I knew of that order.
Q My question dealt with the limits of the jurisdiction. Did you not know that in the Operation Section of the Army who had responsibility for war prisoners, and that the OK took over this responsibility at the moment in which the war prisoners reached Germany? happened is concerned, namely, that the General Staff of the Army had prepared everything to bring these people back; that the order had been issued in an order to put it under them; and that the General Staff made the OKW responsible for the consequences of all this. What happened after that I can not judge; I can only say what I saw and heard.
A I did not express conjecture; I simply repeated what I had heard at that time and what I know -- I could of course be wrong -from whom in the same circle in which I led my daily life, my ordinary contacts with Canaris or the other section chiefs, and being present when addresses were held, -- conversations and that sort of thing; matters that were discussed in this circle. It was under such circumstances that I heard these things, which were frequently discussed. And as I emphasized repeatedly, I told Reinecke to his face that what he himself at that time said regarding these matters.
A I understand precisely -what you mean. I wish to delimit it though as clearly as I may so that I can make clear to you what I did say yesterday in order to define the specific organizational limits. of war prisoners only in Germany? commando activities took an attitude such as you defined it yesterday insofar as you had to do with these things from the German side, but you were not officially concerned with these things?
A Not immediately, no. The Ausland Office had something to do with that to the extent that first of it it was guided by the purpose even before these things became orders; certainly at the moment that the order became a fact. And of course this order involved a serious question of international law, and of course the Abwehr Division was concerned in its Ausland, namely, its foreign division with such questions. Practically my division was immediately interested in it; was concerned with this, because other sections of the Abwehr were so concerned. Abwehr did it take an official position toward this? of the operations of my division, and that this chart was transmitted to Canaris. But what we had to deal with concretely I knew of only through what Buerckner said at that time. And whether this took place in writing or orally in his department--objections and counter-objections-these measures were taken cognizance of and transmitted. I can not say in what form this transmission took place; whether in writing and then orally or vice-versa. After the executions had actually taken place, on the basis of what had actually taken place, was of course perfectly understandable.
THE PRESIDENT: It would help the interpreter if when giving a very long answer like that that you pause between the intermediate parts of the answer.
THE WITNESS: Shall I repeat? I don't know-
THE PRESIDENT: No, no; go on. BY DOCTOR NELTE: prisoners with brandings. Didn't you find out that a summary of this question was presented by the chief of the OKW, who was at that time in the Fuehrer's headquarters, that this order was given telephonically; that it was a question of a terrible misunderstanding and which led to the fact that this order was issued only in a very few copies?
of things that took place within the Abwehr division; things that were communicated to me by Canaris. I knew of these things only if I received knowledge of them through the channels that I have described.
Q You yourself did not see the order?
A Which order are you referring to?
A No. That is exactly as in the question of the commando orders; I was only present at this very lively discussion of these questions, and so far as the business of branding Russian prisoners is concerned, I simply remember that someone made a medical report on how that could be most efficiently done. defendant Keitel had issued the order to do away with General Weygand. The Defendant Keitel denies that. Now, he would like to ask if there is in your possession any document or any written evidence that could serve as proof of the source of such a remark regarding General Weygand? only towards me. Of course, it came to me because I was to carry it out through my department. It was known in a certain circle around Canaris; a certain limited publicity; and I was insinuated into this matter through an address that Keitel held at which I was present and at which I was spoken to by Keitel on this matter. And that I have made note of in my personal journal. It was of course not an every-day affair. On December 23, 1940, this took place.
Q Don't you remember the actual wording of the question that Keitel asked you?
A Of course I can not remember the precise wording. The meaning of it, of course, I remember very well. The meaning was, "What has been done in this matter? How do things stand?"
A I don't Again remember the precise wording of my answer, but I certainly didn't say what I had said to Canaris, namely, that I wouldn't mostly consider carrying out such a murder order nor that I was not the chief of an organization of murderers.
