Do you remember the document? It was a report from Canaris to you as of the 15th of September. 1941, putting out the position of prisoners of a country that had not signed the Convention. You remember, you said you agreed with it, but that you had to put on this statement that it was nonsense from the point of view of the present situation because it arose from a military concept of chivalrous warfare, that this was the destruction of an ideology. You said that you had to put that on, on Hitler's instructions. Do you remember?
A I had told him about the procedure and about the matter; I asked that he read this, and then put on this note.
Q Yes. Now, there is a paragraph 3-aa, which I want you to have in mind at the moment, on the point I am dealing with now:
"The screening of the civilian and politically undesirable prisoners of war, as well as the decision ever their fate, is effected by the action detachments of the Security Police,Sicherheits Polizei " That is underlined in purple --that is, it is your underlining--and opposite it is your pencilled note, "very efficient." That Is, "action detachments of the Security police, very efficient. Then it goes on, "...and the SD." Then Admiral Canaris says, "...along principle? which are unknown to the "Wehrmacht authorities", and you have put opposite " unknown to the Wehrmacht authorities". "not at all". Do you remember doing that?
A No. At this moment, I am sorry, I do not recall. I must have meant this remark to refer to the fact that this was unknown to the Wehrmacht, and I believe I recall it that way.
Q You see, it is perfectly clear. Admiral Canaris says it is unknown to the Wehrmacht authorities, and you put opposite to that, in your penciled notation, "not at all". You couldn't have gotten that from Hitler; "not at all"? You must have known they were known to the Wehrmacht.
A Not at all. I cannot clarify this statement. I put these remarks down rather hurriedly, and I cannot identify them at present. They are very hard to decipher or to recognize. I cannot give any clear informamation or explanation, because I do not know. However, as I recall, I wanted to make, or did make, a note to the effect that the Wehrmacht knew nothing about it, and that is correct. my points, and then ask you one question about it. You have said to the Tribunal, I should think probably at beast twenty-five times, that you were not interested in politics, that you simply took your orders as to military preparations. I just want to ask you a little about that.
First of all, let's take the Austrian problem.. There I only want to put one document to you. You remember defendant General Jodl's account in his diary about the pretended military movements which, according to defendant Jodl -- I gather that you said that General Lahousen took a different view--had an immediate effect in Austria? Do you remember that? You must remember that. ments? Those were instructions of the Fuehrer, when he admitted me that evening. I would not have thought of that myself.
Q You have the document books that I gave you. Just look at that. It is 113 of the German document book. It is 131 of Your Lordship's document book, the larger document book.
A Yes, I recall.
measuresin the Army or Luftwaffe, no troop movements or redeployments, to spread false but quite credible news which may lead to the conclusion of military preparations against Austria. And it is through people in Austria and your customs personnel and through agents that you set out the news, and by a make-believe wireless exchange and through maneuvers.
Now, you put that up to Hitler. As of the 14th, Captain Eberhard gives the information by phone that the Fuehrer has given his approval on all points. You were putting up what the false news and the false preparations were to be in order to get a politicaleffect in Austria, were you not? given to me on my return to Berlin. think I can, but I want to show the same point with regard to Czechoslovakia. at the Ministry of War. Had you seen von Blomberg's plan for the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the directive dated the 24th of June 1937?
Q You have?
A Yes. It was not instructions for an invasion, it was preparations for an invasion, and I am familiar with those matters.
Q Well, paragraph 2 reads: "The task of the German Armed Forces is to prepare in such a way that the bulk of the whole strength can break into Czechoslovakia quickly, by surprise, with the greatest force."
I should have thought that was a preparation for an invasion. All I want at the moment is to know this. You knew of that plan, defendant, did you not? not remember the details at this time. Fuehrer's plans against Czechoslovakia in 1933 was the interview with the Fuehrer that you had on the 21st of April 1938. It is very easy to forget something, and I am not putting it to you that you are lying, defendant, on this point.
But that is not accurate, is it? You had correspondence with the defendant von Ribbentrop as early as the 4th of March, six weeks before, on this point, had you not, about the liaisoning with the Hungarian High Command?
