DR. NELTE: (Counsel for defendant Keitel); Could I be of service to the Tribunal by offering you the German translation of this document and give it to the witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: I am very grateful to Dr. Nelte. as you can? You will be able to see what are the really material passages, and then tell the Tribunal whether that statement is correct.
(A brief pause)
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, here is another part of this declaration. It is a very extensive document. Could I also submit this to the witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that he has not the whole document?
DR. NELTE: No, he does not have all of it yet
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes, certainly.
DR. NELTE: I received from the Prosecution three sections which I should now like to give him. Then he would have it in total.
THE PRESIDENT: The statement that we have here in English is five pages in t type, and is certified in this way:
"This appendix contains an accurate translation of oral statements made to me by Major General Westhoff on 13 June 1945 in reply to questions concerning the shooting of 50 RAF officers from Stalag Luff 3. Dated this 23rd day of the ninth month, 1945. J.B.Parnell, Captain, Intelligence Corps."
DR. NELTE: I do not know whether General Weshoff was not perhaps interrogated several times. In this document he also made statements regarding the whole polic regarding prisoners of war. In other words, not explicitly about the case of the 50 executed officers. This is a continuous report.
THE PRESIDENT: The only document which is in evidence is this document, which I have in my hand, which is annexed to the report of Brigadier Capcott.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: I have looked at the document, the part that Dr. Nelte has. I think my German is sufficient to identify it. It is the same document. If Your Lordship will look at Page 2, Your Lordship will see the passage "General Inspector, General Roettich". My Lord, that is where it starts, and I have checked it as to the last paragraph.
It is the same, "I cannot remember having received any reports." As far as my German goes, that is the same here, so this part of the document is the last half of the document that Your Lordship has.
THE PRESIDENT: I see, you, Dr. Nelte and Sir David, perhaps the best course would be if Sir David put the passages upon which he relics to the witness, and the witness could then be asked whether those were accurate.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And Dr. Nelte can ask any questions that he wants to after that
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, Counsel is going to ask you questions upon this document now, so you need not go on reading.
____________________ BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE:
Q Have you had a chance of reading the first paragraph of this statement?
Q And is that correct; is that true.
A There are a few things in it that are net entirely correct. For instance, on the first page-
Q Shall I read it to you and see how far it is correct:
"I was in charge of the general department (Abteilung Allgemain) when the shooting of the escaped FAR prisoners of war from Stalag Luff 3 took place." That is correct, is it not?
A The phrase missing, "when the shooting took place."
Q Now, "It was the first occasion on which Field Marshal Keitel had sent for me. I went to General von Graevenitz. He had been sent for, and I was to accompany him." Is that right?
Q "A certain number of officers had escaped from the Sagan Camp. I cannot remember how many, but I believe about 80." That is correct, too?
Q Now, the next sentence: When we entered, the Field Marshal was very excite and nervous and said, 'Gentlemen, this is a bad business.'" Is that correct?
A pr 10-M-RT-3-3
Q Then, "We were always blamed when prisoners of war escaped. We could not tie them to our apron strings." That is your own comment. Then you go on to say as to what the Field Marshal said: "This morning Goering reproached me in the presence of Himmler for having let more prisoners of war escape. It was unheard of." You go with your comment. Is that correct-- that the Field Marshal said, "This morning Gearing reproached me in the presence of Himmler for having let some more prisoners of war escape"?
A No, not Himmler, but in Hitler's presence.
Q It ought to be in Hitler's presence?
Q Now, the next sentence, "All German Air Force camps came directly under the German Air Force itself, but the inspector of Prisoner of war camps was in charge of all camps for Inspection purposes." We have had all that explained. I do not think that there is any dispute about the organization. I will not trouble you about that. We have gone into that in this Court in some detail. Unless the Tribunal wants it, I did not intend to trouble this witness again. You say, "I was not Inspector yet. General von Graevenitz was Inspector, and all camps came under him in matters concerning inspections and administ ration," Then you say, "Goering blamed Keitel for having let those men escape.
These constant escapee were bad show. Then Himmler interfered. 'I can only say what the Field Marshal told us, and he complaind that he would have to provide another 60,000 to 70,000 men as Landwache'", etc. Is that right? did the Field Marshal say that?
Q Now, the second paragraph: "Field Marshal Keitel said to us, 'Gentlemen, these escapes must stop. We must set an example. We shall take Very severe measures. I can only tell you that the men who have escaped will be shot. Probably the majority of them are dead already'. Keitel said that to us at the conference" Is that correct?