What I actually said to Keitel -I probably said something about how difficult the matter was. Any evasive answer that I may have thought of.
made such a command, namely a command to deal in this way with General Weygand? If he had issued such an order would not the matter involve the state? You didn't tell us whether after December 23, 1940, anything transpired in this matter, that is to say, whether the chief of the OKW returned to this question.
A No, I didn't say that yesterday, but I frequently mentioned that during the interrogations that, namely the fact that after this time nothing further happened so far as the chief of the OKW was concerned. Whatever Canaris could have told me because of my acquaintance with him, whatever it might have been, it did not lie in the direction of my jurisdiction. As to the matter of Giraud, we shall come to that presently. such as the murdering of General Weygand, if such an action should have been ordered, and then all of a sudden nothing more is heard of it -can you give me an explanation of that? but also our group's interpretation of the matter. The situation at that time was in fluctuation; events were happening very fast; something was up; and we assume -- and I shall return to this, shall return to why we assumed it -- that this matter and the interest that there may have been in this action, that this interest was thrust into the background.
Q Do you wish to say anything else?
A Yes. I want to say that what I am saying now bears a certain relationship to the affair Giraud, in which Canaris and the others who knew about this as the matter began hoped that it would take the same course as the affair Weygand; that in other words history would take the same course that it had taken before, namely, that the order should come perhaps from Hitler to Keitel and then from Keitel to Canaris and then to me, and the it would stop there. That was our hope. Now, the matter regarding Giraud developed, you know. Whether this was right or unright I do not know.
but in such an important matter as this matter of Weygand it doesn't seem to me to hold water. If there had been any reason from any source to do away with Weygand how do you explain the fact that Weygand, who later was taken to Germany and put in a villa without being disturbed in any way and being well treated, that nothing was done to him? It could be understood that if the order at that time was to do away with him that it might have been carried out on this occasion. personalities in public life or personalities in foreign countries was quite various. There were high personalities who were at one moment thought very highly of and at the next moment were to be found in a concentration camp. Admiral Canaris in your and other people's presence said that General Giraud was to be done away with on orders from above?
A Yes; that is to be assumed from the remark that Pieckenbrock made, that Keitel should tell these things to Hitler once and for all, Canaris, it was not an order of Keitel's but an order of Hitler's in the Ausland Abwehr office? to Canaris. I can only assume that it may have been an order from Hitler. I do not know who actually gave this order, because along this line via Canaris on up I was excluded. It was, so far as I can see it, an order from Canaris, an order which I could discuss immediately with Canaris in the same way I can discuss it here.
Q You yourself didn't personally hear this order? by Keitel about this matter?
"killing", "elimination", was such a word used to you by with a date--for what reason I don't know--but the affair Weygand.
There were larger aspects to it apparently.
Q You didn't answer my question. What did the defen dant Keital say to you on this occasion; namely, the occasion was brought up?
What did he say?
Q That is your opinion, but that is not the fact. I In your presence, he did not use this expression "dispose of" After Giraud's flight and his return to Unoccupied France, a conference took place in Occupied France?
was to be made; namely, that Giraud was in Occupied France and could be taken prisoner?
" Then you knew also that thereupon the OKW--that is Unoccupied France without having been harmed?
THE PRESIDENT: Don't go so fast.
Q Did you know that General Giraud's family lived in Occupied France?
surveillance of this section?
and that later he refused to return to captivity. I have
A I beg your pardon. May I return, please, to the question of Giraud?
he might return to France?
A No. No, I do not know about it. Perhaps I was not
A No, it is not. I didn't keep Canaris' diary. I
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now for ten (Whereupon a brief recess was taken)
DR. OTTO KRANZBUEHLER (Counsel for Admiral Doenitz) cedure.
In the course of the proceedings, many German wit nesses will be heard.
It will be important that oho statement.
witnesses be brought correctly to the attention of the Court. In the hearing of this witness I have tried to compare the real statements of the witness with the English translation. I have observed, I believe, that in many points the translation was not entirely according to the statement of the witness. own the immediate statements of the witness so that the defense counsel will have the opportunity to compare the real statement of the witness with the English translation and, if necessary, to make a motion to correct the translation. That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr. Justice Jackson.
