areas -- those Action Commanders and groups came under the R.S.H.A. as for as discipline and administration are concerned. Is that correct?
A That is correct. All those police regarding orders were only given orders by Himmler.
A Schellenberg also states in his affidavit Number 12, U.S.A. 557, that in this jurisdiction the question of discipline had also been dealt with. Is that true?
A That is wrong. Under me circumstances could an officer of the Army punish a member of the police or the SS. groups to carry out mass extermination of Jews and Communists. Schellenberg states in his affidavit Number 12 that he was convinced that the Army group on Army commanders had been clearly informed of those tasks through authoritative channels. Since Schellenberg is stating his conviction in this affidavit, I an asking you to give us yours, because I think I an right in assuring that you must be one of the most fully informed officers of the armed forces. living together at the front and what commanders might have had there and what they might not hove had, but I can say with absolute certainty that I myself had never seen an order containing anything other than the fact that these police groups had been sent into the operational zone for the purpose of taking care of the order and acquiring from the police point of view what happened during the life of the commanders at their respective front territory. I have never seen a report nor an order which contained anything other than that. commanders would have tolerated those conditions? case of much smaller episodes and events they raised the most violent protests.
There are hundreds of documents which have been offered by the Prosecution which prove sentence by sentence how the troops at the front had objected against measures which they considered either impossible from a human point of view or dangerous for the peace and quiet in the occupied territories.
Q I remind you of Blaskowitz's memorandum, which was one of the first. Did you read that memorandum?
A No, I didn't read it. I only heard about it. Major Wilhelm Scheidt. Its number is U.S.A. exhibit 558. Scheidt says in his affidavit, and I quote from page 1:
"It was the general fact that the partisan fights were conducted with cruelty on both sides."
Now I skip a sentence and he good on to say:
"It is out of the question -- it is quite clear, rather -- that this fact must have been known to the senior officers in the Army Operational Staff and the General Staff of the Army. It was also known that it was Hitler's view that in the fight against partisans only the use of cruel, scaring-off punishment could be successful."
Is Scheidt's statement correct, namely, that the officers of the Army operational staff and the general staff of the Army must have had knowledge of this cruelty employed by both sides in the partisan fights? is as it was conducted by the opponents. That is already before this Tribunal. I refer to the instructions which I have signed regarding the combating of partisans' bands in document R.S.665. There at the beginning you will find a lengthy discourse on how the partisans were conducting this war. Of course, we didn't invent that. That was the up-shot of hundreds of reports, that troops in such a fight being on their own personal impression of the methods employed by the opponent, would be also on their part not exactly mild. That is something which we can imagine. that no prisoners were to be taken in these partisan fights. To the contrary, It was clear from all reports that the number of prisoners was by far larger than the number of dead; that it was the Fuehrer's view that our forces in their fight against the partisans should not in any Way be limited.
That is an authentic fact, and my and the general staff's arguments with the Fuehrer prove it.
committed by our own soldiers?
A Then there would be courts martials against them. And that, again, can be found in documents. I remind you of an order issued by the Fuehrer, which begins with the sentence: "It has been reported to me that individual soldiers of the armed forces have been dealt with by courts martials because of their behavior in the partisan fight." case like that?
A He had no other possibility. And after that order, too, he always acted in accordance with his own legal conception. "he could stop him, anyway? Roettiger, which has the number USA-559. In this affidavit Ge neral Roettiger states, in the middle of page 1: "Only now, on the strength of documents put before me, do I realize that with the order for the most severe handling of bandit fights, from the highest source, the final aim may have been that the guerrila fighting of the army might have been utilized to achieve the relentless extermination of Jewry and other undesirable elements." did they have such a final aim?
A No. of course, after church one is wiser than before. I too have learned many things today which I did not know before. However, this realization is quite misguided because there were next to no Jews amongst the partisans. In the main these partisans were fanatical, steel-hard Russian fighters, mostly white Russians. And, upon a question put by my defense counsel, even von Gem Bach-Zelewski had to admit that there were next to no Jews amongst these partisan fighters. that the Slavs who were killed in the partisan fights amounted to no more than one-twentieth or one-thirtieth part of the numbers who would fall in the normal, large-scale battles withthe Russian armies, and who would be lost, or dead or wounded. As far as figures are concerned, that carried no weight at all.
