Q I am not going to argue with you, One cannot argue against documents;
they speak for themselves.
I have a few questions more: You testified before the Tribunal that the Generals of the German Army were blindly carrying out Hitler's orders.
AI have stated that I do no, know which Generals did object, and I said that it did not happen in my present when the question of the words that are subjects of war was raised by Hitler, and of course running orders. More I cannot tell you.
QDo you happen to know that the Generals on their own initiative would promulgate an order about atrocities, about violations of law and customs of war and that such orders would be approved by Hitler? Do you know such facts?
AThe fact is that departments of the Army on a high level with reference to legal procedure, for instance, did alter measures and made then nilder or even withdrew them. That fact is known to me, because they all talked to me about it.
QYou did not understand me. I didn't ask about lessening or slackening the policy, but whether the Generals on their own initiative ever promulgated orders about violating laws and customs of war -- on their own initiative. Did you ever promulgate such orders?
AI don't know of that. I don't know.
QYou don't know it? I shall refer only -
AI don't know what order you are referring to. I don't know; but it is possible.
QI shall refer only to one order. What I have in mind is General Field Marshal von Reichenau's order as to the conduct of troops in the East. This is a document, Mr. President, which was presented by the Soviet prosecution as USSR-13 in connection with giving this order about the conduct of troops in the East. I shall use only one quotation, "Furnishing foodstuffs to the local population andprisoners of war is an unnecessary humanitarian action."
AI know the order. It has been shown to me during interrogations, before the trial,
QThis order was issued on Reichenau's initiative and it was approved by Hitler as a moder order, was distributed among all the Army commanders.
A I didn't know about that until I heard about it here and I don't think I read that order before either.
QOf course, such orders evidently were considered by you to have much significance, because after all, the fate of Soviet prisoners of war and of the civilian population couldn't be f any interest to the head of the OKW; their life didn't mean anything.
AYou mean me? I had no contact with the commanders at the front and I had no further contact with then either; only the Supreme Commander of the Army had that.
QAnd now I am finishing my cross-examination: Here you were testifying before the Tribunal quite often and your accomplices were doing the same thing -- the Defendants Goering and Ribbentrop -- you mentioned several times about the Treaty of Versailles, and I am asking you, were Vienna, Prague, Belgrade, the Crimea before the Versailles Treaty the property of Germany?
ANo.
QYou testifies here that in the year, 1947, after an amendment of laws you received an offer to join the Nazi Party. Did you accept the suggestion or offer . You accepted and you gave your personal data to the leadership of the Party and you paid your entrance free, membership free. Tell us, accepting this offer to join the Nazi Party, should'n it be considered as your agreement with the program of the Party, its objectives and its methodes?
AThe request that I should submit my personal details after I had had the golden Party medal for three and a half or four years was considered by me merely a question of administration and there was the request to pay my membership free and I admit both happened.
QIn other words, before this formal offer you already considered yourself a Nazi member, even before the offer was made to you ?
AI have always considered that I was a soldier, not a political soldier and not a politician.
QShouldn't one admit, after all that was heard here, that you were a Hitler General, not because of your call of duty but on account of your own convictions?
A. I have stated here that I was a loyal, faithful and obedient soldier under my Fuehrer.
And I don't think that there is any General in Soviet Russia who would not obey Marshal Stalin.
GENERAL RUDENKO:I have finished all my questions. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE:
Q.Defendant, do you remember on the 2nd of October, 1945, writing a letter to Colonel Amen, explaining you position? It was after your interrogations, and in your own time you wrote a letter explaining your point of view. Do you remember that?
A.Yes, yes, I think I have written such a letter. I can't recollect the contents at the moment, but it referred to interrogations, I think.
Q.Yes -
A.And I think it was a question that I should be given additional opportunity to think about matters, since owing to the surprising character of the questions qut to me I often didn't know how I should reply.
