Q. You agree that you did ask that General Jodl should be interrogated?
A. I made that proposal, yes.
Q. Well now, what do you complain about as to the next sentence?
"During the whole conference in the presence of Goering, of whose presence during that conference I am not absolutely certain --"Wasn't that your view?
A. Yes, I was rather surprised at this interrogation at this question on that matter.
In the meantime I have become entirely clear and I am certain
Q. Had you discusses it with Goering while you were noth awaiting trial?
A. After my interrogations I had the occasion to speak with the Reich
Q. Yes, as you say, the Reichmarshal said to you he had not been present at the interview.
That is right, is it not?
A. General Jodl also confirmed that, that is, that the Reichmarshal was
A. Well now, did you tell General von Graievenitz and General Westhoff provide another sixty to seventy thousand men for the Ladnwache?
Did you tell them that?
A. No, that is also a misunderstanding, I did not say that.
Q. You said that Himmler had interfered.
A. I said only that Himmler had reported the fact of the escape and I to the camp.
I was not going to make a report to the Fuehrer on that day.
Q. Now, whatever you said to General von Graevenitz, you agree that General von Graevenitz protested and said:
"Escape is not a dishonorable offense, that is especially laid down in the Convention."
Did he not say that?
A. It was clear to me and I believe he did say that but I might add that the statement of General Westhoff is a matter of memory which goes back over several years.
Q. Yes, but you agree, as I understand your evidence, that General von Graevenitz did make a protest about the action that was taken, is not that so?
A. I believe yes.
Q. And then when he made the protest did you say words to this effect -I am reading of course from General Westhoff's statement:
"I do not care a damn. We discussed it in the Fuehrer's presence and it cannot be altered."
Did you say words to that effect?
A. No, it was not like that but I do believe I said similar things.
Q. Similar?
A. But we are not concerned with -
Q. Similar, to that effect?
A. I am sure I said something similar.
Q. And after that did you say that your organization, the Kriegsgefangenenwesen, were to publish a notice in the prison camps where prisoners of war were being held, telling all prisoners of war what action had been taken in this case in order that it would be a deterrect to other escapees? organization, to publish a notice in the camps saying what action had been taken in order to act as A deterrent?
A. From the report by the British Government I thought about this and I am of the opinion that there must be some confusion as to time. At this conference I am quite sure I did not say this, I said that later, several days later.
Q. Well, you will find it is stated in the statment of General Westhoff that we put in, at the bottom of page 3. General Westhoff says:
"The Field Marshal gave us detailed instructions to publish a list at the camps, giving the names of those shot as a warning. That was done. That was a direct order that we could not disobey".
says:
"This must start. We cannot allow this to happen again. The officers who have escaped will be shot. I must inform you that most of them are already dead and you will publish a notice in the prison camps where prisoners of war are held telling all prisoners of war what action has been taken in this case in order that it will be a deterrent to other escapes."
A May I make a statement to this?
DR. NELTE. (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): Mr. President, the British Prosecutor is referring to a document which I submitted in my document book, I assume that is correct, and a document which the French Prosecution wanted to submit and which I objected to, since it is a compilation of interrogations Which Colonel Williams compiled. can prove that this document does not agree with the testimony given by General Westhoff in twenty-three points. He has given me the necessary material and testimony. I can only bring him into the witness box tomorrow and I therefore ask, if the British Prosecutor is referring to the Witness Westhoff, at least that statement of Westhoff be produced which at the request of the American Prosecution was attested to by him under oath by Colonel Williams. This affidavit up to how has not been produced wheras all other pieces of evidence from him only contain reports which have never been submitted to Westhoff for his signature or for his acknowledgement or have they been confirmed by his oath.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE:My point was to make it quite clear that I was not putting anything in from the first statement which was not contained in the defendant's document book. I thought that the complaint could be the other way, that if I took our own evidence alone that then it would be said documents submitted in the defendant's document book. I have carefully callated them both. There is practically no difference between them but I thought it was only fair to put both sets of words.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks the cross-examination is perfectly proper. Of course if Dr. Nelte does call General Westhoff as a witness, he will be able to get from him any corrections which General Westhoff thinks are necessary which he makes to the affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: Yes, My Lord. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE:
Q Now, what I want to know is: Did you give orders to General von Graevenitz and General Westhoff that were to be published in the camps as what measures had been taken with regard to those officers?
