Q Just answer my questions, will you? You are going on to a different matter.
A I did not suggest terrorist measures. There must be some enforcement agency in every state, and if one talks of compulsion, that is by no means terrorism or a crime. in this discussion, where he said that:
"The troops employed in fighting partisans are to take over, in addition, the task of acquiring manpower in the partisan areas. Everyone who can not fully prove the purpose of his stay in these areas is to be seized forcibly."
And you said:
"On further inquiry by the Reich Minister, Dr. Lammers,"--This is on page 10 of the English record--"whether with the withdrawal of the troops in Italy the population suitable for recruiting could not be taken along, Colonel Sahs, plenipotentiary general for Italy, stated that Field Marshal Kesselring had already decreed that the population in a depth of 30 kilometers behind the front area was to be captured." and the collaboration of the executive agencies of the state to procure necessary forced labor for the Reich?
A Yes, a certain coercion was to be applied; there can be no doubt of that.
MR. ELWYN JONES: There are only two more matters. My Lord, evidence before the adjournment that you had saved 200,000 Jews yourself. Do you remember saying that to the Tribunal?
A Yes.
Q You sated them from extermination, you meant, I take it?
Q What did you say?
A I saved them from evacuation and from nothing else. Subsequently I found out and nowI know that, as a matter of fact, I really saved them from extermination. fied to the Tribunal as to a conference which took place early in 1943 where you were invited by the Reichssicherheitshauptamt to send a representative to the conference dealing with the Jewish problem. Do you remember saying that to the Tribunal? you remember?
A That I do not know. I was not present. brunner, did it not?
Q Not from Kaltenbrunner personally?
Q And you sent a representative to the conference, did you not? orders, which my State Secretary who was present will confirm, simply to listen and to take no attitude during the conference, because I wanted to reserve for myself the right to communicate these things to the Fuehrer. to take no attitude? Was that what you said to the Tribunal?
A He was specifically ordered to take no attitude. He could not at any rate because no decisions were reached by this conference, but he was not to make any statements on his own initiative because questions such as the Jewish question. I myself wanted to communicate to the Fuehrer. For this reason, I instructed him not to take any attitude.
Q You sent Gottfried Bohle as your representative to that conference, did you not?
A I did net send him; my State Secretary sent him, and he was the Just answer my questions, briefly, won't you?
Gottfried Bohle made a report to you, did he not?
extermination?
A No, there was nothing about that in this report. We also knew nothing about that. At least, I cannot remember that there was anything in it that would have induced me to take any action on my own part. not mentioned in the Reich budget. Do you remember saying that?
A I did not read it. I do not know. Reich budget about concentration camps.
A I neither read nor found anything on that subject. These finan cial matters did not interest me much anyway. references to concentration comps in the budget or not?
A I could not say for sure. I can not recall that the concentration camps were mentioned specifically in the budget. armed SS and concentration camps in the Ministry ofthe Interior budget, there was a sum of 104,000,000 marks and 21,000,000 marks set out as expenses for those objects? Did you know that?
A. I did not study this budget report in all its details. I didn't read these things through; I was interested only in my immediate job as Reich Secretary. I didn't concern myself with these things; I had no reason to.
Q. Did you know that there were over 300 concentration camps in Nazi Germany?
A. No, I didn't know that.
Q. How many did you, as head, of the Reich Chancery, know of the existence of?
A. I only knew of a few.
Q. Only a few.
A. Three at the most.
Q. Are you solemnly, on oath-
A. But I did know that others existed.
Q. Are you solemnly, on oath, saying to the Tribunal that you , in the very center of the web of Nazism, didn't know of the existence of more than three concentration camps?
A. Yes, I do want to say so. I didn't stand in the very midpoint of Nazism; I was simply administrative secretary for the Fuehrer. I didn't concern myself personally in these matters. I knew by name of about two or three concentration camps, and I also know that there must be a few others, but more I cannot say under oath.
Q. I put it to you that you knew quite well of this regime of terror but continued to serve in it until the last. Is that not so?
A. What regime of terror are you talking about? The concentration camp system? Yes, I knew that that existed.
Q. But that didn't trouble your conscience, I take it.
A. That they existed? I made my suggestion to the Fuehrer about the concentration camps, and he excluded me from that question as early as 1934, that ,s after I had made suggestions to him on the subject, and he turned the matter over to Himmler. Thereafter I had nothing whatsoever to do with concentration camps except when complaints came to me, which I regarded as complaints that were directed to the Fuehrer, and whenever it was possible I followed through on them and, to some extent, helped people out.