Q Then you say"we were amazed, as that was a conception we had never come across before. The affair must have happened in March. We were sent to the Field Marshal in Berlin a few days after the escape, not on that account but for some other business.
We knew that they had escaped, and we ware taken by surprise by that declaration of the conference." Then you go on again with your account of the conference.
"General von Graevenitz intervened at once and said, But, Sir. that is out of the question. Escape is not a dishonorable offense. That is specially laid down in the Convention," Is that correct--that General von Graevenitz said these words? but there is missing in this report the fact that the Field Marshal said to Graevenitz that this was a matter of a Fuehrer decree. That is not stated in this report.
you, you say:
"He", that is, General von Graevenitz, "raised these objections, whereupon Keitel said, 'I don't care a damn; we discussed it in the Fuehrer's presence and it cannot be altered."
Is that correct?
A No. The Field Marshal said, "that is a matter of indifference to me." to the best of your recollection, what the Field Marshal did say after General von Graevenitz had made his objections. might perhaps read, regarding the presence of von Graevenitz and myself at the headquarters in March of 1940.
Q General Westhoff, the Tribunal may want that later. It would be easier if you would try to stick to this statement for the moment, whether it is right or wrong, and then we will deal with any other one later on. It is just this point, if you could direct your mind to it. on the ground of the Convention, what did the Field Marshal say? What did he say at that point?
A The Field Marshal then said, "It is now a matter of indifference; we must set an example." to that effect, or a Fuehrer order, or something of that sort. Did he mention that? Fuehrer decree. it is only fair to yourself to read it; it is the second sentence: "But in this case none of our men--that is, the men of the Wehrmacht--had shot any of the prisoners of war.
I made inquiries at once."
Then you say: "None of them had been shot by a soldier, but by Gestapo men only, or else police sentries. That proves that probably Himmler--of course, I don't know whether he made the suggestion to the Fuehrer or how they arranged it; it should be possible to find that out from Goering, who was present at the conference. Naturally, I don't know."
Do you remember making these answers?
Q Then, you say again: "At any rate, it is a clear fact that our men did not shoot any of them, they must all have been shot by policemen."
You then point out, in the last sentence: "But in this particular case only those caught by our people were brought back to the camp--that is, those caught by soldiers." the police orders, and you repeat that the military did not shoot any of them. And then in the third sentence you say: "I had a report sent to me at once, and told General von Graevenitz, 'Sir, the only thing we can do is to see that no dirty business is carried out where we are in charge.'" Is that right?
Does that correctly describe what you did, General? with a fait accompli, and then you say, after repeating General von Graevenitz' protests to Field Marshal Keitel, when he had said, "That is quite impossible, we can't shoot any people": "How the shooting was carried out I heard from the representative of the Protecting Power, Herr Naville, of Switzerland."
Is that right?
Q How did you hear of the shooting? it for the Foreign Office. I did not receive this. The representative of Switzerland to whom I had sent the report, on his return visit, visited me, and it was from him that I heard all that I ever heard about this matter, that apparently a prisoner of war who had returned to the camp had seen that the escaped officers had been driven out to a certain prison camp under heavy guard.
That is the only thing I knew about this affair, and I never found out in what way these officers were killed. The Gestapo refused to inform me of this. you received from the representative of the Protecting Power. I don't know if you remember whether his name was Naville or not.
A I am sorry, but I didn't understand the question. very little--you received from the representative of Switzerland, of the Protecting Power. Is that right? where you tried to get in touch with the foreign office, and if you will look down the paragraph you will see that you say:
"At any rate, we did not get any news, and so it was pointed out to the Field Marshal that such a state of affairs was impossible, that we had to get in communication with the Foreign Office. Then he emphatically stated that it was forbidden to get in touch with the Foreign Office." Is that correct?
Q I will read on, two sentences further:
"The affair was raised in the House of Commons in England, and then a note was sent by our side. Then I was quite suddenly called up by Admiral Buerkner, of the Foreign Department, Amtsgruppe Ausland, in the OKW, which keeps contact with the Foreign Office. He called me up by telephone at night and said: 'The Field Marshal has given me orders to prepare an answer for England immediately. What is it all about? I don't know anything about the case.' I said: 'Herr Admiral, I am sorry, but General von Graevenitz received strict orders not to talk to anyone about it.' Nothing was allowed to be put down in writing either. Apart from that, we ourselves were faced with an accomplished fact. This order was apparently issued by Himmler and the position was such that we could do nothing more at all about it."
Is that a correct account?
A Here again the word "Himmler" stands where the word "Hitler" should stand.