Therefore that is quite a misguided view. which was used by the prosecution under the number USA-560. In the last sentence General Roetigger states the following and I quote:
"Although one knew generally what the special tasks of those SD units were, and although this apparently happened with the knowledge of the supreme leaders of the armed forces, we fought against these methods as far as possible, since it meant endangering our own troops." the special tasks of the SD units must have come about, apparently, with the knowledge of the General Command of the Armed Forces. If that is correct, then, you, Colonel-General, must have known about the tasks. You have already denied that earlier.
A Yes, I have already answered that question. I never talked to a single officer who had knowledge of these matters, or who might have told me that he did. prosecution has submitted affidavit 17, under the number USA-562. That affidavit comes from SS Commander Rode. Rode states, at the top of page 2:
"As proof, you can regard the OKW-OKH order, which stated that all members of bandit groups who had been captured, like Jews, agents, and political commissars, were to be handed to the SD by the troops for "special treatment", without delay. Apart from that, that order contained instructions at the time that in guerrila fighting no prisoners, apart from the above-mentioned, were tobe taken." prisoners were to be taken?
A Such an order never existed; I have never seen such an order. It was not contained in the instructions regarding guerrila fighting. Apart from that, practically every word in that statement is untrue. An order of the OKW-OKH never existed, that is, one order which came from both sources.
"Jews amongst the bandits"--that I have already dealt with.
"Agents among the bandits"--agents are an entirely different matter.
"Political commissars"--that is quite a different point.
They were never handed over to the SD for "special treatment", because the task of the SD was an entirely different one. They may have been handed over to the Security Police. the prosecution has used under the number USA-563. Rode states as follows in this affidavit.
"As far as in known to me, the Einsatz groups of the SD were attached to the various army groups and fully under their jurisdiction.
That is to say, both tactically as well as any other way. For that reason, the tasks and methods used by these units must have been known to the Supreme Commanders. They approved of the tasks and months since, apparently, they never raised any objections to them".
Do you know SS leader Rode?
A. No, I don't know him. I don't think it is necessary to say much about this, because General of the Police Schollenberg -- who led such an action group himself, and who really must know -- has state quite clearly, on this witness stand, what his position was and from when he received his orders.
Q. That wasn't the eitness Schollenberg, that was Ohlendorf.
A. That is right; I meant Ohlendorf.
Q. Now a few questions on the Commissar order. Were you present when Hitler orally gave the Commissar order to the Supreme Commanders?
A. It was right at the beginning. He only spoke to the Supremem Commanders of the Army, or the Chiefs of the General Staff, about this Commissar order, and perhaps a few officers of the OKW. In his speech to the Commanders, on some later occasion, he referred to that instruction of his again, so far as I recollect. I believe that at that time, during that second conference, he used the words: "I cannot expect that my generals understand my orders, but I must demand that they obey them".
Q. Do you know any senior officers who resisted that order?
A. Later on someone told no -- and I don't know whether this is true -- that Field marshal Rommel had burnt the order.
Q. Doesn't that recollection of yours refer to the Commando order?
A. Oh yes, of course, that was the Commando order. You are talking about the Commissar order, are you not?
Q. Right.
A. I remember that there were continuous objections from the OKH, which, unfortunately, had to carry out this order. That extended over quite a period. Officers of the General Staff told no, confidentially, that on the whole it was hardly ever being carried out. whereby this order was to be officially withdrawn. That was done, although I don't know when.
Q. Who made that application?
A. The OKH. Whether it was the Chief of the General Staff or the C in C, that is something I can't say.
Q. When was this application made?
A. I believe it was in the spring of 1942.
A. Siring of 1942. And upon that application --
A. This is something I know for certain; the order was withdrawn.
Q. Did you talk to any senior commander who approved of that order?
Q No. All officers to whom I spoke considered firstly, that that order should be turned down from the human point of view, and secondly, that it was wrong practically.
you have already told us, Hitler is supposed to have mentioned further additional reasons for that order which I should like you to tell us so that that subject willbe brought out quite clearly. necessary to convince somebody.
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing) Have not these reasons already been given
DR. LATERNSER: As far as I aminformed, Mr. President, they have not yet been completely supplied. BY DR. LATERNSER:
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) One moment. Haven't you already given the reasons which you say Hitler gave for this order?
THE WITNESS: I cannot hear the translation. I am hearing the English,
THE PRESIDENT: Haven't you already given the reasons which Hitler gave for making this order?
THE WITNESS: I have not given some very important, principal reasons, which the Fuehrer drew our attention to.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute.
