Q. It is the example you quoted, witness, not I. I did not quote it.
A. I can only say that we were under the certain subjective impression and that in the last second we curried through an enterprise, to which British troops were already committed, and if you can prove to me that that is not true, I shall be very grateful to you.
Q. I am going to call your attention to the only outside evidence that you have produced about that, because it was read rather hurriedly yesterday
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it is in Jodl's document book Two, and it is page 178. Well, My Lord, it begins at page 174. My Lord, that is on the left hand top corner. Page 174 says that Albrecht Soltmann was an expert specialist, that he evaluated the files from the British landing brigade, and that he examined diaries. That is on the second page, and on the bottom of page 175:
"The documents and statements by prisoners showed that a short time before our invasion of Norway the British invasion troops had been embarked on destroyers. On the following day they were again disembarked and remained in the vicinity of the port of embarkation. They were then re-embarked after the German invasion of Norway for the second time and transported to Norway. What intention the English pursued in the embarkation of their troops before our landings could not be determined from the documents and from the statements furnished by prisoners. Whether they intended to occupy Norway before our invasion could at that time only be conjectured, because the prisoners did not make any exact statements in this respect. The conjectures are based on the special equipment of those British troops. Insofar as I could evaluate the documents and statements furnished by prisoners they dod not contain proof of the English plans with regard to Norway."
And this is the next question:
"Have not the results of all documents and statements furnished by prisoners been to the effect that in the invasion of Norway we arrived only just ahead of the English?
"Answer: Yes, the information in the documents and the statements furnished by prisoners could be interpreted to mean that in our invasion we were just ahead of the English.
However, whether this was considered unmistakable evidence escapes my knowledge."
Then they deal with French documents captured in a railway train. The witness does not know anything about them. BY MR ROBERTS:
Q That is pretty porr evidence, isn't it, on which Norway was to be invaded, contrary to all the treaties and all the assurances?
A I quite agree with you on that; you are quite correct, but that is only found in this reason--that Soltmann was not an expert in this field. He was not even an officer of the General Staff. We have further and much more persuasive pieces of evidence which were before me on my desk; namely, all the directives carried by the English landing brigade, and our assumptions were absolutely confirmed by fact through these records as follows-al law, how keen you were to see that International liar was observed. You knew that was against international law didn't you? plied to the Wehrmacht. The concept of an aggressive war or not, was not found in any regulation of the Geneva Convention or the Hague Landwarfare Regulations. Those were the things that we went by.
Q If an hinorable German gives his word, he keeps it, does he not? He does not break his word without saying that he is going to depart from it, does he, an honorable German? when human beings work together. but not in the sphere of politics. Germany to break her word over and over again? Or would you rather not answer that question? for the formulation of German politics.
Belgium, and the Netherlands. I beg you pardon, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. in the West, it was always Hitler's intention to violate the neutrality of those three small countries? intention to go through Belgium, but he had reservations with regard to Holland for a long time. I believe these reservations were rescinded in the middle of November. Regarding Holland his intentions Were not determined. Regarding Belgium his intentions were known comparatively early. That is, about the middle or the early part of October. ensive war and an offensive war in somebody else's country. That is the ambition, naturally, isn't it?
Q You couldn't attack in the West unless you attacked through Belgium, could you? and was questionable. I have already said that.
Q Yes. That is why, of course, France built the Maginot Line, so that you couldn't attack her frontally. air bases from which you could annihilate England or Great Britain. That is what you hoped, wasn't it? improved through our having the coast, that is true.
Q Yes. May I just remind you of a few documents which the Tribunal knew already. I don't intend to read them, but the first document in order of date is 375-PS, Us-84, dated 25 August 1938. It is during the time of Fall Gruen. In the last paragraph of the document, page 9, I think, it says:
"Belgium and the Netherlands in German hands would represent an extraordinary advantage in the air war against Great Britain."
That was at the time of the Czechoslovakian crisis, wasn't it? ridiculous piece; it was just the work of a very small lieutenant. what happened afterwards. you heard about it from Keitel -- was the Chancellery meeting the 23rd of May 1939. That is L-79, Book No. 7, page 275. Do you remember there that the Fuehrer said:
"The Dutch and Belgian air bases are to be occupied. Declarations of neutrality must be ignored. Considerations of right and wrong or treaties do not matter. The Army will have to hold positions essential to the Navy and the Air Force. If Belgium and The Netherlands are successfully occupied and held, if France is also defeated, fundamental conditions for a successful war against England will have been secured. Daily attacks by the German Air Force will cut her life line."