A Yes, but several days later; not on the some pay as these officers were present.
Q How long later? event, when I found out that shootings had taken place. beginning, but what was published? what did you say was to be published as to the measures that had been taken?
A In the camp there was to be a warning published. In my opinion, we were not to talk about shootings but a warning that those the were caught in flight would not be returned to the camp, but I do not remember the exact wording. It was traceable back to an order which I had received from the Fuehrer regarding the matter of shootings. was probable, according to your recollection, that those who attempted to escape would be handed over to the SD and, Certainly, that very severs measures would be taken? Is that a fair way of putting your recollection of the order? to the effect that those who attempted to escape would not be returned to the camp, and that was the contents of this publication, according to my recollection which I transmitted later, but the verbatim I did not determine; the Luftwaffe was to be notified. to you with a draft order in writing, did he not?
A I do not believe that he came to me. I believe he sent me this.
Q I8m sorry, but when I said "come back to you", I was talking generally; you're quite right that he passed on for your consideration a draft order in writing for you to approve; that's right, isn't it?
A I do not believe that it was an order; as far as I remember at all, it was just a note, but it was not an order. However, I must add that in the course of the interrogation by Colonel Williams, I was reminded of this matter.
Q Well, what General Westhoff says is:
"Contrary to Fieldmarshal Keitel's order, I pretended that I hadn't understood properly. I worked the thing out on paper. I said to Oberstleutnant Kr ft, 'I want to have the word "shoot" included so that Keitel can see it in writing. He may adopt a different attitude then'" Now, this is a bit later:
" hen I got the thing back, he had written the following in the margin; 'I didn't definitely say "shoot"; I said "hand them over to the police and hand them over to the Gestapo."
Then adds General Westhoff:
"So that was a partial climb down," Now, did you put a note on it:
"I didn't definitely say 'shoot'; I said 'hand them over to the police and hand them over to the Gestapo'"; did you? Westhoff. I did make a notation in the margin in that sense.
Q You see the point that I'm putting to you, defendant? I want you th have it perfectly clear. Rightly or wrongly, General Westhoff believed that you had inserted the word "shoot" and General Westhoff, to protect himself, put it back to you, and then you say, "Ididn't definitely say 'shoot'"; I said 'Hand them over to the SD or the Gestapo." "shoot"; I did not say that. That was what Colonel Williams told me, and that is a matter of official record of my interrogation.
Q Well, now, what I want to know, and it's perfectly clear, is, no you deny that that in substance represents what you put in the document: "I didn't definately say 'shoot'; I said, 'Hand them over to the police or hand them over to the Gestapo"'? Did you put words to that effect on the document?
I wanted to make it clear what I had said to those two officers. It was nothing new, but it was a clarification of what I had said.
Q Now, the next point that I want to direct your attention to: PW staff, Kriegagefangenen Wesen?
Q What was his position in the OK?
A I believe there was a Colonel Raymond. He was chief of the department, but he was not concerned with the prisoner of war system; he was the department chief in the general Wehrmacht Amt.
Q In your office? meeting which Colonel von Reuermund took the chair, attended by Gruppenfuehrer Mueller from the Gestapo, Gruppenfuehrer Nebe, and Colonel Wilde from the air Ministry, from their PW inspector of 17; do you know that?
A No, I never heard anything about this matter. It is entirely unknown to me and has remained unknown to me. colonel from the Air Ministry, two extremely important officials from the police, and they have a meeting to discuss this matter two days after you had your first meeting, one day after you had seen von Graevenitz and Westhoff, and you didn't know a word about it?
departments. I do ask you in fairness to yourself to consider this. Are you telling this Tribunal that no report was ever made to you of that joint meeting between the representative of the OKW, high police officials and the Air Ministry, and it never came up to you? Now, really think before you answer.
A I cannot remember it at all, no matter how hard I try. I was surprised when I was confronted with the details of this conference, but I do not recall it.
Q Do you know that--I put it in Colonel Felder's statement when I was cross-examing the defendant Goering--he said that at that conference it was announced that those officers were to be shot and that many of them had been shot? Did no report come to you that those officers were being shot and were to be shot?
A No, not on the 27th. We've talked about it previously, when I received the first report. At that time I know nothing about it, on that day, or even a day subsequent, regarding this conference. that they were being shot on the 29th; that would be a Thursday? was even later than that. I believe it was several days later.
Q Well, let us, defendant, make every point in your favor. Let's take it that it was, say the 31st, or even Monday, the 2nd of April. By Monday, the 2nd of April, that's nine days after the escape, you know then that these officers were being shot? the occasion when I again came to the Berghof for a situation briefing, and I learned it through the adjutant of the Fuehrer, but at that time I was not told that all of these officers had been shot; but I was told that some of them had been shot in flight, and that was told to me before the beginning of the situation brief.
Q They weren't all shot until the 13th of April, which was nearly another fortnight. were you told of the matter, in which they got out of the cars to relieve themselves and then shot in the back of the head by someone with a revolver? Were you told of that? been given to the Fuehrer that shootings had taken place in the escape.
Q Now, I want you to come to one other point, later on: you remember that my colleague, Mr. Eden, on behalf of the British Government, made a statement in the House of Commons later on, toward the end of June. Remember that? your officers not to make contact with the Foreign Office or the Gestapo, to leave the matter alone and not try and find out anything about it, is that right? Wehrmacht was not involved in any of those means, that the officers of the prisoner-of-war system could not give any information, since they had not been participating and did not know what had gone before. the matter alone and not to get in touch with the Foreign Office or the police?
A No, that is not correct; that is not correct that way. The chief of the Amt Ausland was connected with the Foreign Office and I was concerned only and said that the officers should not give any information about this case and about matters concerned with it, since they were not participating and had only hearsay and rumors to go on. the effect of my previous question; I won't argue with you. I will come to the next point. You had an officer on your staff named Admiral Buerckner, didn't you?
Q He was liaison between your office and the Foreign Office?
an answer to Mr. Eden's statement? that effect, even though he was not to have any evidence or documents at his disposal; that is, he could not have that material from the Wehrmacht.
Q I don't want to read it again; I read the reply a day or two ago. But eventually the reply was drawn up, I think by the Foreign Office in conjunction with Oberstleutnant Kraft of your office, wasn't it?
Q Don't you remember Kraft-the prisoner-of-war system. I did not give any instructions to the Oberstleutnant concerned.
Q But didn't he go to Berchtesgaden to assist the representative of the Foreign Office and Hitler in drawing up a reply? and did not see him. Westhof, all your officers touched their heads and said, "And". You have seen that statement, haven't you, "When we read this not to England in the newspaper we were all absolutely taken aback; we all clutched our heads-- 'Mad'-we could do nothing about the affair." All your officers and you yourself knew the reply was an utter and confounded lie; wasn't it a complete and utter lie? You all knew it. not based on the truth.
Q So that it comes to this, Defendant, doesn't it: That you will go as far as this: You were present at the meeting with Hitler and Himmler. That is what you say. At that meeting Hitler said that the prisoners who were caught by the police were to remain in the hands of the police. You had a strong probability that these prisoners would be shot and with that you used this incident as a deterrent to try and prevent other prisoners of war escaping. All that you admit, as I understand your answers this morning don't you?
as to just what my position was, as for as Hitler was concerned, and I have not testified as to that, and that I did not give this warning, but that this warning was on the instruction of Hitler and that was the cause for now conflict between Hitler and me; that is when the first report of shootings reached me.
Q I won't go through the details again. One other point: When did you learn of the use of cremation and the sending of cremation urns to this camp? heard of it. The matter was later on purely a matter of the Luftwaffe, in which I was called in, through my presence, later; but I do not know whether I heard or saw anything about this at all. who has had to deal with prisoner-of-war problems would be horrified at the thought of bodies of shot officers being cremated; it is simply asking for trouble, isn't it, from the Protecting Powers and everyone else, to put it at its lowest? You will agree with that; I am sure you have had a good deal more to do with prisoners of war than I. Don't you agree it would horrify anyone who has to deal with prisoners of war that bodies should be cremated, that the Protectin Power at once would be put on suspicion? of ashes of cremated bodies of escaped prisoners of war, that would be a most serious matter which would be taken to the highest ranks of any service, isn't that so?
the Lutwaffe. Purely the inspectional powers.
Q I won't ask you further about the Luftwaffe. Now I think we can deal quite shortly with the question of the lynching of Allied airmen (handing a sheaf of documents to witness, and also to the Tribunal). ference on the 6th of June -- Document 735 PS -- which has been put in against the Defendant Ribbentrop; it is a report of General Warlimont, GB-151, with regard to the criteria to be adopted for deciding what were terror fliers. Von must remember the document, because you yourself dealt on February with the note you didn't want legal procedure, because it was a difficult problem for courts martial to decide and also it meant a three months delay in reporting the death sentence to the Protecting Powers. that lynching should be turned down. Do you remember saying that on Friday?
Q Now, that wasn't accurate, was it ? Because I want to just show you what did happen. That document which you annoted was the 6th of June. And on the 14th of June -Your office sent a draft letter to the Foreign Office for the attention of Ritter sending on this formulation of what were terror fliers. And if you look it over that says that it is necessary to formulate unambigously the concept of the facts which are to constitute a criminal act. And then the draft letter D-775, GB-308 to the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, for the attention of Colonel von Brau chitsch, which says that "on the basis of the preliminary talks and in agreement with the Reich Foreign Secretary and the head of the Security Police and SD, the Defendant Kaltenbrunner, the following facts are to be considered terroristic acts, which are to be taken into consideration when publishing a lynch law, or justify the handing of airmen from the Air Force reception camp of Oberursel to the SD for special treatment."
And then you set out what was agreed and you say, "Please obtain the consent of the Reich Matshal to this formulation of the fact and if necessary give the command of the Air Force reception camp of Oberursel verbal instructions to act accordingly. It is further requested that you obtain the Reich Marshal's consent also to the procedure intended for the handling of public announcements." And then if you look at D-776, GB-309, that is a letter from you to the Foreign Office -- a draft letter -- for the attention of Ritter, dated the 15th of June, to the same effect. You ask him to confirm by the 18th. And then D-777, GB-310, is a similar draft letter to Goering, marked for the attention of Colonel von Brauchitsch and asking him to reply by the 18th. Then D-778, GB-311, records a telephone call from Ritter saying that the Foreign Office will have to delay a couple of days in giving their view. D-779, GB-321 gives the first note from the Defendant Goering.
It says, 19 June, "The Reich Marshal has male the following note with regard to the above letter: The population's reaxtion is, in any case, not in our hands, but, if possible, the population must be prevented from acting against other enemy fliers." I ask you to note the word "others" -- that is, enemy fliers that do not come within the category of enemy terror fliers, "to other enemy fliers to when the above state of affairs does not apply. In my opinion, a state of affairs as above can also," and I ask you to note the word "also", "at any time be tried by a court, as it is here a question of murders which the enemy has forbidden his fliers to commit."
Then, in D/780, GB 313, there is another copy of the memorandum from the Foreign Office which I read in some detail when I was presenting the case agai against the defendant Ribbentrop, and it is interspersed with comments of your Officer General Warlimont, in general agreement with the memorandum. I do not want to go through that again.
Then, in D/781, GB 314, your office wanted to get quite clear what the defendant Goering meant, so you write to him again for the attention of von Brauchitsch:
"It is unfortunately not possible to gather from your letter whether the Reich Marshal has agreed to the facts communicted to him which are to be regarded as terroristic actions in the publication of a case of lynch law, and he has prepared to give the Commandant of the Air Force Reception Camp of Oberursel the verbal instructions to this effect. It is again requested that the Reich Marshal be induced to give his consent and that this office be notified if possible, by the 27 inst."