Q. You, of course, were an SS Obergruppenfuehrer. Perhaps you didn't recognize terror when you heard and saw it.
A. I was SS Obergruppenfuehrer, which was an honorary rank, just as I said before was true for Seyss-Inquart. I had no office in the SS, I had no command, no troops, no nothing.
Q. And you profited considerably -- you and your Nazi colleagues -from this regime, did you not? You, as the Comptroller of the Reich Chancellery funds, can probably assist us in that matter.
A. What did I have enormous?
Q. Fu ds, money, Reichsmarks.
A. I had my salary, to be sure.
Q. And you were responsible for directing --
A. Not as an SS Fuehrer.
Q. As Reichschancellor you were responsible for distributing the largess of the Nazis among yourselves, were you not?
A. I was in charge of the moneys of the Fuehrer, and on his instructions I amde the parments that he instructed me to make from those funds. I didn't allocate money here and there wherever I wanted to.
Q. You, as Reichschancellor, delivered a million Reichsmarks to Dr. Ley, did you not?
A. That was a payment that the Fuehrer specifically approved for Dr. Ley. That had nothing to do with me personally.
Q. And Ribbentrop was another recipeint of a million, was he not?
Q And Keitel was another millionaire, was he not? He received a million, did he not? Prussian practice of giving landed estates to its generals.
Q And you yourself received six hundred thousand marks, did you not?
A I received six hundred thousand marks on my 65th birthday. It was calculated that this was a sum that I had earned in perforating previous functions for which I was not paid; and it also to be considered that I had no private fortune. I was going to buy a little house with this money.
MR. ELWYN JONES: That is all.
I have put in: 3863-PS is GB-220; 2220-PS is USA-175; 686-PS is USA-305; 865-PS is USA-143; 1032-PS is GB-321; 871-PS is GB-322; D-753-a is GB 323; 3601PS is GB-324; 997-PS is RF-122; 1296-PG is GB-325; 1282-PS was USA-225; RF-628, 3819-PS, was GB-306.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Elwyn Jones, have you put in the budget which shows the figures that you gave us?
MR. ELWYN JONES: It is on page 1394 of the 1939 budget. For the
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR. ELWYN JONES: The prosecution will have an extract made from
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: The Soviet Delegation wished to question the witness Lammers.
It was suggested that the questioning be broken
MR. ELWYN-JONES: If Your Lordship pleases-
THE PRESIDENT: Was this the one case that was mentioned?
MR. ELWYN-JONES: This is the exceptional case, My Lord, and the introduced.
My colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, and I did agree to
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY: ative of the Soviet Prosecution. Do you remember this interrogation? Soviet prosecution.
Q You don't know what I am talking about, so don't hurry. to Rosenberg. You remember that, do you not?
with Eastern problems. he discussed the plans that he had for an administration that might eventually be introduced. The Fuehrer had asked him to concern himself with the question as to how, in the case of war with Russia, the country that might be occupied would be administered.
Q Witness, wait a moment. Wait. I didn't ask you what the Fuehrer asked Rosenberg to do. I am asking you, what did the Fuehrer authorize or ask you to do? You told me, to help Rosenberg. In what particular form was your help to Rosenberg? Did you participate in the development -- wait a moment, please listen to my question. Did you participate in working over a plan about the organization or the administration of Eastern territories? Do you understand me? exploitation. number 1056-PS. Do you recall this document now?
A I don't seem to recognize this document, nor do I believe that it was drafted by myself. It is apparently a plan that Rosenberg drew up. you don't knew anything at all about this document? at the moment I cannot ascertain, with these 30 pages, whether I ever had it in my hands our not. I don't know.
detailed, in regard to the question of organization plans for the administration of Eastern territories. How could you give any truthful testimony if you didn't know anything at all about this basic document? This particular document really defines and determines the structure of administration in territories which were under Rosenberg. Do you understand me?