Isn't that correct?
A- I cannot remember that; I have no idea.
Q Just look at it. You see my point? You are stating that you were not dealing with politics, but if you will look at this document I will give you in a moment -- it is 2786-PS -- you will see that it is apparently a letter from the defendant von Ribbentrop to you;
"Most Honored General: Enlcosed I forward to you the minutes of a conference with the local Hungarian Ambassador for your confidential cognizance. As you can judge from it, M. Stojev suggested thatpossible war aims against Czechoslovakia be discussed between the German and Hungarian armies. I have many doubts about such negotiations. In case we should discuss with Hungary possible war aims against Czechoslovakia, danger exists that other parties as well would be informed about this.
"I would greatly appreciate it if you would notify me briefly whether any commitments were made here in any respect." with the Ambassador. von Ratz was concerned. I did not know at all just what was to be discussed. Blomberg had been invited by von Ratz also, and I did not know what was concerned, it could only have been military matters or questions. The question was whether I should make a visit like that, because Hitler had told me that he had considered that appropriate. However, an operational Chiefof-Staff meeting did not take place, It was just a hunting visit.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will recess now.
(A recess was taken).
BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE:
Q. I want to ask you very few questions on this part of the case, Defendant. Do you remember, you told the Tribunal that on the 21st of April, when you saw Hitler, that he had either read to you or handed you a copy of the minutes which appear there, taken by Schmundt, about the basis of the Fall Gruen operation against Czechoslovakia?
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, isn't this really a matter of argument rather than a matter for cross examination? The witness says that in so far as the port he took in all these matters, it was military. The case of the prosecution is that the part he took was political.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL_FYFE: My Lord, if I may say so, it is a very fair comment and received with greatest respect. The difficulty is, when a witness has said several times it is only military. I wanted to bring out the points that show it is political and I don't want to cross anything which the Tribunal had in mind.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the Tribunal have all the documents before them upon which they can judge, really, unless you have new documents?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, there are not; and,,my Lord, I will of course, accede at once to what the Tribunal says. My lord, I should like to point out one document.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I think the Tribunal does feel that the cross examination is apt to get a little bit too long and sometimes too detailed.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If your Lordship please, I am sorry if that has been done, but, my Lord, the witness was in examination in chief, I think, two full days and in examiniation by the other defense counsel for half a day, and so far the prosecution have only spent just four hours. So I hope you Lordship won't hold it too much against us. My Lord, the only document which I should like to -- I shall not pursue the point in view of what your Lordship has said -- it is page 31 of the document book. I only wanted you to have this in mind, because your Lordship will remember that the witness said that the state of German preparations was such that he, himself, and the other generals, did not think that a campaign against Czechoslovakie will succeed.
Your Lordship will see that on that day, General Malder, then Chief of Staff, said that the operation will definitely succeed and almost will be reached in the second day. My Lord, I only want to pass on that and I think it is only fair that the Tribunal should have-that point in mind. I don't think it has been referred to before. I will leave that point, as your Lordship has indicated, and I will leave the other point on this part of the case, which I intended to do. I only want to deal with a different point entirely and then I shall finish. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE:
Q. Defendant, the document which I have now passed to you is a document which gives the account of a conference between Hitler and yourself on the 20th of October 1939, with regard to the future shape of Polish relations and I want you to look at paragraph 3, the second sub-paragraphs. I want to put one interview to you that arose out of that. That paragraph says: "The Polish intelligentsia must be prevented from forming a ruling class. The standard of living in the country is to remain low. We only want to draw harbor forces from there," How, do you remember General Lahousen giving evidence? He said that Admiral Canaris had protested vehemently to you against, first of all, the projected shooting and extermination measures that were being directed particularly against the Polish intelligentsia, nobility and clergy, as well as elements that could be regarded as embodiments of the national resistance movement. According to General Lahousen, Canaris said: "The world will at some time make the armed forces, under whose eyes there events have occurred, also responsible for these events." Do you remember Admiral Canaris saying that to you or words to that effect?
