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.
My colleague, Dr. Nelte, has renounced the calling of any further witnesses. In so doing he has renounced calling Halder as a witness, that is General Balder, which, of course, is his privilege. But this renunciation on his part as to hearing Halder damages my rights. to be submitted -
THE PRESIDENT: Doctor, if Dr. Nelte does not call General Halder then you can apply for calling him yourself and the matter will be considered. Presumably you have already asked for him and you have been referred to the fact that he has been specified by Dr. Nelte. Now, Dr. Nelte has not called him. You can renew your application if you want to.
DR. LATERNWER: Mr. President, I do not believe that point of view is exactly relevant here. When the written statement was presented by the Russian Prosecution it was stated on objection by defense counsel that the witness should be here for cross-examination. Consequently, in agreement with my other colleagues, we agreed that Halder would be heard for Keitel. It this witness is not called I will not be in a position to cross-examine him. I believe, consequently, that I con apply to call Halder as my own witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, we will consider the matter of General Halder and let you know in the morning. It is five o'clock now.
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for defendant Frank): Mr. President, I should like to ask the witness a few more questions which have become necessary through the cross-examination and which touch on certain questions.
THE PRESIDENT: You cannot do it tonight at any rate. We will consider it and 1st you know tomorrow morning but you cannot do it tonight.
DR.SEIDL: I simply wanted to bring it up so the witness would still be at hand tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, he shall be at hand.
MR. DODD: Your Lordship, if I may have one minute of the Tribunal's time Justice Jackson asked me to bring to the attention of the Tribunal for its information these facts apropos of the discussion of this morning.
handed to him by Dr. Thoma and it shows that there was a red line drawn in the margin beside this passage which was translated and mimeographed and included in the document book. Dr. Thoma this morning felt that he had not underlined it and he also felt that there was ubdoubtedly a mistake in the translation and Colonel Dostert tells us that there is no mistake in the translation and that it was underlined.
THE PRESIDENT: Well now, Dr. Nelte, we should like to know what your position is about General Westhoff and Obergruppenfuehrer Wielen, or something of that sort. You were given the opportunity of calling those witnesses and we understand you do not desire to do so.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, through the cross-examination It has been clarified in my mind that the Prosecution has abandoned the original claim against Keitel, namely that he issued the order that the fifty Royal Air Force officers should be shot. The Prosecution has admitted that the charge cannot be substantiated. case and in which he made that charge against the defendant Keitel. He presented these charges to the defendant and the defendant in connection with these four points admitted them.
Since I was going to call General Westhof only on the question of this order of Keitel's, and to testify that he did net issue the order and he did not translate it, I have no need to call him.
However, Westhof was not present at the conference at the Obersalzberg so knows nothing first-hand. I see no further necessity for calling this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, you are to decide whether you want to call him or not. Unless Sir David has Said that he has not issued such an order, I think you can call him on the ground that a charge was applied. The abandonment of charges which Sir David brought up would be a good reason for not calling him.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, there is no abandonment of any charge. In fact, the Prosecution stands by what is stated, about General Westhof, about the statements which apply to Defendant Keitel. That is the stand of the prosecution. The prosecution stands by that as it is put in.
MR. NELTE: May I please ask whether the Prosecution wishes to assert that General Westhof has testified that Keitel had issued this order or had transmitted it?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, you have the document which contains an excerpt of General Westhof's testimony. You knew what he has said in that statement. The Tribunal proposes to call General Westhof themselves, in order to hear his statements; whether he adheres to the statement. And also Wielen, whose evidence is principally against the Defendant Kaltenbrunner.
DR. NELTE: Then I should also like to ask the Prosecution to produce the affidavit that General Westhof deposed on this matter, before the Tribunal so that it would be made clear.
THE PRESIDENT: When you say affidavit, do you mean the statement?
DR. NELTE: No. I mean the affidavit. No unsworn statement but a sworn statement. So far, the Prosecution has dealt only with unsworn to protocols which Col. Williams required and received from the Defendant, and it is this affidavit which I want. This affidavit states clearly Westhof's statement that he had never stated that Keitel ever issued any order nor did he transmit it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I have no affidavit. I havechecked with Mr. Roberts sna we have not got one.
There were two interrogations, if my recollection is correct, one which was early and one on 2 November. There were two interrogations and apart from the reports of the interrogations, one of which I put in, they are in Dr. Nelte's document book. I have no affidavit. If I had, I should produce it at once. I don't know where Dr. Nelte got the information, but certainly no affidavit has ever been brought to my attentions.
THE PRESIDENT: The only thing the Tribunal can find is a statement made by General Westhof and a certain gentleman whose name I have forgotten. Oh yes, Brigadier Schepp. The course which the Tribunal proposes to to call General Westhof and to ask him whether his statement made in that document is accredited to him.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: The Prosecution has not the slightest objection to that.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshall will have General Westhof and also Wielen--they will be here tomorrow morning at 10:00 o'clock.
MARSHALL OF THE COURT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1000 hours, 10 April 1946).
DR. THOMA (Counsel for defendant Rosenberg): Mr. President, the High Tribunal, I stated yesterday that Labouche was not marked in my document book and that I would read it. My assertion was not correct. I made thin assertio for the following reasons: the passages in the document book to be cited ire marked in red; the other parts did not have to be translated. The passages that the French referred to had not been anticipated. I consequently assume that these did not have to be translated. This communication from Rosenberg, however, had a different meaning. Rosenberg had made a sign in certain documents that were outlined in red to indicate that these passages did not have to be read; that includes the quotation from Labouche. Consequently, the error which took place. correctly translated. That, too, was an error. I apparently committed this error because the emphasis of a certain word in it struck me as peculiar.