A I can't judge what is contained in that document: I can't read through a document of thirty pages in just a moment here. Please let me have some time with the document so that I can read it through. I do not believe, however, that I ever had this document in my hands. The organization in the East was carried out by Rosenberg. I simply cooperated in a basic decree in which I gave Rosenberg the powers to act in the East. But with the plan itself, I had nothing to do; nor was I interested in it. you please be good enough to look at another document? It is less than thirty pages long. Now, you will be shown a document signed by you. It deals with the question of the Soviet prisoners of war. It is Document USSR-361. There is one place marked in this document, dealing with the fact that the Soviet prisoners of war should be treated separately from other prisoners and theyare to be in charge of the ministry of the Eastern Territories. Have youfound the place? (There was a slight pause.) Witness Lammers, I am asking you -
A I haven't found the place yet, no.
Q Take a look at the second page. Yes, yes, in the appendix. For your convenience, the place is marked with a pencil.
A There is no marked passage in which I have before me now. There is no marked passage in this document that I have.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, the document I have -- if it is the same one -- is in paragraphs. Might you refer him to the paragraphs?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: Just a minute, please. excerpt I have. However, this place will be shown to the witness exactly.
(An aid indicated on the document in the witness's hands.)
This place is really marked with a pencil. He simply didn't observe it.
Q Did you observe it?
Q And now you have convinced yourself that it is marked with a pencil?
Q I am not asking you about that. I am interested in another place inhere it says, "Exception from this rule" -- Did you find it?
Q --"is the Soviet prisoners of war." That is what I am interested in. --"who are under the charge of the Minister administering occupied territories, since in regard to them," and so forth. Did you find the place?
Q Did you sign this document? Office. I simply signed a letter in which this memorandum of the Foreign Office was sent by me to Minister Rosenberg, so that he could take note of it.
Q Also, with a covering note. You also sent your letter -memorandum on the part of the Foreign Office. "I herewith put you in cognizance of this memorandum" -the authenticity of this document, the document that went through your hands?
A I can't substantiate the authenticity -
Q How couldn't you say it? You told us you were forwarding it; you gave this document and forwarded it to somebody else. Did you send it to some address? I simply informed Rosenberg of the attitude taken by the Foreign Office. Whether the document is authentic or not, I don't know.
that the solution of the Jewish problem Hitler turned over to Goering and Heidrich and later on to Heidrich's successor, Kaltenbrunner.
Now, I want you to tell us in what particular form Goering, Heidrich and Kaltenbrunner Goering to the chief at that time ofthe RSHA Heydrich. This was further transmitted to the competence of Kaltenbrunner. This order was directed toward a final solution of the Jewish problem and it was known what was meant by that term, andin the subsequent period I made efforts on several occasions to clarify what was really to be understood by this term of "final solution". I made an effort yesterday to explain that, but I wasn't allowed to say all I wanted to. and how, in what way, you attempted to clarify the meaning of the expression, "final solution of the Jewish problem." Whom did you appeal to? Whom did you ask? of these measures were. Himmler told me that he had been charged by the Fuehrer to evacuate the Jews who were still in Germany, and this led to a number of problems which were designated as the final solution of the Jewish problem. This is t I said yesterday.
Wait a minute, Witness, wait a minute. You said that Hitler charged Goering and Heydrich and subsequently Kaltenbrunner -- charged them with the solution of this problem. Did you address yourself to Goering in regard to it, to Heydrich and to Kaltenbrunner? Did you address them with the question, the question which you told me -that Goering was transmitting a Fuehrer order that I do not know anything about, whether Keitel participated in this -
Q Not Keitel, Heydrich. You didn't mention anything about Keitel. Evidently it was wrongly translated. Kaltenbrunner yestereday, you said -was interested to ascertain what sort these orders were, and I turned to Himmler to find out.
Q Yesterday you said, "all except me" expressed their opinion on Jewish problems. Who are all those, "all except me"? You remember that testimony yesterday? question and that I reserved formyself the right to report on these matters to the Fuehrer. I then testified yesterday that I had had this talk with the Fuehrer but that the Fuehrer was very difficult in these matters. I also testified yesterday that there were rumors about killings of Jews; that induced me to investigate. I also testified yesterday that these rumors, so far as I could ascertain, were nothing more than rumors, so there was nothing else for me to do but to turn to the Fuehrer in this matter and to Himmler, and -
Q Witness, I didn't ask you what you said yesterday. I don't want to hear for a second time your testimony. What I am interested in, what I want to clarify at the moment, is that you mentioned yesterday that "all except me expressed their opinion in regard to the Jewish problem." Who is "all"? Name them. Whom do you mean? And answer my question directly.
