consider that it is wrong? Answer yes or no, right or wrong, and later you can give an explanation.
A. I have considered that measure as right and I recognized its existence but the measure which was taken to kill, that was a crime.
Q "Any measures"; don't they include murder?
Q But it said here "Any means against women and children."
A No, it doesn't say "any measures." It says, "Measures to intimidate women and children can he taken." women and children.
A I can't say that in every individual case since I wasn't everywhere and couldn't have been everywhere, and since I haven't had, any reports about it.
Q But there were such cases, millions of them?
A I don't know about that. I haven't heard of it and I don't believe it. I don't believe that it happened in millions of cases.
Q You don't believe it?
Q Now, I shall go on to another question. Now I shall refer to one question, the question of treating Soviet prisoners of war. I do not intend to examine you in regard to branding of Soviet prisoners of war and other facts. They are well known to the Tribunal. I went to examine you in regard to one document, the report of Admiral Canaris, which was presented to you yesterday. You remember that yesterday your counsel presented to you the report of Canaris, which is dated the 15th of September 1941. It is registered under the number PS-336. You remember that even a German officer paid attention to the tremendous arbitrary action and lack of any legality which was employed in regard to the Soviet prisoners of war, and this report of Canaris mentioned mass killings of Soviet prisoners of war. He stated the fact that there was absolute necessity to do away with such arbitrary actions. Did you agree with the statements included by Canaris in his report, which was sent in your name?
A I didn't understand the last, but with reference to me, my personal -
Q My question amounts to this: Were you personally, Keitel, in agreement with the statements which were advanced by Canaris in his report;
were you in agreement with his Statements or his wishes to do away with the arbitrary actions which were employed against the Soviet prisoners of war?
Q You can answer this question very briefly. Were you in agreement with it?
A Yes, I will do brief. I said then that upon receiving that letter, I immediately submitted it to the Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, particularly because of the attached publication of the People's Commissar's which was dated at the beginning of July, and I requested a renewed decision. I shared the objections that Canaris raised, but I have supplemented my statements.
Q You shared it. Very well. Now, I shall present to you the original copy of the report of Admiral Canaris, on which your resolution is written.
Now, Mr. President, I shall present the document to the defendant, which has his resolution inscribed on it. This resolution was not read into the record in court and I shall also present the text of his final resolution to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have the copy;
GENERAL RUDENKO: Yes, I gave it to the defendant. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q Listen to me now. Listen to me and fallow the text. In Canaris' document, which you consider to be right, is your resolution of the following facts:
"These suggestions are in accordance with the soldiers conceptions of conducting wan, but here we are talking about abolishing or destroying the whole world concept and, therefore, 1 approve such measures and I cover them."
Q Keitel, is this your resolution?
A Yes, I have written that. It was the decision after the Fuehrer had been reported to and I did write it.
Q It isn't written there that the Fuehrer said so; it is said "I, Keitel, sanction them."
it.
Q In other words, you admit this resolution. Now, I will give you another document. I shall draw your attention to another part in this document. I wish to call your attention to the second page of this document. Please pay attention to the part right opposite the text of Canaris' report, where it is stated:
"Getting held of civilian personnel and also politically undesirable military personnel and the decision in regard to their fate is to be done by operating troops of the Security police and SD in accordance with the instructions which are not known to the army agencies in carrying out the wish that they are not capable of." the margin, defendant Keitel. It say, "It is quite reasonable." Is that not so?
AAll I heard was "Canaris writes". is your resolution in the margin, written by you personally, "I am quite in accordance with that." Isn't it? Did you find this resolution?
A Yes. The word "suitable" refers to the fact that the army had nothing to do with these Einsatzkommandos (Action Groups) and that they were strange to them. making their vengeance on the civilian personall and military personnel. Do you consider that it is quite proper? were unknown to the armed forces. I underlined "unknown."
Q I presentthe original to the Tribunal. I am asking you, defendant Keitel, who have been called Fieldmarshal here several times before the Tribunal, you, who called yourself a soldier, whether you, by your own bloody resolution, on September 1941, approved and sanctioned the murder of defenseless unarmed soldiers who were taken by you as prisoners? Is this correct? ponsibility for the action of my office; I assume it.
Q That's clear. In connection with this I ask you another question. Since you mentioned several times before the Tribunal about the soldiers' duty, I want to ask you:
Is it in accordance with the concept of a soldiers' duty and the honor of an officer to publish or promulgate such orders in regard to prisoners of war and the civilian population?
A The answer is "yes", in so far as reprisals are concerned, which occurred during August and September. They were justified when we heard what happened to German prisoners of war in the field of battle. when we heard abou them and found them lying murdered by hundreds.
Q Enough of this, Defendant Keitel. Defendant Keitel, I want you once again to take the same road as you already used here and that is your imagination about so-called reprisal actions as to German war prisoners, but you and I confirmed yesterday that even in May, 1941, before the war, you signed the directives about the shooting of the political and military workers of the Red Army.
A I signed those orders before the war, too, but they don't contain the word "murder."