A. I only know what General Lahousen testified here in court. I don't know anything about that.
Q. Did Lahousen ever give you any warning of any kind as to the fact that the armed forces might be held responsible for these actions that were being taken in Poland?
A. No. It was my opinion, though, that the armed forces would be made responsible, and my objections were taken without their being agreeable to them or without passing their opinion upon them.
That was the reason for the conference.
Q. And that was a point that did worry you very much; didn't it?
A. Yes, I was extremely worried and I had serious discussions about it, though not at that particular time.
Q. And wouldn't it be fair to put it this way, that if you had known at the time all that you know now, you would have refused, even with all that you have told us, you would have refused to have anything to do with actions that produced concentration camps, mass murder, and misery to millions of people, or do you say that you still, knowing all that you know now, would have gone on with these actions?
A. No. I am convinced that if the German armed forces and their Generals had know it then they would have fought against these things.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Thank you.
MR. DODD: If your Honors please, I have just one question. BY MR. DODD:
Q. A few days ago, on the morning of the 3rd of April, when you were on direct examination, we understood you to say that you had the feeling that you must accept responsibility for orders issued in your name, orders which you passed on, which were issued by Hitler; and on Friday afternoon, when Sir David was examining you, we understood you to say that as an old professional soldier you, of course, understood the traditions and indeed the principles of that profession of obliging a soldier to not carry out any order which he recognizes to be criminal in character. Is that understanding on our part correct?
A. Yes, I understood.
Q. So that is it fair to say to you that under the obligations of your oath as a professional soldier, you did acknowledge carrying out criminal orders?
A. In that way you can hardly say that. What should be said is that the leaders of the state and the authority they held at the time, represented the legislative authority which meant that the executive officers were not under the impression that they were carrying out illegal orders, if they came from the person who was by law entitled to give these orders.
Knowledge that acts were committed which were not strictly legal did, of course, exist as far as I am concerned.
on criminal or illegal orders. Is that a fair statement? necessarily that I was being criminal, since after all it had been the head of the state, who as far as we were concerned, was the legislative powere in the country. Consequently I was not convinced that I was acting criminally. this, to suggest to you, that I think your answer is not responsive. international law. An order issued in that form and on that basis is a criminal order, is an illegal order, is it not? orders in v iolation of one of the basic principles of your professional soldier's code no matter by whomthey were issued.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, do you sih to re-examine?
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I do not propose to put any further questions regarding the facts to the witness. It appears to mo that after his frank statements which he has made the facts objectively seen have been clarified to such an extent as can be possible during this tried. however, and particularly with reference to the last question which has been asked by the American Prosecutor, that certain supplementary statements be obtained. BY DR. NELTE: you, USSR 356, from which General Rudenko has presented to you a handwritten document and also the documents submitted by the British Prosecutor, D-762-I beg your pardon, 766,765, and 770. I am having them shown to you once more. regarding responsibilities appears to require a supplementary statement. You have said that Hitler's orders and with your cognizance of their contents, were being passed on by you.
And now I refer to Mr.Dodd's question and I ask you for your own personal judgment. I must ask you this additional question since it is of the greatest importance. How was it possible and how do you want to explain that these rigorous orders, which were violations of international law, that these orders could be carried out by you or how is it possible, as it says in the Canaris document, that you covered them? You did have objections, you told us so. is an inner event and it cannot be clarified with the help of documents, as such. Repeatedly you have told me and you emphasized it here that you had the wish to assist in clarifying the absolutely true state of affairs, Thus, I am asking you how was it possible and how do you wish to explain that these orders and instructions were made effective and passed on by you and how is it that no effective resistance was put up? I understand that some orders or some notes or documents of this kind have been found, in other words, that they were signed by me and that they were passed on in the shape of orders and that I understand how third persons, persons who were not concerned, particularly foreigners, cannot understand it. Fuehrer, that you must know in what circumstances, in what atmosphere day and night I worked in for years. You must not fail to consider just what the circumstances were under which these events occurred. I have repeatedly stated here and I had done what I have said, namely, stated my objections. I have raised them. The Fuehrer would then advance arguments which to him appeared decisive and he did it in a rather forceful way, which was peculiar to him, stating the military and political necessities and his concern for the welfare of his soldiers and their safety and his worries regarding the future of our people. I must state because of that but also because of the ever increasing emergency in which we found ourselves, I realized the necessity and the rightness of such measures and I often allowed myself to become convinced. Thus I would transmit the orders that were given, I promulgated them without being in any way deterred by any possible effects they might have.