Q.I want to remind you of one passage and ask you whether it correctly expresses your view:
"In carrying out the acknowledged thankless and most difficult tasks of those functions, I had to fulfil my duty under the hardest exigencies of war, often acting against the inner voice of my conscience and not infrequently against my own opinion, with a complete self-denial and the most imperious obligation to obey, so that I had to take upon myself to carry out what Hitler my most immediate chief urged or charged me to do."
Remember that passage? Do you remember that passage?
A.Yes.
Q.Well, now, I just want you to tell the Tribunal, what were the worst matters in your view in which you often acted against the inner voice of your conscience? Just tell us some of the worst matters in which you acted against the inner voice of your conscience.
A.I found myself in such a situation quite frequently, but the decisive questions when my inner voice, inner conviction, came into it, and when they were burdened, were those questions which were against my education as a German officer which I had received over 37 years.
That was my basic attitude; that was affected.
Q.I wanted it to come from you, Defendant. Can you tell the Tribunal the three worst things you had to do which were against the inner voice of your conscience? What do you pick out as the three worst things you had to do?
A.Perhaps to start with the last, the orders which were given regarding the warfare in the East, as far as they were contrary to the usages of war, and furthermore, those matters which have been mentioned by the British Delegation particularly, the question of the fifty R.A.F. officers. The question, lastly, which implicates me most, that of the terrorist fliers. But foremost of all is the decree of "Nacht und Nebel" -- Night and Fog -and the effects it had, unknown as they were.
Q Well, now, I think --
AThose are among the worst fights through which I had to go.
QWell, we will take the Nacht und Nebel.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, this document and a good many to which I shell refer are in the British Document Book Number 7, Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl, and it occurs on Page 279.
It is L-90, US Exhibit
QDefendant, I will give you the German document book. It is 279 of the British document book, and 289 -
AIs it Number 7, Part 1?
QIt is page 289. I do not know which volume it is. Part 2. I think it is.
AAre the pages numbered?
QYes, 289.
AAre these figures at the bottom the page numbers? I think these figures at the bottom at the ones.
QYou see, the purpose of the decree is set out a few lines from the start where they say that in all cases where the death penalty is not pronounced and carried out within eight days, "in all other cases, the prisoners are in the future to be transported to Germany secretly, and further dealing with the offenses will take place here. Those measures will have a deterrent effect because (a), the prisoners will vanish without leaving a trace; (b) no information may be given as to their whereabouts or their fate."
Both these purposes, you will agree, were extremely cruel and brutal, were they not?
AI said at that time and yesterday that it was my personal view that the secret transports were more cruel than anything else.
QWould you turn to page 281--291 of yours, 281 of the English book?
AYes, I have it.
QYou say that this is your covering letter:
"The Fuehrer is of the following opinion:" Line Four.
"If these offenses are punished with imprisonment, even with hard labor for life, this will be looked upon as a sign of weakness. Efficient and energetic intimidation can only be achieved either by capital punishment or by measures by which the relatives of the criminal and the population do not know the fate of the criminal."
You will agree that there again these sentences of the Fuehrer which you are here transmitting were cruel and brutal, were they not?
AYes.
QNow, what I -
AMay I add something, please?
QCertainly, as shortly as you can.
AI made a statement yesterday a this subject. I drew your attention particularly to the words that this is a wish of the Fuehrer, which is what I was going to tell the generals who were receiving these orders, namely, what was written between the lines.
QBut, you know, defendant, the that was by no means the end of this series of orders, was it? This order was unsuccessful despite its cruelty and brutality in achieving its purpose, was it not? This order, the Nacht and Nebel order, in that form was unsuccessful is achieving its purpose; it did notstop what it was designed to step? Is that right?
AYes, that is right. These matters did not cease.
QSo that in 1944 you had to make a still more severe order. Would you look at document D/762.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that will become GB 298.