Q Yes, I see. Apart from that, that is correct? I mean, in substance, is that a correct account of the conversation between Admiral Buerkner and yourself? him about the affair, and you only knew what the gentleman from Switzerland had told you, and that you had made various attempts to approach the Gestapo. it states: "Then the Foreign Office itself got into touch and took charge of this affair. Then another of my men, Oberstleutnant Kraft, went to Berchtesgaden while I was on a journey. At that time a note to England was to be prepared. Then when we read this note to England in the newspaper we were all absolutely taken aback. We all clutched our heads; mad! We could do nothing about the affair."
Is that correct? Did you say that, and is that correct? Foreign Office was charged with drawing up a note to England. At this discussion Colonel Kraft was there as a specialist, he had been called in on this matter. However, that is not to say that Colonel Kraft was in any way concerned in the drawing up of the note; that was purely a matter taken care of by the Foreign Office. He was there simply in order to clarify any errors in fact that might creep into it. to read unless the Tribunal wanted it, because you are making quite clear that in your opinion the General Inspektor, General Roettich, had nothing to do with the affair at all. And if you accept it from me that that is the substance of the next two paragraphs, I won't trouble you with it in detail.
You are making clear that General Roettich had nothing to do with it. Is that right?
Q Well, I am sorry. If you will look at the first sentence--I thought it represented it fairly. Look at the first sentence. "General Inspektor Roettich had nothing to do with it, nothing at all. He did not have any hand in the affair. He was completely excluded from it by the fact that these matters were taken out of his hands, apparently at that conference with the Fuehrer in the morning--that is to say, the conference between Himmler, Field Marshal Keitel and Goering, which took place in the Fuehrer's presence."
Is that right? I only wanted to put it shortly, that you were trying to, and quite rightly, if it is true, give your view that General Roettich had nothing to do with it. Is that right; that is, that sentence I read to you?
Did you say "yes"? efforts to escape, but he had nothing to do with this matter.
Q There is no difference between us. That is what I was suggesting. Now, I'd like you to look at the next paragraph. It also deals with General Roettig. Then after that you explain the position of the officers. You say this "I only know an order existed that only officers and I believe only those who were caught by the Gestapo should be handed over to then."
Then you say, talking about intelligence -- I don't want to trouble you about that. Then, if you would look at the next paragraph:
"I received a report from the camp saying so and so many men had been shot while attempting to escape. I didn't hear from the Gestapo at all. It's like this: The reports are sent to the camp. Then the camp informed us that a certai number of men had been recaptured and a certain number shot. Things are reported in that way. The Gestapo sent me no information whatsoever; they merely told us casually whenever we made inquiries that they had recaptured a certain number."
Now the next sentence I want you to look at carefully: "The fieldmarshal gave us detailed instructions to publish a list at the camp, giving the names of those shot, as a warning. That was done. That was a direct order that we couldn't desobey." Is that correct? der to frighten off the rest of those who were still in the camp.
And then, the next sentence says:
"Apparently the bodies were burned and the ashes put into urns and sent to the camp."
Then you say that that raised great difficulties. A sentence or two later you say that matters of that sort were always passed to higher authority. They went to the Party Chancellory and then there wass hell to pay. The cremation of prisoners of war is forbidden. contrary to the conversation, you say:
'Whenever I addressed the officers' corps and said, 'Gentlemen, we only act according to the conversation,' someone from higher authority from the Part Chancellory arrived the following day and said, 'Gentlemen, the conversation is a scrap of paper which doesn't interest us.
'" Is that correct as to the general procedure?
A That is not entirely correct. The OKW took the point of view that the conversation should be observed. The treatment of prisoners of war in general in Germany was only exteriorly in the charge of the OKW. The people who really formed the decisions regarding prisoners of war were the Party offices and the economic offices. For example, my office had to submit every order that was issued to the Party Chancellory and the Party Chancellory interpreted how this order was to be carried out, and not the OKW.
Q I don't want to go into it in detail. You had an interview with Bormann's deputy, Friedrich, at the Party Chancellory. And then, the next long paragraph beginning "The Air Force prisoner of war camps were under German Air Force Administration." side of it -- and I didn't intend to put that. about the question of handing over prisoner of war camps to Himmler's organization, "We were told all men who get away are to be shot." It may be the beginning of another paragraph. It is the beginning of the next paragraph in my English version. Do you see it? After a long paragraph about Air Force camps.
A What page please?
Q The trouble is the pages are different, but it begins "We were told all men who get away are to be shot." It is the third from the last paragraph of the document. If you start from the end of the document you will see a paragraph "I can't remember"; and the one before it, "We arranged with the Fieldmarshal." It is the one before that. "We were told all men who get away are to be shot." Have you got it?