JUSTICE JACKSON: I just want to inform the Court and the Counsel, in connection with the observation that has just been made, that that has been anticipated and that every statement of the witness is recorded in German so that if any question arises, if Counsel addresses a motion to it, the testimony can be verified.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that German record available to defendants' counsel?
JUSTICE JACKSON: I don't think it is. It is not, so far as I know. It would not be available unless there were some occasion for it.
THE PRESIDENT: It is transcribed, I suppose?
JUSTICE JACKSON: I don't know how far that process is carried. I will consult with the technicians and advise about it, but I know that it is preserved. The extent of my knowledge is that it is preserved in such form that, if a question does arise, it can be accurately determined by the Tribunal, so that if they call attention to some particular thing, either the witness can correct it or we can have the record produced. It would not be practicable to make the recording available without making reproducing machines available. While I am not a technician in that field, I would not think it would be practicable to place that at their disposal.
THE PRESIDENT: Wouldn't it be practical to have a transcription made of the shorthand notes in German and, within the course of one or two days after the evidence has been given, place that transcription in the defen dants' counsel room?
JUSTICE JACKSON: I think that is being done. I think perhaps Colonel Dostert can explain just what is being done better than I can because he is the technician in this field. I am sure that no difficulty need arise over the matter of correct translations.
COLONEL DOSTERT: Your Honors, the reports of the proceedings are taken down in all four languages and every word spoken in German is taken down in German by German court stenographers. The notes are then transcribed and can be made available to defense counsel. Moreover, there is a mechanical recording device which registers every single word spoken in any language in the courtroom, and in the case of doube about the authenticity of the reports' notes, we have the further verification of the mechanical recording, so that defense counsel should have every opportunity to check the authenticity of the translation.
JUSTICE JACKSON: I am advised further by Colonel Dostert that twentyfive copies of the German transcript are being delivered to the defense each day.
DR. OTTO KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, I was not informed that the German testimony is being token down in shorthand in German. I understand that the documents have been translated. If German shorthand is being taken in the Court, I withdraw my motion.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we should get on faster if the defendants' counsel, before making motions, inquire into the matters about which they arc making the motions.
DR. FRITZ SAUTER (For the defendant Von Ribbentrop) I would like to ask a few questions of the witness.
Order was given, according to which, Russian prisoners of war were marked in a certain manner and that these orders had been taken back by the Defendant Keitel. You did say that, didn't you? your remarks as to whether you know about this matter -- that Ribbentrop said that when the time came to mark Russian prisoners of war, he immediately, in his capacity as Reichs Foreign Minister, went to the Fuehrer's Headquarters to inform General Field Marshal Keitel of this Order and had pointed out to him that he, Ribbentrop, in his capacity of Foreign Minister, in other words, as the protector ox international rights, that he objected, to such treatment of Russian prisoners of war. something has been said of who informed Keitel of this order and who asked him to retract it? had existed and, as I have previously said, this was not carried out, Ribbentrop yesterday, especially of one statement, that an uprising should be put into effect in Poland; all Polish farm houses should go up in flames and all Jews should be killed.
Yes. That is just about the way the statement ran yesterday. the Russian prosecutors, you amplified your statement that you had talked of an Order of the Defendant Ribbentrop. I would now like to know whether you really meant to say that it was really a matter of an Order from Ribbentrop to a Military department?
first treatment of this matter, you spoke of directions which I believe your superior officer had supposedly received from Ribbentrop?