QIt says, "The continuously increasing acts of terror and sabotage in the occupied territories which are being committed increasingly by uniformly led gangs compel us to take the most severe counter measures, corresponding to the rigor of the war. These who attack us from the rear at the decisive stage of our fight for existence deserve no consideration. I therefore order that all acts of violence by non-German civilians on the occupied territories against the German armed forces, the SS and the Police, and against installations which serve their purposes, are to be combatted as follows as acts of terrorism and sabotage:"
Then, (1), the troops, the SS and so on "are to overcome on the spot all terrorists and saboteurs.
"(2) Those who are apprehended are to be handed over to the Security Police and the SD. Accomplices, especially women who do not participate directly in the fighting, are to be put to work, and children are to be spared."
Now, would you lock at Paragraph 2:
"The Chief of the OKW will issue the necessary executive instructions. He is entitled to make alterations and additions as far as any need in the war operations make it imperative."
Did you think that that was a cruel and severe order or not?
AYes, I do think so, but may I make one short statement? I want to rectify something which was probably translated wrongly. It reached me in the wrong sense. It says that women are to be used for work and that children are to be left out. So it says in the version which I have before me.
QI said "spared". "Spared" meant that they were not to be treated thus. I was careful to mention that.
AYes.
QNow, you had the right to make alterations and additions. Did you, by your alterations andadditions, attempt to mitigate that order in any way?
AI have no recollection of having issued any additional mitigating orders, but I must say, too, that I have never issued anything with at first of all presenting it to the Fuehrer.
QJust let us see what you did issue. Would you look at document D/764, which will be GB 299?
Now, that is your executive order, countersigned I think by the Senior Military Judge, putting forward your order based on that decree, and would you look at Paragraphs 4 and 5.
"The current legal proceedings for all acts of terrorism and sabotage and all otter crimes by non-German civilians in the occupied territories which imperil the security or war preparedness of the occupying power are to be suspended. Accusations must be taken back. The execution of sentences is no longer to be ordered. The culprits are to be handed over with a report on the proceedings to the nearest local - -
THE PRESIDENT:Sir David, where are you reading?
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFFE: Paragraph 4 of D/764.
THE PRESIDENT:I beg your pardon. Yes, you told us.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFFE: My Lord, it is just the last four lines of that paragraph.
Q "The culprits are to be handed over with a report on the proceedings to the nearest local authority of the Security Police and SD. In the case of death sentences which already have legal force, the present instructions are to remain valid.
"Crimes which affect German interests but do not imperil the security or the war preparedness of the occupying power do not justify the retention of jurisdiction over non-German civilians in the occupied territories to draw up new regulations in agreement with the Hitler SS and Police chiefs."
And then you ask them to consider among the first one handing over to the SD for forced labor.
That was certainly not mitigation of the order, was it? You were not making it any easier.
ACertain sentences should be added. This is a matter which arose from daily discussion of these matters and which was later on dealt with by me in the sense of the first decree. I made certain explanatory statement, and that I signed.
QWell, now, that is what you called terrorism and sabotage. Let us look at what happen to people who were guilty of something less than terrorism or sabotage. Look at document D/763.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFFE: That will be GB-300.
Q "Non-German civilians --"
AYes.
Q "Non-German civilians in the occupied territories who endanger the Secrity or the war preparedness of the occupying power by any other means then acts of terrorism and sabotage are to be handed over to the SD. Sections (1) and (2) --" That is the portion that says women will be put to work and children will be spared--" of the Fuehrer's order also applies to them."
Well, you knew perfectly well what would happen to anyone who was handed over to the SD, that he would probably be killed, certainly be put into a concentration camp, did you not?
AIt was not clear to me in that sense. The wording always was "for employment", but due to what has become known to me here, it becomes apparent that the concentration camp was frequently the end for them, but it was always represented to me as being a labor camp. That was the description, "labor camps of the Secret State Police."
QBut, this is August 1944. You will agree that that is a most severe course to take with people who have been guilty of something less than terrorism or sabotage, do you not?
