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?
You said Rowil made flights from Budapest later?
Q Do you know that of your own knowledge or information? according to the diary, and because at that time I was present at Budapest, and I was asked, because I was there, to attend a Dedication
Q And why were these flights executed from Budapest?
A I said that already yesterday. The gentlemen of the Air Force have to give an answer to that, I do not know.
DR. DIX (Counsel for defendant Schacht): You probably do not know me. I am the attorney for the defendant Schacht. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. DIX:
Q Do you, witness, know Captain Staruenck from the Abwehr?
A I would like you to tell me something about the name. The name alone, I do not know what belongs to it. Give me a few points that will refresh my memory. do not know in what department, but I would say it was in the department of Pieckenbrock. However, if you do not know I will not ask you anything further.
A If he was with Pieckenbrock I do not know him. I knew a few. Is Staruenck still alive? Has he been executed?
DR. DIX: For the information of the Court, I only ask this question because I have asked Colonel Staruenck as a witness, and he has already been admitted.
Q (Continuing) However, if you do not know him I will not ask you anything further.
A Well, it is only what I have already said. As to the question whether he is still alive, something came back to me; that this man, in connection with others that I know very well, it might be he was killed, but I cannot put it any more precisely.
DR. FRITZ (Counsel for defendant Fritsche): I would like to ask a few questions of the witness. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. FRITZ: 1942, was transferred to the Sixth Army as a soldier and at that time, for the first time, heard of an order for execution. The Oberkommander of the Sixth Army, Paulus, he recommended to him that this order be retracted. The leaflets were thrown all over Russia.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you ask one question at a time? What you have just asked are three or four questions.
Q (Continuing) Well, after I have said this, is it known to you that Fritsche gave Paulus the advice to rescind the order?
A That was already given to his Army. Will you kindly give me this within a certain time? mostly in May 1942.
A No. In connection with the person Fritsche, this is not known to me. In connection with the name Reichenau, which was mentioned before, I do remember a conversation between Reichenau and Canaris. That for me was very impressive, and Reichenau's conception and judgment of things in this conversation, in this circle, where there were several other gentlemen present.
It was shown to me entirely different from how it was generally expected, and as I also thought of it. But furthermore, I do not know anything concrete, anything in connection with the question you directed to me. really rescinded the order for the jurisdiction of his Army? I also said yesterday that several Army Commanders, whose names are no longer in my memory today, all those names that have been recorded, I have already informed you about. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. KAUFFMANN (Counsel for defendant Kaltenbrunner):
Q Do you know Mr. Kaltenbrunner?
A Kaltenbrunner? I met Kaltenbrunner once in my life. I have seen Kaltenbrunner once in my life on a date that will always be in my memory, I heard him there. It was also the first meeting between Canaris and Kaltenbrunner. It took place in Munich in the Regina Hotel, and it was on that day when the two young people, a student and his sister, were arrested and executed. They distributed leaflets from the auditorium of the University. I read the contents of the leaflets, I remember, and I also remember, among other things, that there was an appeal to the Wehrmacht on this day.
I can easily reconstruct that day. It was the first and last time that I saw Kaltenbrunner, whose name has been known to me. Of course, Kaltenbrunner mentioned this subject to Canaris, and witnesses were there, and everybody was under the terrible impression of what had happened, and Kaltenbrunner spoke about that to Canaris in a manner of which cynicism would be a very mild description. This is the only thing that I can say to this question. himself, and he had only Information Service. Is this in accord with the conversation that you just mentioned? the matter Kaltenbrunner and Himmler, the power politics which took place, to this very plain description of an event. I can give you the names and they were very impressive.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. BOEHM: (Counsel for SA): of Soviet prisoners of war was known to the leaders of the SA and other organizations, and your answer was that these orders must have been known and I would now like to ask you who these leaders were at the time and what were their names? I have also stated explicitly yesterday why I said so. They should have been known to you and a large circle, because from everything that became obvious from these orders and what, of course, was in a very natural way, was known by the return of wounded people. fact based on your information?
A It was not. I have never spoken to any SA leader about it. I never had anything to do with them, and I do not think any one of them knows me closely.
Q. Could you make a statement on this, that is, that the orders which were named yesterday were given to the formations of the SA, emphasizing SA?
A. Would you kindly formulate that question again?
Q. Could you make another statement, whether it was known to you whether the contents of these orders, which were talked about yesterday, were sent to formations of the SA through channels?
A. No, not through channels, no, but in the way I have previously indicated; in other words, that members of the SA who were also in the Wehrmacht would see outside actually what happened, and when they came back or came in contact with them, that they talked about the Jews as anyone else would. It was only in this connection-
Q. Is it known to you whether members of the SA had anything to do, at all, with the management of the prisoners of war?
A. Within the frame of the employment of SA in the Wehrmacht, yes.
Q. Have you any personal information on that?
A. No, I never said that. I said I had already talked about the SA.
Q. I have asked you what leaders of the SA formations have known about it and you yourself answered that they should have known it.