Dr. Laternser, I have already had to ask you to be more brief on many an occasion in which you have examined witnesses, and really you have spent over an hour already on this High Command Staff. Every witness who comes to the box you take a very long time over, and the Tribunal thinks that a great deal of their time has been wasted by you. Now, this witness can give any further reasons, but I do not want any argument about it. He can give his explanation now.
THE WITNESS: I have only to add that the Fuehrer said on that occasion, "If you do not believe what I am telling you now, then you ought to read the reports from counter intelligence which we have regarding the behavior of the Russian Commissars in the occupied Baltic States. Then you will get a picture of what these Commissars will do."
BY DR. LATERNSER:
by the Russian prosecution on the 13th of December, and it is on pare 151 of the second document book for Colonel General Jodl. Under "II" of that document, on pare 153, there is the following statement:
"In opposition to this memorandum, Reichsleiter Rosenberg suggests . . . and I do not want to go on reading, because that is a suggestion. included in that document?
A I can only make a guess, because I did not know it. But I have no doubt -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): We do not want his guesses, you know. If he can only guess, then he had better not guess. We want evidence, not guesses.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, certainly, sir; but I assumed that the witness would have personal knowledge about that. BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q Mr. Witness you said yesterday that the Command Order of the 18th of October, 1942, had been changed by application of the Supreme Commander in the West. Who was that commander in the West who had applied for that alteration? order withdrawn. Russian prosecution used on the 13th of February, as USSR 12? It is dated the 10th of October, 1941. Do you know the reasons for which this order was issued?
A Yes. Reichenau at that time was the commander of the 6th Army, and in his army sector was the town of Kiev. I have already described events in Kiev at the end of September, or began to describe then this morning. And that was the cause of that order. martial? Very strictly, or not so strictly?
A The reason why I know this is that Dr. Leymann -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): That has nothing to do with the charge against the High Command.
There is no charge against the High Command for having arranged courts martial or administering their courts martial improperly
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, may I offer an opinion at this point? If the senior officers and commanders had heard of any breaches of discipline or of -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Do you know of anything in the indictment or anything in the evidence which chargesthe High Command or any member of the High Command with improper behavior at a court martial, or in connection with a court martial?
DR. LATERNSER: No. I merely want to discover the typical attitude of the supreme commanders. BY DR. LATERNSER:
THE PRESIDENT: I cannot hear you. BY DR. LATERNSER: prisoners of war during the winter of 1941?
were sent there personally, and they reported to the Fuehrer in my presence. We are mostly concerned with the mass deaths after the battle of Viasma. The reason for this number of deaths was described by the Fuehrer's adjutants, as horrors. The Russian armies, which were encircled, had put up fanatical resistance during the last eight or ten Gays without any food whatever. They literally lived off the bark of trees and roots because they had retreated to the most impenetrable wooded country; and now they were falling into our hands in a condition in which they could hardly move.
It was impossible to transport them away. In the transportation situation in which we found ourselves because of the many difficulties, it was impossible to take them away, and there was no accommodation on the spot. The majority of them could only be saved through careful hospital treatment. reason why such a large number of these prisoners died. to the front. Similar reports came from the quartermaster general of the army
Q What do you know about the artillery bombardment of Leningrad? You remember that a witness has been examined here on that point? with the German artillery commander who was commanding the artillery outside Leningrad. He brought his target charts along, and there was the most careful system, which consisted in charting only the key scoters inLeningrad as targets, which it was necessary to fire at, so as to eliminate the resistance fire of the fortress. There were firms, in particular, who were still producing ammunition in Leningrad. could roach the center of Leningrad, was so short that one had to be most careful with the use of that ammunition. They were mostly captured guns from France, and we only had as much ammunition as we had captured. had deliberately fired on and destroyed castles in Leningrad, and you have seen the operational charts for this artillery?
A Yes; I had it in my files in my briefcase for many weeks. Only the armament industry was on it. It would have been insane to shoot at anything else.
Q What do you know about Hitler's order and the order from the OKH regarding the retreat during the winter of 1941, stating that residences and chimneys were to be destroyed? What was the reason for that order being compiled?