There wasn't any doubt as to the policy of the Fuehrer in Hay 1939, was there? and the things which purportedly were discussed at that time, and I am not able to judge whether it is correct for I did not hear it. I didn't hear about it later; I didn't hear about it from Keitel.
Q Very good. Did you hear about the speech made by the Fuehrer on the 22nd of August 1939?
MR. ROBERTS: I don't know if the Court have got this. It is not in your document book. It is No. 798-PS, in Document Book No. 4. There are some loose copies, my Lord. BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q "Holland, Belgium, and Scandinavia will defend their neutrality by all available means. England and France will not violate their neutrality.
You always thought Hitler was a good prophet, didn't you? You thought Hitler was a good judge, whereas Germany would break hers.
Now, then, that was August. I want to -
A (Interposing) I don't know that either.
Q Very good. Now, I want to come to the document which you put in yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, wait a/minute. Defendant, what do you mean by saying you don't know that? Do you mean that you didn't know the document? You said, "I don't know that."
THE WITNESS: I do not know what the Fuehrer actually said in his conference on the 22nd of August. I did not even know that a discussion had taken place, for I was in Vienna at the time. I only know what supposedly is set down in documents which have been submitted.
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Now I want to put the whole document L-52. Dr. Exner , quite properly of course, read some extracts, but I went to read some more.
Now, L-52 was Hitler's memorandum on the 9th of October 1939. May I point out that the 9th of October 1939 was three days after his renewed assurances to the Western neutrals.
I want to refer to certainpassages. You have read some; I want to refer to others.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, what I am now reading from, starting withthe outside page is the 5th page. It is page 27 of the original, which appears in the bottom righthand corner. BY MR. ROBERTS: "Germany's military means of waging a lengthier war are, as far as our main enemy is concerned, theAir Force and the U-boat arm.
"The U-boat can, even today, if ruthlessly employed, be an extraordinary throat to England. The weaknesses of German U-boat warfare lie in the great distances to the scenes of action, in the extraordinary danger attached to these journeys and in the continuous threat to their homo bases. That England has not, for the moment, laid the great minefield, as in WorldWar I, between Norway and the Shetland Isles, is possibly connected - - provided the will to wage war exists at all -- with a shortage of necessary barrage materials. But, if the war lasts long, an increasing difficulty to our U-boats must be reckoned with in the use of these only remaining inward and outward routes. The creation of U-boat strongpoints outside these constricted home bases would lead to on enormous increase in the striking power of this arm." access to the Atlantic?
A I do not believe so. I believe it is a rather general and correct naval strategic consideration and can apply to a base at Murmansk which we already had at that time, or it might refer to the base at Iran or Spain, but it is not a special reference to Norway, for under oath I have declared that the Fuehrer did not consider Norway, not with the slightest thought.
Q. Very good.
A. Not until we had the notice and report from Quisling.
Q. I have heard your answer. Now, may I go on reading:
"The German Air Force, the GAP, cannot succeed in efficient operations against the industrial center of England and her south and southwest ports until it is no longer compelled to operate offensively from our present small North Sea coast by extremely devious routes involving long flights. If the Dutch-Belgian area were to fall into the hands of the English and French, then the enemy air forces would be able to strike at the industrial heart of Germany and would need to cover barely a sixth of the distance required by the German bomber to reach really important targets. If we were In possession of Holland, Belgium, or even the Straits of Dover as jumping off bases for German aircraft, then, without a doubt, Great Britain could be struck a mortal blow, even if the strongest reprisals were attempted.
"Such a shortening of air routes would be all the more important to Germany because of our difficulties in fuel supply. Every 1000 kilograms of fuel saved is not only an asset to our national economy, but means that 1000 kilograms more of explosive can be carried in the aircraft; that is, 1000 kilograms of fuel would became 1000 kilograms of bombs. This also leads to economy in aircraft, in mechanical wear and tear, and above all, in valuable airmen's lives".
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it is two pages on, and your Lordship will see "41" nearly at the top of the page, with an asterisk, and the heading "The German Attack". Has your Lordship go it?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q. "The German Attack. The German attack is to be mounted with the object of destroying the French army, but in any case it must create a favorable initial situation which is a pro requisite for a successful continuation of the war.
In these circumstances, the only possible area of attack is the sector between Luxembourg in the south and Nijmegan in the north, exclusing Liege.
The object is to attempt to penetrate Luxembourg Belgium, and Holland in the shortest possible time, and to engage and defeat the opposing Belgian-French-English forces".
I suppose I can't ask you to say what your opinion is of the honesty of giving those western neutrals a guarantee on the 6th of October and saying that is the only possible means of attack in that memorandum of the 9th. I suppose that is a question of politics, is it?
A. It is a political question, but the stipulations were made only on the condition of the strictest neutrality. But the neutrality was not kept, for British fliers daily and by night patroled and flew over this area.
Q. Why should the wretched people of the Netherlands and Belgium be destroyed and mutilated because British airmen fly over their territory -- destroyed and mutilated by the German Army? What is the logic of your remark at all?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, there is one more passage from that document I should like to read. If your Lordship is thinking of adjourning, perhaps I mith read it, and then I will have finished with the document. My Lord, it is the next page, and it is toward the end of the page. It is against the number "P-52". It is just above "Time of Attack". BY DR. ROBERTS:
Q. It is on your page 52, Witness, at the very beginning, or just at the end of page 51: keep firmaly fixed in their minds the fact that the destruction of the Anglo-French forces is the main objective, the attainment of which will enable suitable conditions to obtain for later and successful employment of the German Air Force. The brutal employment of the German Air Force against the heart of of the British will to resist can and will follow at the given moment".Did that mean terror attacks against the civilian population?
A. You are asking me continuously about a document which from the first to the last word was written by the fuehrer, as I have already told you. You are citing a rather interesting picture of the Fuehrer as a strategist and as a military leader, and it is of interest to the world, but I cannot see how this concerns no.
Q. But may I point out, Witness, that your own counsel produced it and you relied on certain parts of it. That is how it concerns you; you relied on it.
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours).
(The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 6 June 1946) BY DR. ROBERTS: against the Low Countries. Will you look at your diary 1809 P.S. for the 8* May 1940. It is page 141 in document book 7 and it is page 115 in the German bock. The actual quotation is page 143 in the document book 7 at the top on the page:
"May 8. Alarming news from Holland and cancelling of furloughs, evacuations, road blocks part of mobilization Measures." themselves against your invasion? Was it alarming because you thought the Dutch aught have suspected you were going to break your treaties and assurances?
A I don't understand the question.
Q I will go on. "According to the reports of the Intelligence Service the British have asked for permit to march in but Dutch refused. According to reports measures of the Dutch partly directed against the coast and partly against us. It is not possible to obtain a clear picture who the the Dutch don't work hand in head with the English or whether they really wanted to defend their neutrality against the first attacker."
It is clear from that, isn't it, that you had no information at all that Dutch neutrality was going to be broken?
A That is not clear from the entry. The whole thing is only a bri* argument on reports which ire received on this day or on the previous day fr* Canaris. If that were to be followed up completely these latest reports w* have to be at hand. This entry refers to latest reports. Many thousand previous ones are not included. countries, small countries, were invaded with all of the armed night of Germany, were they not?
invasion and the miseries of German occupation?
A I can only say that is again a historical question. I have already said according to my point of vi** England and France in fact forced them to give up their strictly neutral attitude. That was my impression.
Q Wasn't it because they stood in the way of your air bases and U-boat bases? actions, they helped England in the war against us. That was my subjective impress on. should have asked on Norway only one; and if I might go back to that, I want to ask you about your diary entry, 1809 P.S., page 145 in Document Book 7. I haven't get a reference to the German but it is about at that place. I will read it slowly :
"March 13th: Fuehrer does not yet give order for "Weser". He is still looking for an excuse" -- "justification", to use your word. And the next day, 14 March: Fuehrer has not yet decided what reason to give for "Weser" exercises.
If you had a good reason for breaching Norwegian neutrality why should t* Fuehrer be unable to find one?
absolutely essential to have some documentary proof. So far, then had only been very strong indications which approached proof, but there was no documentary proof.
Q Very good. I leave that part of the case, and I now go to Yogoslavia, and I have only two or three questions on Yugoslavia. book 7; page 112 in the German book. also received assurances from the Fuehrer. That is so, is it not or don't you know?
A Yes. Not only Yogoslavia, from Hitler, but also we from the Yogoslavian Government, which had concluded a treaty with us on the previous day.
Q You will find the document I am going to refer to. I has a piece of paper headed with the German word for "discussion" "Besprechung". Have you found if? It should be a piece of paper with the word "Besprechung".
A "Discussion on situation in Yugoslavia"; yes.
Q Dated 27 March 1941?
Q Now turn to page 2, I think it is:
"The Fuehrer is determined, without waiting for loyalty declarations from the now government, to make all preparations to destroy Yugoslavia militarily and as a national unit. No diploma tic inquiries will be made; no ultimata presented. Assurances which cannot be trusted will be taken note of. The attack will start as soon as the means and the troops suitable are ready. I is important that action will be taken as fast as possible."
Now I go to page 3, witness:
"Politically it is especially important that the new blow against Yugoslavia is carried out with unmerciful harshness, and military destruction is done in a lightning-like undertaking."
"The main task of the Air Force is to start as early as possible with the destruction of the Yugoslavian Air Force ground installation, and to destroy the capital, Belgrade, in attacks by air." even half an hour's warning, was he?
A I don't know what preparations for warning the Yugoslavian Government had taken, but at the moment of the putsch it immediately node military preparations and deployed along our border.
Q May I ask you this? Do you approve, as an honorable soldier, of attacking a city crowded with civilians without a declaration of war or even half an hour's warning?
A I an not of that opinion. I have already said that I, personally, and an hour later the Reich Foreign Minister, suggested an ultimatum.
Q When you lost your air superiority and people were abl* to hit back, you Germans made a great deal of fuss then about terror attacks, didn't you? "Putsch" government, which had annulled a treaty concluded with Germany. From that moment on it made preparations for war with Germany along the whole front.
Q Well, I am going to leave the Incident. Do you remember how you refer to it in the notes for your lecture? It appears on page 292 of Book 7, and at 304 of the German. You refer to it as "an interlude". Do you remember? The (German word is "Zwischenspiel", "interlude". Is that your idea of an interlude?
and not my speech; you do not know that. However, in this first draft, I cannot recall mentioning an interlude. killed in the first movement of that interlude in the bombing of Belgrade without warning? killed in Dresden, for example, when the war had already been won. Socialist Republics. Hitler deciced to attack the Soviet Republic in July of 1940, did he not?
Q But at any rate -- I don't want to waste time -- we know that on the 22nd of June, 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union contrary to her non-aggression pact. That is history, is it not?
A Yes. The attack on the 22nd of June, 1941, is an historical fact, because the politicians were of the opinion that the Soviet Union had not held to the pact. altogether. I want to put me last question to you, however. Don't you think that this record of broken pledges will dishonor the name of Germany for centuries to come? of Russian documents, delivers clear proof that Russia did not have the intention of strangling us politically or of attacking us. In that case, yes; otherwise, no. counts 3 and counts 4. The documents have been put to you so often, that I don't want to put them again.
You remember the "Barbarossa" order. That is G-50, in document book 7, page 187; 146 of the German book. That was issued by your office, was it not, Wehrmacht Fuehrungsstab, L? Fuehrungsstab.
to issue?
A I agree. I have already said that there was no soldier who would not have opposed this order; and they all did so. which is in document book 7, at page 190, page 150 in the German -- we know that from the same office, the WFS, L, there was issued an order that the previous order was to be destroyed, but its validity was not be effected; that is, destroyed below corps level. What was the object of the destruction of that order?
A Unfortunately, I cannot tell you: I do not have this order. I do not believe that I ever saw it.
Q Perhaps you would look at it, witness, C-51, Page 190, Book 7; 150, German Book. How, that comes from W.F.ST. -- that is, Wehrmacht Fuehrungs Stab -- Department "L"; and then "Q" for "Quartermaster", in brackets. That is your office, is it not?
Q That is your office?
A Yes, But I do not know this order; and aside from here in Nuernberg I never saw it before. I do not know what it is about, what order is being rescrinded. I have already said that these questions of court-martial were under the jurisdiction of Field Marshal Keitel; and my quartermaster section issues the order without my having any part in it. I do not know.
Q And you cannot suggest any reason why it had to be destroyed?
A No; I cannot give you any information about that.
MR. ROBERTS: Now, then, I went C-52, which has not yet been put in. Your Lordships will find it on Page 191 of Book 8. I offer it as GB 485, and it is in the German book on Page 153. BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q How, this is another Keitel order. It comes from "Wehrmacht Fuehrungs Stab", "L"; then, in brackets, "1 Op". Is that your department?
Q Do you remember that order?
Q I think you took part in drafting it; did you not?
Q Yes, Will you look at Paragraphs 6 and 7? Paragraph 3 says:
"In view of the vast size of the occupied areas in the East, the forces available for establishing security in these areas will be sufficient only if all resistance is punished not by legal prosecution of the guilty, but by the spreading of such terror by the occupying forces as is alone appropriate to eradicate every inclination to resist, amongst the population.
"The respective Commanders, with the troops available to them are to be hold responsible for maintaining peace within their areas.
The forces, but by applying suitable dracenian measures."
That is a terrible order, isn't it?
A No, it is not terrible. It is established by international law that the inhabitants of an occupied territory must follow the orders and regulation of the occupying power, and an uprising of resistance against the army who occupies this country is forbidden. It is partisan warfare, and there are no means set by international law for combatting partisans. The principle is "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," And this is not a German principle.
Q Is it not the "tooth" and the "eye" of the innocent?
A It is not a question ofinnocence. It is said expressly, "to eradicate every inclination to resist". It concerns only those who resist, the partisans.
Q I will not argue about it, witness. I gather you approve of the order. a resistance movement of great extent and of unscrupulous methods, which is against international law. We had approved of this.
Q Very well. Now I want to come to something quite different. I want to come to the "Commando Order", and I desire to put in two documents which have not yet been put in, to trace the history of the making of this order, because I suggest it was drawn up in your office under your jurisdiction.
MR. ROBERTS: Will you give the witness, please, 1266-PS, which I offer, My Lord, as GB 486. BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Now, this is the first document, dated the 8th of October. That is a memorandum from the "Q" Branch of the Wehrmacht Fuehrungs Stab; that is right, is it not? you seize in Dieppe.
MR. ROBERTS: First it deals with the "tieing up order", My Lord, which is not important. Secondly, it has an announcement of the 7th of October, 1942, which reads as follows:
"All terror and sabotage detachments of the British and their be ruthlessly slain in battle wherever they make their appearance."
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Of course, that order does not mean very much, does it? It assumes that the enemy are not behaving like soldiers, but like bandits, and says they may be slain in battle.
But then the second paragraph says: "The Deputy Chief of the Operational Staff . . ." -- that was Warliment, was it not, witness?
Q He says, "the following task" is given to Department "* "1) Drafting in order form."
Look at Number 2:
"Like the Barbarossa order issued at the time this order thought and care.
Distribution down to Armies only, from there forward only orally.
To be destroyed after having been taken cognizance of".Intelligence?
The "Barbarossa Order" is not a clear term.
Q "The following must be borne in mind regarding the contents of the order.
"In cases where captives are temporarily taken into custody for our own purposes, the persons concerned are to be hand over to the SD, by Counter-intelligence, after a thorough examination in which the SD is also to take part.
"Not to be lodged in prisoner-of-war camps under any circumstances."
"This order is to take effect retrospectively with regard to the people from Norway". blown up a power station in Norway; is not that so?
A That is possible, but I do not know. I never say this The next document I will not read.
It is from somebody caled "Dr. Huelle", whom I do not know, and I do not think it adds anything to it.
Then the next document -- third in Your Lordship's document book -- is dated the 9th of October, and is signed "Warliment". It is dated the 9th of October, witness?
Q Signed by Warliment? that we know, and then says:
"The Fuehrer wishes that an order be issued laying down the "At the instance of the Operational Staff of the Wehrmacht, "You are requested to cooperate in a thorough examination,-"We refer to the discussion between the Chief of the Foreign Operational Staff of the Wehrmacht."
department:
"Members of terror and sabotage detachments of the British able way of fighting will be treated as bandits:
"They are to be exterminated mercilessly in battle or in flight.
Should military considerations demand that they "Keeping them in custody in a prisoner of War camp is for "This order may be distributed only down to armies.
From there forwards it must be made known only verbally.
This of". the head of the legal department about this order?