A. I said the leaders of these organizations, in this way, have known about it.
Q. And today I ask you whether the specific formations of the SA had received these orders.
A. I can only repeat what I said yesterday, and I think I was very clear on the subject, in other words, how these orders, that I did not read myself, but I knew the effects anyway
Q. I can imagine myself how this happened, but I have asked you whether you know anything about having these orders actually given to the SA?
A. No.
Q. You do not know? Is anything known to you that members of the SA were employed for the supervision of prisoners of war, according to your personal information?
A. Yes, because I, myself, on a trip to the Army Group North, I once got hold of an SA man, who kicked a Russian prisoner of war and I told him off, accordingly. Surely somewhere I have this in my records, and also an Arbeitsdienst Mann.
Q. Have you reported any of these incidents to any superior officers?
A. I have reported it to my superior officers, also my reports about these trips, either orally or in written shape, I have reported this, and on many of these occasions discussions had taken place.
Q. Have you got anything in your records?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you kindly present these?
(Discussion between Counsel and witness in German, not translated).
A. I am looking it up. This is about the Arbeitsdienst Mann, this document.
Q. It is not about the SA?
A. I do not have it here. I would have to look it up.
Q. Is there any possibility that you might find some records?
A. I would, have to have the possibility of having the entire material which the American authorities have, and I would have to look through it thoroughly for this one possibility.
DR. GEORG BOEHM (Counsel for S.A.): I will ask the Court to have it made possible at some time. BY DR. BOEHM:
Q. I would also like to ask you if you have any other information that SA members, who you previously said were employed in supervisory capacities, were made to execute these orders according to statements about Russian prisoners of war.
A. No, not personally.
Q. Thank you.
DR. STAHMER: (Counsel for Goering): I would like to ask the Court for a fundamental ruling, whether the defendant also has the right to personally ask the witness questions. According to the German Charter, Paragraph 16, I believe this is permissible without a doubt.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the point you have raised and will let you know later.
JUSTICE JACKSON: The U.S. prosecution would desire to be heard, I am sure, if there was any probability of that view being taken by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better hear you now then, Mr. Justice Jackson.
JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think it is very clear that these provisions are mutually exclusive. Each has the right to conduct his own defense or to have the assistance of counsel. Certainly this would become a performance rather than a trial if we go into that sort of thing. In framing this Charter, we anticipated the possibility that some of these defendants, being lawyers themselves, might conduct their own defenses. If they do so, of course they have all the privileges of counsel. If they avail themselves of the privilege of counsel, they are not, we submit, entitled to be heard in person.
DR. STAHMER: I would like to point out once more that Paragraph 16-A, according to my opinion, speaks very clearly for my point of view, and says that the defendant has the right, either personally or through his attorney, to present evidence, and according to the German text it is clear that the defendant has the right to cross examine each witness called by the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other German counsel, defendant's counsel, wish to cross-examine the prisoner?
DR. SERVATIUS (counsel for Sauckel): I would only like to point out that in the written forms that have been given to us by the Court, the defendant as well as his lawyer can make amotion. There is room for two signatures on the questionnaire. I request, therefore, that the defendant himself have the right to speak on the floor.
THE PRESIDENT: What I asked was whether any other defendants' counsel wished to cross examine the witness.
(Dr. Boehm approached the bench)
THE PRESIDENT: What is it? Would you put the earphones on, please, unless you understand English.
What is it you want to ask now? You have already corss examined the witness.
DR. BOEHM: Yes, I have cross examined him, but I have heard from him that he has written statements, that he mas made a report, according to something he has witnessed. I cannot dismiss the witness as yet. witness from the prosecution to look through all the reports and all the records, and we will have the possibility to go through all the materials.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you must conclude your cross examination now.
DR. BOEHM: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court thinks it would be better if you want to make any further application with reference to this witness, that you should make it in writing later.
DR. BOEHM: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, as no other defendant's Counsel wishes to cross-examine the witness, the Tribunal will now retire for the purpose of considering the question raised by Dr. Stahmer as to whether a defendant was the right to cross-examine as well as his own Counsel.
(Whereupon at 1.10 p.m. a short recess was takes.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has carefully considered the question raised by Dr. Stahmer, and it holds that defendants who are represented by Counsel have not the right to cross-examine) witnesses. They have the right to be called as witness is themselves and to make a statement at the end of the trial. in re-examination?
COLONEL AMEN: Just one question, your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the witness come back here.
COLONEL MAYS: He was taken away.
THE PRESIDENT: Taken away?
COLONEL MAYS: That's right. He was taken away by some Captain who brought him here for the trial. They have sent after him now.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know how far he has been taken away?
COLONEL MAYS: No, Sir, I do not. I will find out immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Amen, are the questions that you wish to ask of sufficient importance for the Tribunal to wait for this witness or for him to be recalled on Monday?
COLONEL AMEN: I don't believe so, your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well then. The Tribunal will adjourn, and it will be understood that in the future no witness will be removed whilst he is under examination from the precincts of this Court without the orders of the Tribunal.