I request the translation department to pardon me. The document book itself--
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal quite understands that there must have been some mistake, and no one, I hope -- and certainly not the Tribunal -- is accusing yon of any bad faith in the matter at all. The Tribunal quite understands that there must have been some misunderstanding or some mistake which led to whatever has happened.
DR. THOMA: Thank you.
DR. NELTE: (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): Mr. President, permit me to ask the Tribunal a short question related to procedure matters in the case of Westhoff. I yesterday stated the reasons why I believed I could forego calling the witness Westhoff.
The Prosecution has cleared up this error; consequently. my assumption is no longer true. I should like to ask the Tribunal whether the original situation is thereby automatically restored, and can I also cross examine this witness as a defense witness or must I make a formal application to call him as a defense witness?
THE PRESIDENT: No, Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal does not desire you to make any formal application. You can ask the witness any questions when he has answered the questions which the Tribunal will put to him, and the Prosecution, of course, can also ask him questions.
DR. NELTE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Seidl, I think you wanted to put some questions to this witness, did you not, on behalf of the defendant Frank? We hope that they will not be very long. BY DR. SEIDL (Counsel for defendant Fra nk):
Q. Witness, the Prosecution asked you a question yesterday in connection with the AB Action; namely, that was part of the general pacifying measures. It was necessary in connection with uprisings in the year 1940 in the General Government in Poland. In this connection the Prosecution read you a quotation from Frank's Diary of the 16th of May, 1940. I want to read to you one further sentence from this same citation from the Diary. It reads as follows:
"Every arbitrary action is to be prevented withthe most astringent measures. In every case the point of view must be regarded that takes into consideration the necessary security of the Fuehrer and of the Reich. Moreover, action will be postponed until the 15th of June." from which one could deduce-
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not think that you really can read passages of Frank's Diary to the witness. I mean, you are re-examining to clear up. He had not seen the diary.
DR. SEIDL: I shall ask him a question in preparation for which I must read another quotation; otherwise he will not understand the question.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the question? You can put the diary to Frank when you call Frank. AB Action, and he was presented with a passage from this diary that must have given him the impression that a large number of Poles had been shot without any trial.
THE PRESIDENT: What question do you want to put?
DR. SEIDL: I should like to ask him whether he knows Ministerialrat Wille, what position he occupied in the General Government and in what way Dr. Wille worked, if he was involved within the framework of this action.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, ask him that if you like, but the diary has no relevance to that question at all.
DR. SEIDL: But he can only answer the question sensibly if I first show him the corresponding passage from the diary. Otherwise he doesn't see the connection.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal doesn't see the connection, either -- and the Tribunal thinks there is no point in reading the diary to him.
DR. SEIDL: That will become immediately apparent once I read the passage. I therefore ask to be allowed to read one more passage from the diary.
THE PRESIDENT: No, Dr. Seidl. You can ask him your question but you can't read the diary to him. You stated what the question was, whether he knew somebody held a certain position in the General Government. You can ask him that question.
Q Witness, do you know Ministerialrat Wille?
A No, I don't remember him. General Government?
A No; that, too, I do not remember.
DR. SEIDL: Then the one question is already settled. to an entry in Frank's diary, in connection with concentration camps. I can ask this question only if I am permitted to read a passage from the diary.
THE PRESIDENT: Tell us what the question is.
DR. SEIDL: The question would have read: Is the point of view expressed in the entry in the diary that I intended to read, the correct point of view? And does it correspond to his previous statements on Monday or is the point of view correct which the Prosecution deduced from the passage, which the Prosecution read from the diary yesterday?
(A short pause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal thinks you can put the question, if you put it in the form: Do you know what was the attitude of Frank towards concentration camps?-- if you pit it in that way -- and what was that attitude.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, this question was already answered by the witness in his examination-in-chief. He answered that Frank had a negative attitude toward concentration camps. Yesterday, however, a passage was road from Frank's diary which seemed to prove the opposite. However, there are dozens of passages in Frank's diary that corroborate the statement of the witness and which considered what the Prosecution brought up. I can honestly ask a sensible question only if I read some of these other passages.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, all those matters can be gone into with Frank. You can prove every passage in the diary which is relevant, and you can put the most necessary ones to Frank.
DR. SEIDL: The third question would have been related to the telegram -
THE PRESIDENT: It is only a very exceptional privilege that you as Counsel for Frank are allowed to re-examine at all, and the Tribunal have expressed that they do not think this is a ratter on which you ought to be allowed to re-examine. The person to re-examine is the one who calls a witness in the first place. We can't allow, in ordinary cases, re-examination by everyone.
DR. SEIDL: I therefore renounce any further questions to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.
(The Witness left the court room.)
(A new witness entered the box.)
Sir David, could you find no the German version of General Westhof's statement in those papers here?
SIR. DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I looked for it, but couldn't find it, my Lord.
ADOLF WESTHOF, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Your full name?
and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
Q You any sit down. General Westhof, you made a statement before a Captain J.B. Parnell, did you not?
A I don't remember his name. I made a statement in England.
Q Yes. On the 13th of June, 1945?
Q You don't know English, I suppose. document?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: An English copy?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. well, Sir David, if you would follow me whilst I read it and draw my attention to any passages which are really relevant -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a rather long document. I don't wish to read it all to the witness. to this statement or whether you wish to make any alterations in it. And I Will read to you, so that you may remember it, the material passages from the statement.
Q "I was in charge of the general department when the shooting of the escaped R.A.F. Prisoners of war from Stalag Luft 3 took place. It was the first occasion on which Field Marshal Keitel sent for me. I wont with General von Graevenitz. He had been sent for and I was to accompany him. A certain number of officers had escaped from the Sagan camp. I don't remember how many, but I believe about eighty"-