AYes.
QNow, let us -
ARegarding the cause and the origin, I assume that you do not want me to talk. Otherwise I could give explanations, But I merely want to answer the question. The answer is, Yes, this is most severe.
The statement, if I may make it very briefly, would be that as is known during the daily reports of the situation and the incidents in all occupied territories, during these reports orders were given by the Fuehrer which did find their expression in such a form as this document, and I have stated in detail just how I worked with him. I mean, I never issued anything with my signature which had not previously been agreed on by him and which was not in accordance with his wishes.
QThat was only severe enough for you for three weeks, was it not, because on 4 September, which is barely three weeks later, you issued another order.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: D/766, GB 301.
QNow, this was issued, as it shows, as an agreement with Hitler, Kaltenbrunner, the Reich Minister of Justice and Dr. Lammers. Now look at (1):
"Non-German civilians in occupied territories who have been legally sentenced by German courts for a criminal act against the security or war preparedness of the occupying power and who are in custodyin the occupied territories or in the home area are to be handed over with the facts to the nearest local office of the Security Police and SD. Excepted only are those sentenced to death.
"2. Sentenced persons who, according to the directives of the Fuehrer for the prosecution of criminal acts against the Reich or the occupational power, are not allowed to have any contact with the cuter world, are to be especially marked."
Now, had you any idea how many people would be affected by that order?
ANo, I can't make a statement about that. I know only that there were increasing difficulties in the occupied territories. We lacked the facilities for keeping the population quiet by means of using troops.
QWell, let me remind you. You called a conference to consider this matter. That is shown in document D-765, and I also show you D-767, the report of the conference. You need not worry about 765, which just says that there is to be a conference, but in 767, which will be GB-303, there is a report of the conference.
The second paragraph says:
"According to the letter of the Reichsfuehrer SS, Himmler, it is a question of approximately 24,000 non-German civilians who are detained or under arrest, and whose speedy transfer to the SD he demands."
Now listen to this:
"The question that came up during the discussion as to why this transfer to the SD had become necessary at the present time, although not inconsiderable administrative work was involved, remained unanswered."
Can you give any answer new as to why these 24,000 people who had been sentenced should be transferred to the tender mercies of the SD?
AMay I read this report? I don't know it; may I read it, please?
QCertainly. You will see that I didn't trouble you with it all, but it says what I had already put to you earlier, that the Nacht and Nebel decrees had become superfluous as a result of the terror and sabotage decree, and that the Wehrmacht legal department had presented these things for discussion.
Now, can you give us any answer as to why these 24,000 unfortunate persons who had been sentenced should be handed over to the tender mercies of the SD?
AI have to say that I am surprised by the whole incident. I did not attend the conference, and apparently I didn't read the memorandum since I always marked every document which had been presented to me with my initials. I assume that these matters, and particularly the figure which is quoted, were not known to me. This is the first time I have seen it, and I don't remember it It could be that I issued an order in that connection.
QI will give you something which you have read.
AAs to the facts about which you ask me, to that I have to answer "yes". I don't know the figures, but the facts.
QAnd you can't answer my question? You can't give us any reason as to why the Wehrmacht and those other offices were sending these 24,000 people, who had been sentenced by ordinary courts, over to the SD? You can't give us any reason for that?
ANo, except that I could say that up to a point I can. I think "SD" is a mistake; it is an error. I think police custody is what we are concerned with.
QCertainly not.
AWhether it might have been the same thing I don't know.
QSurely you have been at this trial too long to think that handling people over to the SD means police custody. I t means a concentration camp and a gas chamber usually, does it not? That is what it meant in fact, whether you know it or not.
AI didn't know it, but it is obviously the result. Very probably, the and was a concentration camp. I consider it possible, and, at any rate, I cannot say that it was not.