A No, it was not my superior officer. This was Canaris. I would, like to say, to clarify this matter. It was a matter that was taken up on the 12 of September, 1939, in the Fuehrer's train. These meetings took place within the following times: Minister Ribbentrop and Canaris in his train, where general political questions in regard to Poland ware raised. I was present at the time, and including the subject of the Ukraine and Poland. More about the first meeting, I do not know. and in this meeting, the then Chief of the OKW, Keitel, summarized and amplified these political directions, given by Ribbentrop, in regard to the treatment of the Polish problem, as to the political point of view, and he mentioned several possibilities -- we could do this or this could happen, this case night be possible. In connection with that he said: "You, you Canaris, have to start an uprising with the organization of the Ukraine, which must have as its aim Poles and Jews." conversation between Ribbentrop and Canaris in connection with this subject, this remark was made casually, with a more amplified statement of the intention, how this uprising, or whatever was to happen, would mean and I remember very clearly that he said, "The farms must go up in flames." to this remark and this is what happened. Directions or orders were given by Keitel and Canaris repeated them, one of which was as to the burning of farms, which I remember very clearly.
THE PRESIDENT: It would assist the Tribunal if one question at a time were asked and if the witnesses would answer "yes" or "no" to the question asked and explain, if they must, afterwards. But questions and answers should be put as shortly as possible and only one question should be asked at a time.
Q (continuing) Now, witness, something else has come to my attention.
THE PRESIDENT: You heard what I said did you? Do you understand it?
Q (continuing) This has come to my attention. Yesterday you said that these remarks of Ribbentrop are not in the diary. with the diary of Canaris. This is a remark which was -especially come to your attention. also made such remarks. You also mentioned, however, that these remarks from Blaskowitz, were apparently not put into the diary. this question; why is this remark of the defendant Ribbentrop, though it had come to your special attention, why has it not been entered especially in the diary? repeat. the subject Blaskowitz was mentioned in this way and I cannot expect that this subject had fallen into this category, otherwise it would have been put down in the diary. It can also be, of course that the matter Blaskowitz was discussed at the time when I was not right there, or which I didn't hear at the time. I have only put down what I have heard or what Canaris told no to recall.
Q But you heard that yourself from Ribbentrop?
A Yes, but the most important was not altered. It was a matter of extermination, of the burning of farms; according to the sense of it, it was a terroristic measure. beating Jews to death? he made to Canaris, because Canaris did not only talk to me but with others, talked to them in Vienna and he also called upon me as a witness. You heard that too. That was not concluded at the time but these words have always been discussed. intended murder, which you or your department, and other offices, have been ordered to carry out. Have you at any police station made any kind of a report? I would like to point out that failure of doing such a thing, according to German right, has to be punished with prison, or in some serious cases, with death. is also punishable. as far as I know.
THE PRESIDENT: It is too fast.
Q (continuing) In other words, any report or a report to any police has never been made on your part?
of murders, which I knew about and which are in the records, like the shootings, but all the things I had knowledge of, whether I wanted to know about them or not, unfortunately I was in the midst of them. could no longer be prevented, but about things that would have been possible to prevent, that is the difference. first hand, why didn't he do the same thing? Why didn't Hitler make a report, for instance? the German Wehrmacht since the first of January, 1945. At that time I was Lt. Colonel of the High Command and later Colonel of the General Staff, not in the General Staff.
Q But, in 1938, right after Hitler's attack on Austria, you had immediately made a request to be taken into the German Wehrmacht by Hitler.
A I have not made a request, and I didn't have to do this. At those places where I was in service, I was known for my activity. I was working in the Austrian Government, in my very circumscribed activities, with the German Wehrmacht concerning outer Austrian matters -- not only the German Wehrmacht, but also with the decisions of the Austrian Government as well as with Hungarian and Italian matters. These were matters of politics which were not in my domain. were immediately after Hitler's arrival in Austria, in the High Command, and as you previously denied, you have tried to receive a commission in the German Wehrmacht. You had also made out a questionnaire, in which you have given your complete -- you had sworn to Adolph Hitler. such a position and who was transfered from one place to another, in their old capacity.
informed that you especially went in the company of two or three other officers; you went especially to Berlin, in order to ask the German Generalstab Chief Beck, to put you into the German Army as an Austrian officer. my position. It do not think it was necessary for me to make an application for my new position in the German Wehrmacht. I was in my military activities, just as any military attache. I was known and whoever was a military attache in the country to which he has been accredited -I have said that in my Austrian activities and in the collaboration, which was not determined by me, but from the Austrian Departments -- the Austrian Information Service was one of mine -- that the Information Service was directed against the neighboring country of Czechoslovakia -- Czechoslovakia was the country that was next after Austria. Therefore, it was natural that my later Chief, Canaris, who knew me from my former position, was very much interested to have me come up into his department. He was the one and also Beck, whom I saw, actually saw, and I can tell you and others also know it and everything that I am saying now, everything that General Beck told me at that time. the German Wehrmacht, which you formerly denied?
A No, that is not true, I had not tried to do this. Others have done it, I did not go. I flow there. Canaris tried to, who knew me, not only in my military capacity, but also in my political beliefs, just as General Colonel Beck, who was, informed by Canaris about me. I tried to get there, but others have done this for reasons which have only been cleared to me later on, because they did know my political beliefs, just as well as my Austrian commander, who knew about this. Many could not be this, that's the way it was.
DR. SAUTER: I have no other questions of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Before the cross-examination I wish to announce that there will be no public session of the Tribunal this afternoon.
DR. STAHMER: I am for the defendant Gearing, and I would like to address a few questions to the witness. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. STAHMER: inner basic conviction of General Canaris, that the war on Poland, which was not successful, was the end of Germany and our misfortune. This misfortune, however, would become greater by a triumph of the system which was the purpose of General Canaris to prevent.
A With one exception, you did not understand me. He did not succeed in doing it, but the attack, which was not able to be prevented, because Canaris could neither hinder -years, had very active organizations and large sabotage organizations behind the front and that he was very active for these organizations? informed the American departments who have been interested in this, some time ago.
Q Well, how is that possible? This would not be in conformity with his inner political beliefs. activities, that he could never talk as he actually believed, and thousands of others could not talk that way either. But he had certain ways of talking, not what he said, but what he had to say; in other words, to fellow certain aims and how it was done and that I know and others know too, yes. actually done. He has not only proposed such measures, but he has also applied himself to the execution, is this true? his position, he had to enforce them because in this activity it was necessary for him to stay there and that in 1939 would not have happened what actually happened in 1945, that Himmler finally got his hands into everything, and I would like to give you these two figures, Canaris and Himmler, and I would like to ask what would have happened if -questions.
years of the war, had good connections with the SS and the necessity of close cooperation with the SS; that he emphasized this repeatedly so that the defendant Goering had given the advice that he should be more independent in his military -
THE PRESIDENT: You are going too quickly and I do not think you are observing what I said just now, that it will help the Tribunal if you will ask one question at a time.
DR. STAHMER: The question I would like to summarize this way; whether the witness knows that Admiral Canaris, during the first years of the war, had good connections with the SS and recognized the necessity of close cooperation with the formation and that he always emphasized this.
THE WITNESS: Yes, this is known to me. I also know why.
Q (Continuing) And why, please? informed, what was going on with these people and that he had the possibility to act if and when it was necessary. of Canaris, to give the military organizations information in good time reference to Canaris.
Q Of your office, of the office of Canaris? landings in North Africa, this was information that was not given by your office?
This is a question of the Oberst Pieckenbrock, but not for me. No, I did not know. of the Air Forces, Rowil, was leading a special troop which had the job of giving information on the Polish campaign, and you also said that colonel Rowil went to see Admiral Canaris and to report on the result of these flights. Is that true?
A Yes. How should otherwise know how I knew about it, I have not invented it.
Q I didn't say that.
How did Colonel Rowil come to tell you about this? Ausland Abwehr, the Upper Department 1, had the job to do so. England?
Q When and where have these pictures been shown to you? was none of my business. I happened to be there. I was just interested to see what was going on.
Q What did these pictures show?
A I do not remember that any more, the details. They were some pictures that were made from airplanes. not shown you?
A It was none of my business. I was there as an interested listener, and it was just as I previously told. flights?
Q You do not know?