Q I don't understand the question. understand it better, if necessary. Yesterday you said when you were testifying in regard to a solution of the Jewish problem, "all except me expressed their opinion and defined their attitude in regard to the Jewish problem. That also demanded my opinion." Do you remember it now?
A Yes, I remember that. Under the word "all" are to be included all those who had departments under them who were invited to this conference. This conference in the RSHA, the appropriate department heads were invited.
A No Ministers were present. This was merely a conference of exports.
Q You were present at the conference in Hitler's quarters on the 16th of July, 1941?
You understand what conference I mean, don't you? That is, the one which was for the purpose of considering objectives of war against the USSR. Do you understand it now?
Q Was Keitel present at the conference? question of objectives since the war with the USSR?
A I can't remember his mentioning that subject.
Q And did you stay until the end of the conference; were you present until the end?
Q And Keitel, too; and Keitel also stayed until the end?
A I can't remember any more today. I assume that he did but it is possible that he left earlier.
Q You cannot be positive about it? Colonel of the American Army and then you testified before that Rosenberg was appointed a Minister of Affairs of Eastern Territories and he was appointed with the personal wish of the Fuehrer. Do you remember this testimony? interrogation, that you did not recommend Rosenberg for this post, since you had certain objections in regard to his candidacy. What were the objections against Rosenberg's candidacy?
A These objections were made to Rosenberg's candidacy and there were misgivings on that subject, these misgivings being nourished by Bormann. Reichsleiter Bormann didnot want to have Rosenberg involved in these Eastern territories.
Q Say something about your objections. what were your own objections? plan was necessary at all for these Eastern questions in the case of war and then whether Rosenberg had the organizational ability that would equip him for this post.
Q Afterwards, it was in April 1941?
forced labor was introduced, forced labor for the Jewish population of the Eastern regions. The population from 14 to 60 years of age, people of Jewish origin, had to perform farced labor. For refusal to work they were subject to be executed. Do you know about this order or not?
A I did not know of it. I cannot recall it.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: Mr. President, this document is printed on page 31 of the second port of Goering's green file which was already submitted to the Tribunal under No. 348. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:
Q All right. We will let that go. Take a look at another document.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, in that last document that you were referring to, have these paragraphs of tin ordinance been read into the record?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I wouldn't be quite positive about that, in regard to this question, whether this particular paragraph was read into the record. All of the second part of the green folder of Goering's was presented to the Tribunal in evidence and it was listed under USA 320, Exhibit USA 320, and the next one there, the number is 347. I think that inasmuch as the witness does not remember this document, we shall touch upon it when it will be needed more perhaps. Now, we will take care of something else. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:
Q Take a look at the Fuehrer directive of the 29th of August 1941. This document, of course, will be easy to remember, since your signature appears on it. This is a directive in regard to the economic measures in the occupied Eastern regions.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: This document, your Honors, is also one of the documents of the second part of the green folder of Goering's. It is presented to the Tribunal in English. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:
Q Now, do you recognize this document?
A. Yes, I had signed this document. These are measures taken on the suggestion of the Reichsmarshal.
Q. Very well; and how do you explain the fact that Keitel was signing directives or orders like this one, that Keitel was signing such orders of the Reich, a significant case, not particularly of military significance? How do you explain this? Why should there be signatures of Hitler, Keitel and Lammers?
A. This was a Fuehrer decree. Fuehrer decrees were drawn up by me and also Keitel, as Chief of the OKW, signed these documents if any interes to the Wehrmacht were involved, and also possibly Bormann signed such documents as a third member.
Q. Wait a moment: There is not Bormann's signature here. There is the signature of Hitler, Keitel and Lammers.
A. It was signed first by Keitel because this had to do with occupation regions.
Q. All right. In other words, Keitel was responsible for all the laws in occupied territories; is that so? Do you hear my question? Was the defendant Keitel responsible for all legal measures in occupied territories? Do you hear my question?
A. By no means.
Q Then why his signature and what was the purpose of his signature?
A. He has participated in or was interested in this matter in some way. You cannot speak of a responsibility.
Q. You should know better than anybody else about it -- all the more reason that it isn't quite clear why there was any necessity of his signature on the document and his signature is right above your signature. What is the matter?