I refer to the order R 130. Unfortunately I have not been able to ascertain on what day the prosecution presented that order. I shall ascertain it later and have the Tribunal informed. degrees of frost, the commander reported to the Fuehrer in his headquarters from the front that in this battle they were concerned with nothing that was not fit for warm shelter. These who were not in the possession of some sort of heaping arrangement -- that is to say, a village with useful stoves could not held out, and they would not be able to fight the following day, either. In this case, it really was a fight for stoves; and if, in consequence, we were forced to retreat, the Fuehrer then ordered that those chimneys, or fireplaces, would have to be destroyed. Not only the houses, but also the fireplaces would have to be blown up, because that alone would prevent a pursuit through the Russian areas in such a critical situation. destruction is permissible which is inevitable from the military point of view, I believe that for this type of winter warfare -- and it only happened during the winter -- that order can be justified.
Q What do you know about the case of Katyn?
ved the first report through my propaganda deportment, which was informed through its propaganda company attached to an Army group. I heard that the Reich Police Criminal Department had been given the task of investigating that entire affair, and I then sent an officer from my propaganda department to the Katyn Woods at the time when these foreign exports were being shown the graves. He rendered a report to me which, in general, corresponds with the report which is contained in -- I think it was the White Book of the Foreign Office. Any doubt as to the facts as they were represented I have never heard from anyone. cution had shown in this court room and which dealt with atrocities committed in the Jugoslav theater of war. Can you explain any of the pictures which you still night recollect? is perfectly truthful as a picture. These were captured photograph But it has never been said what the photographs, as such, were showing. That did not become clear from the film. It did not become clear whether the dog that was mauling a human being was not photographed in an Army school -
THE PRESIDENT: That is more argument. BY DR. LATERNSER: be able to clarify so that -- well, I remember one photograph where a police dog is jumping on a human being or a doll -
THE PRESIDENT: You asked him about these photographs and he says that they were all true, in his opinion, true pictures; and he didn't take them, he doesn't know anything about them and anything that he can say upon them appears to us to be argument.
DR. LATERNSER: I will withdraw that question. BY DR. LATERNSER: which the witness has testified it was? It is being said that Louvain wasn't defended at all.
18th of May, that in that communique the sentence is contained: Louvain was taken after a serious fight, but that -
THE PRESIDENT: What was the place that you are asking about?
DR. LATERNSER: I asked the witness in what way Louvain was captured, whether it was cleared and then occupied or whether there was a fight about the place; and the witness has stated that there was not a fight for Louvain but that -
THE PRESIDENT: How did it affect the General Staff?
DR. LATERNSER: Well, in that case, Mr. President, I don't know who should be blamed for the event. I can't see any connection with any one of the individual defendants and if nobody can be binned for it, we must cross off the whole event.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it one of the events which is charged in the indictment?
DR. LATERNSER: No, the indictment doesn't refer to ** THE PRESIDENT:
Does the evidence deal with it?
DR. LATERNSER: It isn't dealt with, but in the way of evidence, a witness was called who has stated that German artil lery had deliberately destroyed the University of Louvain, and I assumed that there must have been shooting of course. I an not certain, Mr. President, but I think it is Louvain.
THE WITNESS: I know that in the bulletin of the 18th of May, 1940, the sentence was contained that Louvain was captured after severe fighting. Even though the German Army communique did conceal some things, it certainly never stated deliberate untruth I can say that because I was the editor. BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q You have already spoken about the case of Oradur. I merely want to ask you, what did Field Marshal von Runstedt do be. cause of this event when it was reported to him?
had been started by Field Marshal von Runstedt and that there was correspondence about the case of Oradur between Field Marshal Keitel and the Armistice Commission and Field Marshal von Runstedt. martial proceedings? ment of an SS court in connection with this event.
Q You don't know the out cone of that trial?
A No, I am afraid I don't.
Q Then I come to the last question. How many conferences were there before the Ardennes offensive in December, 1944? ences.
Q Did you participate in all of them? at any time, a demand for an order, or an order that during that offensive prisoners were to be shot?
A No, but I can tell you more than that. Never, during any one of those conferences, has a single word been mentioned which went beyond the purely operative considerations. There was no talk about the conduct of the troops. -- let's assume -- had been issued by Field Marshal von Runstedt?
A Such an order is out of the question. It could never have been issued through the channels handled by soldiers. It could only have been issued through the police; that is to say, Himmler of the SS. of the Armed Forces units, surely? officer of the Army would have accepted such an order, and I know of no order of the Fuehrer which would be directed against ordinary prisoners of war in such a way.
the witness Van Essen has stated in this court room that, in accordance with the treatment of prisoners of war, he had to draw conclusions on an order from higher sources. Do you know the Commando case?