"The Fieldmarshal prohibited anything concerning this to be put into writing. Nothing at all. Only the camp was to be informed in order to put them in the picture. I discussed the matter with Graevenitz once more. I can't tell you the exact detail anymore. We contacted the Gestapo regarding the return of the bodies. We had to have them back. Then von Graevenitz left for the front."
"I then said to Oberstleutnant Kraft, 'I won't do it like that; I am going to cover myself at all costs so that we are not involved in it afterwards. It's true the Fieldmarshal has forbidden it to be put in writting, but I want to have it in writing. It must be signed by the Fuehrer.'" Now that is what you said to Kraft; comparatively unimportant.
this reason I drew up a memorandum describing this discussion, In this way I wanted to get the Fieldmarshal's signature to it so that I would have something in writing to prove that it actually was the way things were.
Q Now, just look at the next sentence. I think that entirely agrees with what you have said:
"Contrary to Fieldmarshal Keitel's orders, I pretended that I hadn't understood properly. I worked the thing out on paper. I said to Oberstleutnant Kraft 'I want to have the word "shoot" included so that Keitel can see it in writing. He may adopt a different attitude then.' When I got the thing back he had written the following in the margin: 'I didn't definitely say "shoot"; I said, 'Hand over to the police or hand over to the Gestapo,"'
Q What change would you like to make in that, General?
A I stated very clearly in my sworn statement that the Fieldmarshal had written on the margin "I didn't say shoot, but turn over to the Gestapo."
Q Is that the same as is in this statement? It says, "He wrote in the margin 'I didn't definitely say shoot. I said hand over to the police or hand over to the Gestapo."
Q I wanted this to be quite clear, General. The draft order or note of information that you had put up to the Fieldmarshal contained the word "shoot?"
Q Now there is only one other bit. You go on to say, "We arranged with the Fieldmarshal to have the matter submitted to the Fuehrer. We had the feeling that there was something not quite in order." on a slightly lower level, and about ten lines down you say this:
"In the end I couldn't get where I wanted with this affair, so I went to Berlin myself. It was the only time I ever saw Kaltenbrunner, and said to Kaltenbrunner: 'This matter is still outstanding. It should be submitted to the Fuehrer. It can't carry on like this. A decision must be made sometime. But apart from that I am of the opinion that the whole affair should be dropped. The whole thing is madness. It has already let us into so much unpleasantness and is so monstrous that I am still of the opinion that this affair should either be stopped in some way or the Fuehrer be dissuaded from continuing it any further.'" what you said to the Defendant Kaltenbrunner? order that was to be issued by Wagner and that could be submitted to the Fuehrer in two ways: (1) via the chief of the OKW, and (2) via Himmler. This order had been submitted to Keitel and then to the Gestapo. The Gestapo read this outline of the order and then the matter was carried no further. I could not find out why this was so and spoke about this matter to Kaltenbrunner.
Q Was this the order in its final form that escaped prisoners of war should be handed over to the Gestapo or the police?
Q I see. So this, if I may have your attention, was really dealing with the future, was it? This was dealing with what was to be done in the future?
Q My Lord, I don't think one need go into it in details again, unless the Tribunal wants. My Lord, the rest of the statement is only a general account of the attitude of the British prisoners of war, and I have no complaint about it at all. Tribunal would consider now. My friend Colonel Pokrovsky has certain quite different matters with regard to the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war which he wanted to raise with this witness, and perhaps the Tribunal would consider it a convenient time to do it.
THE PRESIDENT: It probably would be more convenient if Dr. Nelte put his questions to this witness, if he has any, first, before Colonel Pokrovsky.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I should respectfully agree to clear up this topic first.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless Colonel Pokrovsky's questions might relate to the Defendant Keitel?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: They do relate, of course, to the position of the OKW with these prisoners of war, but they have nothing to do with Sagan.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, have you any questions you want to put to this witness? BY DR. NELTE:
Q Witness, what was just read to you is called a statement. Was this statement in the form in which it was here read submitted to you orally or in writing? my testimony. Of course, I found errors here and there because this is a summary and does not contain the individual questions and answers.
questions at various interrogations?
Q Was this summation ever submitted to you? occasion very long and that you sometimes gave an answer to what was really only the latter part of these passages. I should like now to ask you whether after this interrogation in London you were again interrogated?
Q By Colonel Williams?
interrogation? asked me to describe briefly the basic central point of my testimony and to sign this sworn statement.
Q Did you swear to this statement before Colonel Williams? you had with Colonel Williams and which is to be found in document 1450.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by document 1450?