but at any rate, the facts as I have described them did exist. During the examination by Sir David I myself admitted that I often had serious conflicts of conscience and that I often found myself in a position where I myself had to draw the consequences of those matters. But one thing I had not thought of and that was that I should in any way act against the head of the state and the supreme commander of the armed forces or refuse to obey him. As far as I am concerned, and as a soldier, this is a conception which cannot be violated. can be accused of having been weak under the Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, but one thing you cannot accuse me of, and that is I was cowardly, that I was not honorable and that I was faithless.
DR. NELTE: Mr President, I have reached the end of my examination. I should only like to ask you, if I may, that the documents which have been offered to the Tribunal in the course of this examination, bearing the numbers one and two in document book two, named documents K-8 and K-9, be admitted in evidence without the necessity of my reading any pants thereof. The Prosecution knows, the documents and they are agreeable.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Defendant, there is one question I should like to ask you. Are you suggesting that you ever put your protest or objections to the orders of Hitler in writting?
A One I handed to him in writting,yes: that I know for certain. In the other cases, and as far as I can recollect, the matters were discussed verbally.
Q Did you keep a copy of that protest?
Q Did you keep a copy of the protest ? I did not ask you whether you had a copy; I asked you whether you kept a copy. Did you make a copy? to him through the chief adjutant. I think I had the draft in my personal files, but no longer have it and I don't know where these files have gone. They could possibly be or have been in the hands of the Chief of the Central Armed Forces Department, who dealt with personal matters in my office. Later on they may have got into hands of the chief adjutant of the Fuehrer, that I don't know and I think that the original of that document ought to be available amongst those files, the document which I sent to the Fuehrer at that time.
Q And what was the occasion of the protest? during which he had expressed his distrust, and it was made in connection with the current controversies on basic matters which existed between us.
Q whom?
Q And you can't say more about it than that it was made on basic matters? of the strength of the accusations made against me and on the strength of the reasons which I was quoting.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all. The defendant can return to his scat.
DR. NELTE: May I ask permission to submit the two documents to the Tribunal, the ones which I mentioned before?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
Are you going to call in any more witnesses?
DR. NELTE: I had asked the Tribunal to be able to call witness Dr. Lammers.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. NELTE: Witness Dr. Lammers please.
DR. LAMMERS, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you state your name in full?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me: pure truth, and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeat the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You will sit down if you wish. BY DR. NELTE: conception of the OKW, its juridiction, and the position held by the defendant Fieldmarshal Keitel as Chief of the OKW. We have, during discussions which we had, talked about the matter subject of which, through previous interrogations and through st atements made by the defendant Keitel appears clarified to me, but since, after statements made by Goering and the defendant and statements to be made by other witnesses it will be clarified, I do not propose to ask you in detail on the subject. But I would like you, as the chief of the Reich Chancellory, to answer questions which others may not know as well as you do, you, who had participated in some way or other when certain decrees, and particularly that of the 4th of February, 1938, were drafted. May I ask you, therefore, to tell me, first of all, how did the decree of February 4, 1938, come about? going to leave his position, and that on that occasion he wanted to make certain other changes of personnel in the German Government. In particular, he said that the Foreign Minister von Neurath was going to retire and that certain changes would take place in that connection, and that furthermore, in the Supreme Command of the Army, certain alterations were about to be made. Subsequently , he instructed me to draft a decree regarding the chiefs of the army.
I was about to participate and collaborate with the Armed Forces Department of the War Ministry as a directive in this connection, and the Fuehrer gave me the following instructions.