Then, just passing along, D/872, GB 315, it says that the Foreign Minister will reply in a day or two, and in D/783 of the 26th -- that will be GB 316 -comes the answer, a telephone memorandum, a telephone call, Adjutant's Office of the Reich Marshal, Captain Bueuer:
"The Reich Marshal agrees with the formulation of the concept of terror fliers as stated and with the proposed procedure. He asks for information this very day about measures taken." the procedure? Here is a call from his adjutant's office -- and it is noted by your office -- saying that he agrees with the formulation of the concept and with the proposed procedure.
This must be right, must it not? measures that these men were to be taken to Oberursel Camp, not lynching, and perhaps I may say something about that?
Q It is quite clear. I am not going through the correspondence again. I pointed it out as we went along. Your letters are saying both lynching and the measures to be taken for the publication of lynching and the other procedure of segregating these people in the hands of the SD pending confirmation of suspicion of terror fliers. It is quite clear, I have taken you through nearly ten letters in which it is stated implicitly that it is put to the Reich Marsha on both these points, publication of lynching and segregation from other prisoners of war. He is saying, I agree with the proposed procedure.
A May I add something?
A I recall my discussion with Goering on the Berghof. We expected Hitler to give a speech to the generals, and this must have been at the same time and in this discussion two points were mentioned, Point one was that my influence with Hitler had not been strong enough to set aside this matter or to do away with it, and I talked with Goering that day about these two points. We established that the entire method which was mentioned here was to be a condi tion for an announcement of lynch law.
We agreed that as soldiers we rejected that, and I asked him most urgently to use his influence with Hitler again so that these things would be stopped. actual speech by Hitler took place, and I remember this very distinctly. The correspondence which took place I just looked over now. I know some of the fragments only. These matters were discussed in writting this way and that, pro and con, regarding some measures which had been discussed by Hitler, but, thank goodness, these measures never did come through, and orders were not issued to that effect.
Q Would you look at the next document, D/784, GB 317. That is a note from General Warlimont to you. Paragraph (1) says that the Foreign Office have agreed.
Ambassador Ritter telephoned on the 29th that the Reich Foreign Minister has agreed to this draft. Paragraph (2) says:
"The Reich Marshal is in agreement with the formulation of the cooncept "terror flier" as proposed by the OKW and with the method suggested." Warlimont:
"We must act at last. What else is necessary for this?" Didn't you act on it four days later if they had given instructions to the Camp at Oborursel? Look at D/785, GB 318.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, it appears to be initialed by the defendant -D/784.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My copy is initialed "W", Warlimont.
THE PRESIDENT: D/784 on the copy I have is initialed "K" at the top, along side Warlimont's note.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh, yes. I am sorry, My Lord. The fault is entirely mine. My Lord is quite right.
Q So, before I pass from D/784 that was submitted to you and initialed by you?
A No, as far as this document D/784 is concerned, I only put my "K" on it to show that I saw the document, but I did not put any note on it.
Q. But the document was submitted to you, and so you did see that document? You know that both the Foreich Office and Goering were agreeing to this procedure being adopted?
A. Yes, I did read the document. I have seen the document.
Q. And four days later, in D-735, your department is asking Goering through von Brauchitsch as to whether they have been carried out:
"Please report whether instructions have been given to the Commandant of the Air Force reception camp of Oberursel in the sense of the statements of the Supreme Command of the Armed Froces/Operational Staff of the Armed Forces of the 15th June, or when it is intended to do so."
A. I have not seen this document before, but it seems to me that I asked the Reich Marshal about the taking back of these people to Oberursel, not whether he wanted lynch law, whether he approved it or whether he considered it just or right, and that, I think, would answer the question. The question itself I do not know.
Q. Please lock at 736, GB 319. You were going beyond that the next day. This is the fifth of July. It is actually a report of the meeting on 5 July. It says that Hitler decreed the following:
"According to press reports, the Anglo-Americans intend in future to attack from the air small places, too, which are of no importance to war economy or militarily, as a retaliatory measure against the 'V-1's'. Should this news prove true, the Fuehrer wishes it to be made know through the radio and the press that any enemy airman who takes part in such an attack and is shot down will not be entitled to be treated as a prisoner of war, but, as soon as he falls into German hands will be killed and treated as a murderer. This measure is to apply to all attacks on small places which are not military targets, communications centres armament targets, etc., and which are not of importance to the war.