THE PRESIDENT: I thought you had out your last question. You said that was your last question.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I shall be through in about five minutes. Will you please take into consideration that Colonel General Jodl is a member of the indicted group and that he is the officer who is most sufficiently informed and that an hour and a half for such an examination is not an excessive amount of time. BY DR. LATERNSER: of the British Field Marshal Alexander was a participant? quite remember who it came from. I discussed it with Field Marsh Keitel and I expressed my view that because of that one couldn't start, or shouldn't start legal proceedings against a lieutenant just because he was wearing a German cap during such an action. Legal proceedings were in progress against him already. Then Field Marshal Keitel gave the order that the proceedings should be discontinued.
Q And were they discontinued? was the jurisdiction of the Deputy Chief of the Armed Forces Commando Staff? shall we say, directed, in practice, General Staff work, all my staff, my entire staff, from which of course I was separated by certain distances, because I was in the so-called Circle No. 1 and my staff were in Circle No. 2; that is to say, outside; and this entire staff who worked within the immediate staff were directed by him, and, if necessary, he acted as my deputy of course.
the Armed Forces Commando Staff was responsible for strategic planning. Is that correct?
A No. I was responsible in the first place. Chief of the Armed Forces Commando Staff correspond to the significance of the other positions which are comprised in the indicted group?
A No, it is far below that. He did not have the position of an Army Commander, for instance, nor the position of the Chief of the General Staff.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other Defendant's Counsel want to ask any question BY DR. STAHMER (Counsel for Defendant Goering): Hitler that about 80 English flying officers had escaped from a camp, Stalag 3, at Sagan? of the Berghof. I was in the next room telphoning. When a very loud discussion developed, I want to the curtain temporarily to hear what was going on. I heard that there was a question of the escape of the English fliers from the Sagon camp.
Q Was Reichsmarshal Goering present at this discussion?
A The Reichsmarshal was not present at this discussion of the situation. I know that with absolute certainty. shooting of a part of the escaped officers?. that the Reichsmarshal was indignant at this shooting, and I know that this one particularly, the former officer came to the fore, who did not approve of such dealings. One must give him his due. There occured repeated arguments between him and the Fuehrer, which I witnessed personally.
DR, STAHMER: I have no more questions.
DR. BOEHM (Counsel for the SA.): With the permission of the Court, I will as the witness a few questions. BY DR. BOEHM:
Q Witness, you were Chief of the Wehrmacht operational staff. The units at your disposal were known to you. The Prosecution asserts that you expected from the SA. that you could use it as a fighting troop in the first days of agressive war on the basis of the So-called Kommando Troops. How I should like to ask you if the term "Kommando Troops" is known to you in connection with the use of the SA. as such by the Wehrmacht.
A No, that is not known to me. The word "Kommando Troop" I heard for the fi* time in connection with the undertaking of the English Ranger Battalion. We nev* used this term.
the regular troops in the entry into Austria or in the occupation of the Sudetenland?
A I know of no case where formations of the SA. Were used in the occupation of another country, with the exception of the Free Corps Henlein, but that, however, consisted primarily of Sudeten-German refugees. In the Free Corps Henlein there were a few SA leaders, i believe, who had formerly been officers. regiment in the war?
A The Feldherrnhalle Regiment was definitely a Wehrmacht regiment. I should like to say that it embodied the traditions of the SA and it was recruited primarily from the SA. but it had nothing to do whatever with the Supreme SA Command It was completely a regiment of the Wehrmacht. Reich Fuehrer Schools of the SA annually, 22,000 to 25,000 officers and non-commissioned officers were used as such in the Wehmacht? its officers and non-commissioned officers trained by anyone else than by its own personnel. as ordinary soldiers and had to advance in the ordinary way as Wehrmacht soldiers
A The SA. Was drafted into the Wehrmacht like other Germans. I know of many cases where high SA leaders were given the very lowest positions as soldiers and as non-commissioned officers. 25,000 officers and non-commissioned officers were trained by the SA, but that 25,000 officers, empowered and not empowered, were trained by the SA. for the Wehrmacht. Do you know anything about this? greater extent of officers. The officers were trained only in the War Schools of the army, nowhere else. this--that in the course of the totalization of the war effort, 80 per cent of the Leadership Corps were made available.
A I cannot give a binding answer to that. I do not know of that.