"In the future I no longer want to have a Reich Minister for War; and in the future I no longer want a Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces who would stand between me, the Supreme Commander, and the Supreme Commanders of the Armed Forces Sections." Commander of the Armed Forces was created in the shape of a military staff which stood under the direct orders of the Fuehrer. The Fuehrer desired that there should be no independent authority in that place which would stand between him and the commanders of the departments of the armed forces. Consequently, Admiral Keitel, who was appointed in that connection, had no authority of command of his own regarding the sub-sections of the armed forces. Such powers could hardly be existing because -
THE PRESIDENT: Has this not been really covered by the defendant Keitel himself? No question in cross examination has been put to him to challenge any of his statements upon the organization of the OK ; therefore, it seems to the Tribunal it is not necessary at all.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President when I spoke a few introductory words, I had asked the witness regarding the development regarding that decree. I had asked him one question and, persuably, he had to talk a little more regarding the decree of February 4, 1938, to explain it. I shall try and make Dr. Lammers' examination as short as possible, and I do think that the questions regarding the Chief of the OKW have been clarified, but it is, after all, a principal question. If a man of the standing of Dr Lammers' can confirm it, then this would probably increse the value of the evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: If the Prosecution had put any questions in cross-examination suggesting that there was any inaccuracy in the evidence which the defendant Keitel had given upon the subject, then, of course, it would be open to you and it would be necessary fur you to call other evidence upon it; but, when the subject is not challenged in any shape or form, it is not necessary to confirm it.
DR. NELTE: In that case, Mr. President, I don't need to ask the witness any questions at all since the subject on which I was going to examine him was the position of the Defendant Keitel as Chief of the OKW; his position as a Minister; his functions as a so-called Counsel for the Reich's Defense and his functions as a member of the 3 men collegium. In all these cases, no questions have been raised by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, the Prosecution did raise the question as to whether the Defendant Keitel took part in any political action and upon that you may questionhim.
DR. NELTE: Thank you very much.
Dr. Lammers, what can you say on the strength of your personal knowledge, about the question whether the Defendant Field Marshal Keitel did occupy himself with political matters on the strength of his position as Chief of the OKW, or if he did concern himself with them? political matters. The way I understand your question is that you want me to say what Mr. Keitel, in his capacity of Minister of War, did do so far as he cooperated in political matters and what he carried out. I don't quite understand your question. in other words, nor has it anything to do with his functions in the Ministry of War. as to whether you know that the Defendant Keitel, during the time when he held the position of Chief of the OKW, occupied himself with political lines, say foreign political matters in the first place? foreign political affairs, I cannot make any statement regarding Keitel since I myself didn't participate in that phase.
Q Alright, then. I want to ask you a concrete question.
President Hacha came, when first there were meetings with other statesmen and you, principally, you were present also. Can you say whether during the time that he was presentduring such receptions, was it the function of Field Marshal Keitel to take part in political discussions and to co-operate? foreign statesmen. I myself did not take part.
You have mentioned President Hacha. That was an exception when I was there. In matters regarding the Protectorate, we were not interested in foreign political questions, as far as we are concerned, but during discussions with prominent men from abroad on foreign policy, I was practically never present and I cannot say, therefore, to what extent Keitel did participate during such c onferences, but I assume that he was frequently present during such conferences. of your knowledge. In that case, I am askingyou if, in accordance with the wishes of the decree of 4238, Hitler -- in other words, with whom you have discussed its problems -- stated whether the man who was to take over the position of Chief of the OKW was to have such political functions? Can you say anything on that?
A My opinion was that he wasn't to have anything to do with political functions in that sense. He was immediately subordinate to the Fuehrer. get the impression that Field Marshal Keitel was a political general, in the sense which one usually considers a General political?
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, in that case I do not propose to examine the witness further since everything else he was going to make statements on has already been clarified.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal thinks that you may have mis understood what I said to you about whether you should ask any questions about the Defendant Keitel as a member of the Reich's Defense Council.