"At the moment nothing is to be ordered; the only thing to be done is to discuss such a measure with the WR and the Foreign Office." of the measures to be taken.
A. I do not remember this matter, but if that note was made at that time, something like that must have been mentioned by him in this situation, but I do not remember the incident.
Q. I only want to put this point to you. You have said twice -- on Friday and again to-day -- that no order of the Wehrmacht had been issued. It would not need an order of the Wehrmacht to encourage the population to lynch fliers who had crashed. All that would be required to produce that result would be to hold off the police from arresting people who murdered them, would it not? You would not need an order of the Wehrmacht to encourage your population to murder fliers who had crashed, would you?
A. No, we were only concerned with the question of the Wehrmacht, which alone was justified in taking a shot-dawn airman into custody, should take then away from lynching and prevent that lynching or anything similar should take place.
Q. You will agree with me that once an American or British airman was handed over to the SD, his chance of survival would not be, what, one in a million? He would be killed, would he not?
A. I did not know that. I just learned about that here. I did not know that at the time.
Q. You will agree that that was in fact what happened; when an airman was handed over to the SD, he would be killed, would he not? That is what would happen?
A. I do not believe that was so, but here --
Q. I am not saying what you believe. Now we know what would happen?
A. No.
Q. You have told us several times that you did not know anything about the SD. In fact, at one time, you were a sort of a court of appeals from the SD in France, were you not? You confirmed the killings by the SD in France, did you not?
A. I do not recall that I did any --
Q. French Exhibit 1244. I am afraid that I do not have a German copy, but this is what it says.
"In the criminal proceedings against the French citizens:
"(1) Jean Marechal, born on the 15th October 1912 "(2) Emmanuel Thepault, born on the 4th June 1916 "Fieldmarshal Keitel, acting within the powers given to him on the 26th and 27th June, 1942, by the Fuehrer in his office as Commander-in-Chief of the land armies has refused to pardon these two men condemned to death and has ordered that the sentences should only be executed within the scope of the general punishments."
and this was sent to the Commandant de la Police de Surete et du S.D., sent to the Commandant of the Police of the Surete and of the SD. Does that not show that you were dealing with a confirmation of sentences of death and passing on your confirmation to the SD?
A This entire incident is on enigma to me. In several cases it was such that there were judgments or convictions given or confirmed by the Fuehrer, which had to be submitted to him for confirmation. Perhaps I submitted these to him, and perhaps signed as a Deputy for the Fuehrer in this case. However, I do not know anything else about this matter.
Q Well, it doesn't look like that. Let me remind you of the words: Mareshal Keitel, dans le cadre des pouvoirs qui lui ont ete donnees les 26 et 27 Juin 1942" That date. It is acting within the powers given to you by the Fuehrer. Had you not been given the powers?
A No, I did not have any such powers in that case. That is a mistake. However, I may have signed as the Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht, and I would put that down, "acting as a deputy, Field Marshal Keitel."
THE PRESIDENT: Are you passing from that?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: Yes, I was going to pass on.
THE PRESIDENT: Well. isn't D-775 relevant to that? the last line of the first paragraph.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: My Lord, I am very gratefull to you.
THE PRESIDENT: D-775. As I understand it, the defendant was saying that he didn't know what would necessarily happen to these prisoners if they were handed over to the SD. Those are the last words of the first paragraph.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: Very good, My Lord. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE:
Q The words are: "the handing over of enemy prisoners of war airmen from the Air Force Reception Camp at Oberursel to the SD for special treatment."
We now know, defendant, that "special treatment" means death, Didn't you Know, in 1944, what "special treatment" meant?
A Yes, it was generally known what "special treatment" was. Rudenko put to you on Saturday, I think it was, or Friday evening, EC-338. You remember General Rudenko put this. This document is the report of Admiral Canaris about the treatment of prisoners of war, dealing with the position of the Soviet Union as not being signatory to the Convention. You remember the point that Admiral Canaris put to you, that although they weren't signatories, since the 18th century there had been established a practice that war captivity was neither revenge nor punishment, but solely protective custody.