A. It was apparently assumed that through this decree interests of the Wehrmacht would be touched upon. Keitel no doubt knows about these things better than I do.
Q. You read this document yourself and you can see very well for yourself that the armed forces are not touched in it. I have two more questions for you. You testified today that Seyss-Inquart received his rank and uniform but he didn't have any rights of a commander of the SS. Is that right?
A. Yes, that, is right.
Q. Well, then, should one draw a conclusion after this, that the title of a policeman and police uniform was really an honorary distinction in the Reich, was it not?
A. Seyss-Inquart did not belong to the police but to the general SS.
Q. But the SS was actually being used for police measures, wasn't that so?
A. No, the general SS had no police authority. That is not correct.
Q. And the uniform of the SS was really quite a distinction in the Reich, wasn't it? He received his uniform as a sort of reward for certain work he had done? Now, I want to ask you the last question.
A. It was not a reward for service done, but certain high persons in the Reich received -
Q. That is all right. I am satisfied with your answer. You don't have to be so detailed about it. I don't need any further details. Now, I want to ask you the last question. On the 17th of January, the defendant Keitel sent an application to the Tribunal to have you brought in as a witness. He stated in his application that you can testify here before the Tribunal that he, Keitel, as the head of the armed forces and of the military agencies under his charge in the occupied territories, that they were acting against the plundering commandos of Rosenberg and that they were ordered to be arrested. You as a matter of fact were called in before the Tribunal to answer that question and for some unknown reason that was the only question that was not asked you. I would like you to answer this question now. What do you know about it, in regard to the struggle of Keitel and the armed forces in the struggle with the looting commandos of Rosenberg?
A. I know only that Rosenberg was commissioned to buy up objects of art and that he was also commissioned in the occupied territories of the Test to take care of the office there as well as in the East. He received this charge
Q. Witness, evidently you misunderstood me. Wait a moment. Now, we are talking not about Rosenberg but I am asking you what you knew about the armed forces, in regard to Keitel's application, about the fight against the looting commandos of Rosenberg.
Do you know anything at all about this or do you know nothing?
A. No, I know nothing about that.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I have no further questions of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: In order to be acurate I understood you to say with reference to that document that you were putting to the witness just now, of June 2, 1941, that this document had no reference to military authority. But paragraph two of it says:
"To achieve this end he ( that is Goering) may give direct orders to the respective military authorities in the occupied territories." military authority at all.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I suppose that the Tribunal remembers the testimony which was given here in regard to the circumstances under which Keitel was signing general directives and general laws. He explained it by fact that all these orders and directives are of an operative staff character. importance and which really has no bearing on military matters.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not going to argue with you. I only want to point out it was not accurate to say that the documents did not refer to military matters at all.
Dr. Nelte, do you want to re-examine?
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I should only like to ask the Soviet Prosecutor to clarify his last question to the witness. He has stated that the defendant Keitel called Lammers as a witness so that he could testify that he, Keitel, stood in opposition in the eastern territories to the commandos of Rosenberg. Did I understand him correctly? Perhaps the German translation was not entirely reliable.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not sure I understood the question but I understood the witness was not able to answer it but I do not think it can be of very great importance. The witness was not able to answer the question.
DR. NELTE: It simply means to me that the Soviet Prosecutor wanted to say that Dr. Lammers had been called to prove certain things and I have not asked the witness the question regarding which he was called to testify. It is for thi reason that this question cannot be grounds for re-direct examination and otherwise I have no questions to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think the Tribunal thinks that it is necessary for you to go into that. You have covered the ground fully in your examination-inchief. Then, Dr. Nelte, Have you any other witnesses to call?
DR. NELTE: Tomorrow morning I shall br finished in a half hour. I have no further witnesses to call. BY THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): 1937. Were there any other meetings in 1937?
Q I did not ask you that. Would you listen?
You said there was a meeting in November, 1937. Were there any other meeting in the year 1937?
A Yes, previously there were. There were several cabinet meetings, yes, not too many. There were relatively few in the year 1937.
Q How many would you say in 1937?
A How many -- might have been five or six cabinet meetings. I do not believe there were many more then that, though.
Q Do you know how many there were in 1936? still not so many as in the first years of 1933-34.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Laternser?
DR. LATERNSER (Counsel for the O.K.W.): Mr. President, I have no questions to direct to the witness but I simply wanted to make a few remarks on the following matter.