If this witness can give any evidence upon that point, you may question him upon it. BY DR. NELTE:
Q Witness, in the law regarding the Reich's Defense of 1938, you, as Chief of the Reichs Chancellery, were appointed a permanent member of the Council for the Reich's Defense. Do you know if this Reich's Defense Law, together with the Council for the Reich's Defense, did it ever become effective.
A The Reich's Defense Law was made but has never been promulgated as such. In my opinion, it has never therefore become a law. The contents of the Reich's Defense Law were partially and applied as secret instructions from the Fuehrer. That Reich's Defense Council, as such, as far as I know, never did sit. I, at any rate, have never received an invitation to attend a meeting, and, in my recollection, I have never taken part in any meeting for the Reich's Defense.
have been called meetings of the Reich's Defense Council, but I believe that these meetings, because of the large number of people attending them -- I think there were 60 or 80 called by the Plenipotentiaries for the Four Year Plan -I can remember having partaken in such meetings. Apart from that, after the Reich's Defense Law had been formulated, I have had so little to do with it during the subsequent years that I myself did not remember that I had been appointed a permanent member of this Reich's Defense Council. In such meetings, if they were meetings of the Reich's Defense Council, in which I had partaken, no matters directly concerned with the defense of the Reich were ever discussed,
Q Do you know anything about the tasks which the Reich's Defense Council were supposed to have? which was not published. As far as I can recall, these were very general, these tasks which were to be performed referred to the Defense of the Reich. Reich's defense was an instrument for the planning of aggressive war. At any rate, an instrument for aggressions and for rearmament. Reich's Defense or whether members of that Council undertook such tasks? Cabinet Council of which you were supposed to be a member. Defendent Keitel was also a member of the Secret Cabinet Council, and it does, in fact, say so in that law?
A When Von Neurath resigned as Foreign Minister, it was the Fuehrer's wish, so far as the outside world was concerned, that the promotion of von Neurath should be emphasized -- be honored. He ordered me to draw up a decree regarding a Secret Cabinet Council which von Neurath would belong to -this Secret Cabinet Council. Apart from that, as far as I can recall, the foreign minister, the deputy of the Fuehrer, Reichsminister Hess, Field Marshal Keitel, and I myself were to be the other members. I think that's all.
that this was going to be a matter of a purely formal connection which would create a special position for von Neurath as far as the public was concerned, and I was positively convinced that the Fuehrer would never call a meeting of the Secret Cabinet Council. In fact, the Secret Cabinet Council has never actually met, not even for a constitutional meeting. It never received any tasks from the Fuehrer. It merely existed on paper.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Witness, if it was a secret, how could it affect the public?
as a foreign minister was to be demonstrated. It was to be demonstrated and made known that there were no differences between von Neurath and the Fuehrer which would have possibly been the cause of his resignation. It was to be demonstrated that he was not being put cut, but in fact, because of his a better position in foreign politics by being appointed President of the Secret Cabinet Council. BY DR. NELTE:
Q This, in other words, was a camouflage of his resignation?
Q I have yet one mere question. As Chief of the OKW, the accusation has been raised against Keitel that he has affixed his signature to certain laws, and I am now asking you what was the significance of the fact that the Chief of the OKW affixed his signature on its laws? had to countersign these laws in exercising them. He was assuming responsibility so far as the Fuehrer was concerned, that the armed forces, in other words, establishing connection with the Minister for War.
Consequently, so far as the Fuehrer's angle is concerned, he was supposed to ask the Fuehrer whether he could apply his signature or not. In exercising this jurisdiction his authorities were limited whereas Field Marshal Keitel signed the order of the Fuehrer on documents which came under thejurisdiction of the Minister for War.
Field Marshal Keitel was not a Minister? He only has the rank of a Minister. wouldn't have had to give him full ranking of a minister? But then, he was also a member of the ministerial council for the Reich Government. Didn't that make him a minister? that membership.
Q You mean no, don't you?
DR. NELTE: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn until five minutes past two.
(A recess was taken until 1405 hours) The witness, Hans Heinrich Lammers, resumed the witness-stand: