you not, that the Defendant Goering had been at his secret headquarters for a week before that, considering this matter? on Polish towns was again a well planned scheme to try and break down national resistance for your attack?
A May I say the following on that subject? If my statements as Field Marshall and witness under oath are considered as little as you are considering them, Mr. Prosecutor, then further statements of mine do not serve any purpose. I have emphasized that it was not an attack against towns, but an attack on military targets, and that is something that I, as a soldier, should be believed about. I am not going to discuss it. I am just going to ask you about one or two other matters, in order to get your view on it, what you consider to be of military necessity. You remember the orders with regard to Partisans in Italy during the time of your command? -- the orders with regard to Partisans. am wrong, but I understand this to be the position. The Defendant Keitel issued a general order as to Partisans on 16 December 1942. A copy was found in your headquarters or your ex-headquarters, and your recollection is that it came to your attention later on, but you are not quite sure of the date. Is that right? You are not quite sure of the time? consider it; do you think that Keitel's order of December 1942 had come to your attention before you issued your own order of 17 June 1944. Perhaps you would like to see your own order, would you?
in December, and subsequently in January, I had requested that on the subject of these questions I should be heard once more, since I have certain qualms about the issuing of these orders, the routing slips and the date. to see them and recall them to your recollection. I do not think they have been put in before. Let us take first Defendant Keitel's order of 16 December 1942.
(A document was handed to the witness.)
I hope I have passed you the right document. Does it read--I'll read it very slowly.
"The Fuehrer has therefore ordered that:
"1. The enemy employs in partisan warfare Communist trained fanatics who do not hesitate to commit any atrocity. It is more than ever a question of life and death. This fight has nothing to do with soldierly gallantry or principles of the Geneva Convention. If the fight against the Partisans in the East, as well as in the Balkans, is not waged with most brutal means, we will shortly reach the point where the available forces are insufficient to control this area. It is, therefore, not only justified, but it is the duty of the troops to use all means without restriction, even against women and children, so long as it insures success. Any consideration for the Partisans is a crime against the German people."
Do you remember that order?
A Yes.
commanding in Italy? Do you remember that? I will show you in one moment, if I can get the German copy out of the file. I will just read a short passage again so that the Tribunal will have it in mind; but witness, please refer to any other passage because I want to give a fair effect of the order:
"1. The partisan situation in the Italian theatre, particularly central Italy, has recently deteriorated to such an extent that it constitutes a serious danger to the fitting troops and their supply lines as well as to the war industry and economic potential. The fight against the partisans must be carried on with all means at our disposal and with the utmost severity. I will protect any commander who exceeds our usual restraint in the choice of severity of the methods he adopts against partisans. In this connection the old principle holds good that a mistake in the choice of methods in executing one's orders is better than failure or neglect to act."
Do you remember that, witness? as to what you meant, you issued this further one, another "top secret" order; reading the third line after saying, "The announcement does not represent an empty threat," you say:
"It is the duty of all troops and police in my command to adopt the severest measures. Every act of violence committed by partisans must be punished immediately. Reports submitted must also give details of countermeasures taken. Wherever there is evidence of considerable numbers of partisan groups a proportion of the male population of the area will be arrested, and in the event of an act of violence being committed these men will be shot." was carried out. You remember when one of your officers, Colonel von Gablenz, was captured by partisans; do you remember?
A Von Gablenz? after your order. Do you remember Colonel von Gablenz being captured, do you?
Q He was a colonel of the lines of communication; not a very important officer, but still a colonel.
Q Now, just look at these two documents. Is this right? -- this is a extract from the daily situation report by the commander in chief of southwest Italy for the 26th of June.
"Partisan situation. North of Arezzo Colonel von Gablenz, a member of the staff of the officer commanding lines of communication, area Tenth Army, was captured by bandits. The entire male population of the villages on the stretch of road concerned was taken into custody." It was further announced that all these hostages would be shot if the captured colonel were not set free within fortyeight hours. Remember that?
Q No, no, but do you remember the incident? for two days later, the 28th of June, the second paragraph:
"As reprisal for the capture of Colonel von Gablenz, so far 560 persons, including 250 men, have been taken into custody."
Is that your conception of what is meant by "steps necessary to deal with partisan warfare" that 410 women and children should be taken into custody?
A That was not necessary; it didn't become necessary. I may perhaps later on refer-
Q Let us take one other example. You remember Civitella? Do you remember what was done with Civitella by your forces, do you? the 18th of June, one day after your order.
"Two German soldiers were killed and a third wounded in a fight with partisans in the village of Civitella. Fearing reprisals the inhabitants evacuated the village, but when the Germans discovered this punitive action was disposed. On June 29" -- that, you will remember, witness, was nine days after your proclamation to reinforce your order -- "when the local inhabitants were returned and were feeling secure once more the Germans carried out a well-organized reprisal, combing the neighbourhood. Innocent inhabitants were often shot on sight.
During that day 212 men, women, and children in the immediate district were killed.
Some of the dead women were found completely naked. In the course of investigations a nominal roll of the dead has been compiled and is complete with the exception of a few names whose bodies could not be identified. Ages of the dead ranged from one year to eighty-four years. Approximately one hundred houses were destroyed, by fire. Some of the victims were burned alive in their homes." incident, Now, witness, do you really think that militarynecessity commands the killing of babies of one and people of eighty-four? dealt with yourself, that is the position of the Hermann Goering Division. You mentioned one of the persons I have in mind, but let me just, in order to make it clear to the Tribunal, get clear who your officers were at that time. command the Tenth Army?
Q In 1944?
Q Was he directly under your orders?
Q Then I take it he is a fairly senior and responsible general? -- I don't know his rank -- colonel general or -
Q And under him was the 76th Corps, wasn't it, commanded by General Haer; is that correct? General Schmalz, whom you mentioned this morning; is that right?
Q I think it was Schmalz at this time. New, the Hermann Goering Division had been concerned in a number of these -- I will call them incidents; I won't say -- what I mean by incidents is the sort of thing which I have been describing at Civitella. Let me remind you of one or two. Do you remember at Stia, on the 13th to the 18th of April 137 civilians were killed, including forty-five women and children; do you remember that incident?
Civitella, that was on the 29th of June. And do you remember Buchini on the 9th of July; do you remember an incident at Buchini?
A It is feasible, but I will have to know the details first. Q Perhaps you will remember this; I will put it to you generally, witness, because it is a perfectly general course of conduct, and there were a number of these incidents in which the Hermann Goering Division was engaged. Do you remember that?
A There have been quite a lot of incidents like that on both sides, and I would have to have exact details before I could decide on a single incident.
Is it correct that the Hermann Goering Division was only under General Haer and General von Vitinghof for tactical purposes, and reported each day to Berlin to Reichsmarshal Goering as to what they were doing? the Supreme Command of the Army, but I must assume that there was subordination of that division under the General Command. Whether there were any matters operating outside that, I don't know. got the words from the way I put them:
"The First Airborne Division and the Hermann Goering Division came under the army commanders only as regards tactics; for all other question, on the other hand, directly under the Reichsmarshal, to whom they had to send daily reports. They were not permitted to receive orders from the army commanders concerning criminal proceedings, nor to report the results of such proceedings. Thus they carried on the war against guerrillas according to principles which to some extent deviated from these of the Army."
Is that a correct statement?
A That conception is correct, but the idea, the word "tactics", can be understood in various ways.
Q The word what?
A Tactics. The tactical subordination. That can be understood within large limits. it is quite clear what the person's statement I am reading means there, isn't it? He says that they were not permitted to receive orders from the army commanders on criminal proceedings or to report the results, and that they carried on the war against guerrillas according to principles which deviated from those of General Vitinghof, didn't they?
A This is the first time that I hear of this, but if another gentleman has said so then I must assume it is correct.
about it? It is very difficult to remember every incident. Please don't think that I want to be offensive, but I want you to try to remember. Didn't General Haer make numerous complaints to you about this anomalous position with regard to the Hermann Goering division, and did you never give any official reply to General Haer's reports? There may have been frequent consultations in my command post. And may I add once more that such definitions of attitude were definitely in existence within the Army group, but I must add that I do not know which sector came under the heading "tactics" and which did not. What I am suggesting is this. If you disagree with "numerous", will you accept "some", that on some occasions General Haer reported to you that he was in difficulties through this anomalous position of the Hermann Goering division?
Q Your chief of staff at this time was General Roettiger, wasn't he?
Q From the 10th of June onwards, just over this time, and didn't General Roettiger also talk to you about the position of the Hermann Goering division being under the special protection of Reichsmarshal Goering in Berlin?
A Yes. We discussed that subject quite a lot. Goering division is concerned, they took their orders from the Defendant Goering, who is sitting at the dock, didn't they, as to how they were to treat the partisans?
A I couldn't tell you that. Those channels by-passed me.
Q Yes. They by-passed you; they by-passed General Haer; they by-passed von Vitinghof; they by-passed you, and went straight to Berlin.
That's right, isn't it?
A Yes, certainly. That was the exceptional channel which applied to the Hermann Goering Division.
Q Yes. You see, at the moment the Tribunal is dealing with the case of the Defendant Goering. That is why I ask you these questions.
Now, just one or two short points. You remember Dr. Laternser asking you one or two questions about the High Command and General Staff. Do you remember Dr. Laternser asking you some questions? You must have realized, witness, that the body that is mentioned in this case has nothing to do with the Staff Corps of the German Army. I think you made that clear yourself yesterday.
A With what did you say?
Q With the Staff Corps. You had, both in the Army and the Air Force, a corps of office as who had gone through the Military Academy and were staff officers of all ranks, I suppose down to captain, hadn't you.
A The question isn't quite clear to me. That is why I am not giving you any answer.
Q I am sorry. You had in both the Army and the Luftwaffe a Staff Corps of officers who had been to Military Academy and were thereafter staff officers. And they had, I think , the right of reporting to the Chief of Staff directly if they wanted? Isn't that so? Is that right or wrong?
A That is not correct. Only, as I said yesterday, as far as education information was concerned. As far as the general attitude was concerned there was the right to influence General Staff officers, but the other way around, no. didn't it?
Q I though that was it. May I tell you, we are not interested in that corps at all. The Prosecution are not interested in that corps at all. know there are nine commander-in-chief or staff positions named, and then the Oberbefehlshaber, who commanded in certain areas or commanded certain fleets of the Luftwaffe. You have looked at that, I suppose, have you?
Q I am trying to put it shortly, Witness, so that we won't take time. I just want you to consider this. Are not these people who are mentioned -that is, the heads of the OKW, OKH, OKM, OKL, and their deputies and the Oberbefehlshaber -- the officers in the German armed forces who would have most to do with the policy and planning of wars? were of course the advisory organs of the leader of the State in all military questions and military political questions. The supreme commanders of army groups had no influence whatever.
Q Well, I'd like you to take the case of two examples. I think you were present at both of these. Before the attack on Poland there was a meeting on the 22nd of August, which has been mentioned here before. Did that consist of these higher officers that I mentioned, the heads of the various branches, and also of the Oberbefehlshaber? war in that military sector. of war was Poland. At that time the main purpose was considering the Polish campaign, wasn't it? The main purpose of that meeting, I suppose, was to con sider the Polish campaign with the possibility of a campaign against the Western Powers if they came in.
AAbout that I can't give you any information. going to ask about it. I am only getting from you the people who were there.
Now, let me remind you of another meeting. On the 9th of June 1941 there was a Conference Barbarossa for the attack on the Soviet Union. Do you remember that? Berchtesgaden.
A There was some conference, yes, but whether the 9th of June I don't know. But I did partake in one conference. who were there were the holders of these supreme positions and the Oberbefehlshaber, weren't they?
A That's correct, yes. General von Falkenhorst, who was the Army High Commander in Norway at that time. He was there.
A General von Falkenhorst?
A I couldn't tell you. It is quite possible, but I don't know.
Q General Stumpf of Air Fleet and, if I may, I don't know what the ranks were so I just give the names. Rundstedt, Reichenau, Stulpnagel, Schubert, Kleist, and of course Bock, Kluge, Guderian, Halder, Kesselring.
A The latter was certainly there. Stumpf and Falkenhorst, I can't tell you about those two. high positions to meet, wasn't it, to meet the Fuehrer?
Q Now, I just want you to help me on one other small point. Do you remember saying yesterday to Dr. Laternser that the members of this alleged group were far too concerned with high matters of strategy to have anything to do with Fifth Columnists? Do you remember saying that, words to that effect
Q I don't know if you know, but outside Germany the name Quisling has become an ordinary word of use as an alternative to Fifth Columnist. Did you know that?
You talk about a Quisling meaning a Fifth Columnist. You haven't heard that?
Q You know who Quisling was?
A Yes, indeed I do. Yes, of course I do.
Q Well, I'd just like you to listen to this, because it concerns your service. The Defendant Rosenberg, in January 1940, wrote to the Fuehrer as follows:
Assuming that his" -- that is, Quisling -- "statements would be of special interest to the Marshal of the Reich Goering for aero-strategical reasons, Quisling was referred to State Secretary Koerner by the Foreign Affairs Bureau." Did he come to you at all for aero-strategical reasons? Hitler in December 1939? Did you know that? German Navy are important members of this group of commanders-in-chief, aren't they?
A Supreme commanders? Yes. members of the group had more to do with Fifth Columnists than you knew. front when I mentioned that yesterday, and our talks were in a different sphere. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I think I have finished, but perhaps your Lordship would allow me just over the adjournment to see if there is any small point.
My Lord, the other thing is this. I think we ought to put in these documents to which I have referred, because the Defense may want to deal with them later on. THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if they haven't already been put in. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think some of the orders haven't been put in. I have read part of them into the record, and I will put them in.
THE PRESIDENT: They must be put in and marked then.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
ALBERT KESSELRING, resumed. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Rome on 23 March 1944. Do you remember that I had in mind--the bomb plot in Rome? Remember? At that time your Chief of Staff was General Westphal, and he reported the plot direct to General Better? Perhaps you will help me as to the pronunciation? B-u-e-
Q General what?
Q Didn't he report to a General Buettler, spelled B-e-t-t-l-e-r?
Q General von Buettler? report the matter to the Fuehrer, is that right? the defendant Keitel reported the matter to the Fuehrer?
Q The Fuehrer gave an order that either twenty or ten--you aren't quite sure which, but you rather think twenty--Italians should be killed?
(There was a noise in the court-room.)
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will begin Again. killed for every one German involved in the plot isn't that right? correct.
Q Can you remember, Witness, whether it was twenty or ten now?
A I assume ten, but I don't know the exact number. I assume ten.
The competent authority for Rome was General von Mackensen, wasn't it? commander of Rome was subordinate to him. man called Katler, wasn't it?
Q What was he? An obergruppenfuehrer or something like that? inquiry directed into this incident from your intelligence officer whose name was Zolling, don't you?
Q And you also got a report from Kapler himself, did you not? the people who have been adjudged were there.
Q Didn't Kapler tell you that he had executed 382 people? direct information and had no direct conversation with Kapler.
Q Are you sure of that?
AAt the end I wish to emphasize I conversed with him by 'phone after I arrived at the theatre of operations, and this report was given me, but direct communication I do not recall. I do remember that later on, perhaps eight to ten days later, we had a meeting and told him that I was grateful to him that this rather distasteful matter had been taken care of, which was just and morally free.
Q Let us see what you had to be grateful about. You were interrogated about this on the 8th of January. Do you remember being asked this question?
"Then Zolling didn't tell you that all this number that were executed had previously been convicted of some crimes punishable by death?" and you answered, "Yes, I said that. All right, yes, he did that. Even Kapler had told me that."
number of people, 382 I suggest, who had been guilty of other crimes and executed them as a reprisal for the bomb plot, isn't that right? to death.
Q This has already been put to you. This is Kapler's account, that of the 382, 176 had committed acts punishable by death; 22 were people whose cases were marked "closed"; 17 had been sentenced to terms of labor; 4 had actually been condemned to death; 4 had been arrested near the scene of the crime. That made 223.
Didn't Kapler say to you, "Later the number of victims rose to 325 and I decided to add 57 Jews"? Didn't Kapler give you these figures? in consequence of the order to kill ten Italians, or maybe twenty Italians, for one German who had been killed? we were concerned with people who had already been convicted and sentenced.
Q But it didn't make any difference to you whether they had been convicted for the bomb outrage or for any other offense?
A The situation was as follows: This battle was raging heavily, and at this period of time there was a bombing attack against this sector. From Roman circles matters had been handled in a most mild way of treatment, and the case on the German side was so that Mackensen (?) and others were concerned to ease the situation, and something had to be done on one side, and on the other side something had to be done which would prevent measures of this kind, that is, a branding for the public, an announcement that something could not be done against the German Army without drawing the consequences of these acts, and the vital point for me was not whether Mr. X or Mr. Y was concerned in this plot. This question for me was miner. The problem of prior importance was to have public opinion on both sides quieted and satisfied.
might say "terrorize" the population, so that they would not repeat or do anything against the German army. and I did not use suppression to my knowledge, and I would like to repeat in one case, if I may say so, had ideal friendship conditions with the Italians, if I may be permitted to say so, and I had a reason to be interested in promoting friendship rather than enmity, and I intervened only and in a decisive matter if, in a brief period of time, the best points were to be furthered. to the Italians this morning and I am not going back to them. I only want to ask you one other point about which perhaps you will be able to relieve my mind. On the 2nd of November, 1943, were you the commanding general in Italy, that is, after you became-
A May I add something to point 1? whether you were the commanding general in Italy the 2nd of November, 1943? Were you?
A Yes. I was. British commandos taken prisoner at Peskara were to be given special treatment?
Q That means murder, special treatment; it means that they were killed by the SS?
A No. it does not. I beg your pardon. As I have already mentioned before. these people were not shot but when they were wounded, were taken to a hospital and, as far as I recall, into an internment camp if they were unhurt. three, according to your telegram, got special treatment and nine others were taken to hospitals.
I was going to ask you about these taken to hospitals. What did you do with people who came under the Kommando Order who were taken to hospitals? of the Hague Convention, they were treated according to the principle of this Convention. Order was in accordance with the Hague Convention. We know what the Kommando Order was, that people taken as commandos were to be shot. What I am asking you is that supposing some commandos had the misfortune to be wounded, what happened to them?
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute:
THE WITNESS: I would like to answer.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it coming through now?
DR. LATERNSER: I cannot understand the question, your Honor.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Very well, I will repeat the question. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE:
Q After Hitler's Kommando Order, what happened to commandos who were unfortunate enough to be wounded? but as I stated before already, these orders in this case--I believe the collaboration of Jodl was in this case, that a normal procedure was followed. practice of the SS to kill out of hand new-born Jewish babies in hospitals. Can you give me your assurance that commando troops who were wounded and taken to hospitals were not killed out of hand? any such matters and would not have tolerated them.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution have any further crossexamination?
Then, Dr. Stahmer, do you wish to re-examine?
DR. STAHMER (Counsel for Defendant Goering): The British Prosecution has just raised new facts which have not been known up to this time, especially about the shooting of hostages, and this happened in Italy in the partisan combat and for which the Defendant Goering seems to have been made responsible or seems to be made responsible. For this matter, there has been submitted further documents. the facts as well as to the serious accusations and wish to put the following questions to the witness. After a thorough examining of the material, I will wish to submit motions or requests and reserve the right, respectfully, that if I need further questions, whether I may have access to this witness again. If need be, naturally I will be satisfied to ask for the absolute minimum of testimony in the framework of the accusations just made, in order to prevent a prolongation of this proceeding.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal thinks that you must re-examine the witness now and that if you wish to make an application hereafter to recall the witness you will have to show very strong grounds for doing it. You may make written application to recall the witness at a later stage, but I would point out to you that the cross-examination of this witness has not been solely relevant to the case of the Defendant Goering. He is a member of the General Staff and, as it was pointed out to him at the opening of one part of the cross-examination, he is one of the accused persons as such and the evidence, therefore, may be relevant to Goering, or it may have been relevant to the General Staff. Is that clear to you?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, I quite follow, but I am only put questions if I am in complete command of the facts. I am not in such a position at this time because documents were referred to which were completely unknown to me and, as far as I know, the Prosecution should present this material to us.
THE PRESIDENT: Documents were put to the witness and, as I say, the Tribunal will consider any application which you make hereafter to have this witness recalled, but you may continue now with your re-examination and finish with the witness.
DR. STAHMER: At present I have no further questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then the witness can retire.
(The witness retired.)