DR NELTE: RF1450 is contained in my document book as document 5, in my document book.
THE PRESIDENT: But you mean RF 1450, do you?
DR. NELTE: Yes, RF. BY DR. NELTE:
Q This document is entitled "Brief of Interrogation of General Adolf Westhoff by Colonel Curtis L Williams, on 2 November, 1945."
THE PRESIDENT. Just one minute. Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal thinks that you can put to this witness "Did you or did you not make a different statement in an interrogation at some other time?" But the document that you are referring to now is a document which the Tribunal refused to admit on your own objection. When the French presented that document, you objected to it and it was therefore not allowed to be put in, so that the proper way in which to put the question now is "Did you say to Colonel Williams so and so?"
DR NELTE: Very well. BY DR. NELTE: the document regarding Colonel Williams' interrogation, those points which do not correspond to your other interrogations. What did you say to Colonel Williams' question-
THE PRESIDENT: You are saying that he has made statements which are different from what he has said in evidence now. You must ask him about it and not make statements which are different from what he has said in evidence now.
You must ask him about it, and not make statements yourself. BY DR. NELTE: the prisoner of war camps in their entirety were subordinate to Keitel and the OKW? this extent, that the OKW had the control of them and that the OKW have gotten in touch with the protecting powers; namely, the OKW did not have punitive powers in the prisoner of war camps.
Q What did you answer to Colonel Williams' question regarding the right of the OKW regarding the inspection of the camps?
A The OKW had the right to inspect. That can be seen also in my official orders which state clearly that such inspection is permissible.
Q What did you anser to Colonel Williams' question, under whom the Stalag Luft 3 was subordinate. the High Command of the Luftwaffe on its own wished, from the beginning of the war, all prisoner of war camps containing airmen under its control.
Q Did you answer one of Colonel Williams' questions that Goering, Himmler, Keitel and Hitler had decided to shoot the officers who escaped from this camp?
A No, that is a mistake. Colonel Williams asked me what the Fuehrer had said to Keitel; thereupon, I ansered clearly that I know nothing about this, since I had not taken part in that conference. I could only make statements about the conference that Keitel had with General von G raevenitz. this conference, had said "This is my order?"
A No. The Fieldmarshal could not issue an order regardin the shooting, since this shooting was not in the competence of the Wehrmacht but in the competence of the Gestapo.
did you state clearly that it had never been a question of an order issued by Keitel himself or of an order which Keitel transmitted to you on higher orders? is stated altogether clearly in my sworn statement. Keitel never issued an order of his own nor ever expressed or transmitted to you any order regarding these officers that were to be shot? was talk of a report which the camp commander G oerlitz made to you. This is also in the protocol. Did you ask for or receive a report from the camp commander? but there must be a confusion with the statement of the Swiss representative Naville. hand, Keitel, and on the other hadn, Graevenitz, two matters were brought up; First, the case of the escaped Royal Air Force officers; and secondly the question as to how the Fuehrer action should be taken in order to prevent such escapes? you to anser, if possible, only with yes or no. Is it true that in case 1 , namely, the affair of the escaped officers, the conversation consisted exclusively of a making known of these facts and of what had happened in the higher spheres of authority? not say to you "What can we do if the Gestap o once gets things into its hands?"
Keitel, that it was a question here of an order directed to Himmler from Hitler? pression was no doubt, that there were stronger forces against which the OKW was unavailing in its efforts? ment of them, have anything to do or was it perfectly clear that in this respect, this matter was settled so far as the OKW was concerned? from its hands. tween Keitel, Graevenitz and Westhoff, that a conference was called by the OKW? in which Colonel Walde states, and to be sure, he says at the beginning that he had to reconstruct what had happened from memory and according to his recollection he believed that the OKW had called a conference that took place in the Prinz Albrecht Strasse. Do you know anything about this? only know about this conference from you and I also know that it could not have been called by the OKW; otherwise it would have been held at their headquarters and not at the Prinz Albrecht Strasse. were returned to the camp and remained there? case, let out again for any reason? orders on the part of the OKW, that recaptured prisoners should under no circumstances be let out of the camp again?
commanders (Wehrkreise) in charge of Prisoner of war, and by them to the camp commanders. net returned, should be published. You stated before that this order came from above in order to Serve as a deterrent and in order to clarify it and its purpose I should like to ask you whether Fieldmarshal Keitel aid not say as justification for this order "I hope, however, that the prisoners will be so shocked by this that they in the future do not try to escape"? itz that nothing could be put down in writing about this whole matter nor could any other office be consulted on it?