THE PRESIDENT:Sir David, the last paragraph but one refers to the OKW.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, I am just coming to that. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE:
QIf you will notice that, defendant, two paragraphs below the one I put to you it states:
"As OKW does not set any great store by passing sentence on the trifles still remaining for the military courts, it has been left for local agreement to deal with them by decree."
It is quite clear that your office was deeply concerned in this business, was it not, defendant?
AJust what that means I don't know, but it obviously had been mentioned during that, conference.
Q Now, before I put the next document, I want you to realize how we have been going.
We started with the Nacht and Nebel decree, which disappeared, and we went on to the terror and sabotage decree. We then proceeded to acts which were less than terror and sabotage, but were criminal acts under the rules of the occupying powers.
I now want you to consider what was done to people who simply refused to work. Would you look at 769? That is GB-304. That is a telegram from Luftwaffe General Christiansen, who was in the Netherlands, Commander of the Armed Forces in the Netherlands, through his Chief of Staff.
Now listen to this:
"Owing to strike of railway men, all communications in Holland at a standstill. Railway personnel does not obey the appeal to resume work. The call for providing motor vehicles and other means of transport to make the troops mobile and to maintain supplies is no longer answered by the civil population. According to the Fuehrer's decree of the 18th of August, 1944"-- that is the terror and sabotage decree, which you have already had-- "and the executive instructions of the Chief of the OKW", which we have already seen, "the troops may use armed force only against persons who commit acts of violence as terrorists or saboteurs, whereas persons who endanger the security or war preparedness of the occupying power in any way, by terrorism or acts of sabotage, are to be handed ever to the SD."
Then General Christiansen comes in with this:
"This regulation has proved too round-about, and therefore ineffective. In the first place, the necessary police forces are lacking. The troops must again receive authority to shoot, with or even without summary trial, such persons also as are not terrorists or saboteurs in the sense of the Fuehrer's decree, but who endanger the fighting forces by their passive attitude. It is requested that the Fuehrer's decree be altered accordingly, as the troops cannot otherwise assert themselves effectively against the population, which, in its turn, appears to endanger the conduct of the operations."
Now, defendant, will you agree that shooting, with or even without trial, railway men who won't work, is about as brutal and cruel a measure as could well be imagined by the mind of man? Do you agree?
AThat is a cruel measure, yes.
Q What was your answer to that cruel measure?
AI can't tell you now, I don't recollect the incident at all, but perhaps an answer is available.
QWell, look at the document D-770, which is, I think, your answer; it is GB-305. You will notice on the distribution list that that goes to the Commander of the Armed Forces in the Netherlands, and further to the signal which we have just been looking at. Now, you say:
"According to the Fuehrer's order of 30 July, 1944, non-German civilians of the occupied territories who attack us in the rear in the decisive stage of our battle for existence, deserve no consideration. This must be the guiding line for the interpretation and application of the Fuehrer's decree itself and of the Chief of the OKW's executive decree of 18 August 1944. If handing over to the SD is impossible, wing to the military situation and the state of communication, other effective measures are to be taken ruthlessly and independently.
"There are, naturally"--and I ask you to note the word "naturally"-"no objections to passing and executing death sentences by summary court procedure under such circumstances."
I can't remember, defendant, whether you have ever had an independent command youself or not. Have you? Have you had an independent command, apart from your division? I think that was the last independent command you had. You haven't had an independent command yourself, have you?
Don't I make myself clear?
AI didn't understand. What do you mean by "independent"?
QI mean that you haven't been a commander or chief of an army or army group yourself, if I remember rightly, or of an area, have you?
ANo, I was not.
QI ask you to put yourself in General Christiansen's position. That answer of yours was a direct encouragement, practically amounting to an order, to shoot these railway men out of hand, was it not? "To take other effective measures ruthlessly and independently."
AThat is explained by using summary court procedure. It isn't left to the initiative of the individual; there was to be summary court procedure.
QJust look at the way it is put, defendant. I suggest to you that it is quite clear.
One sentence states: "If handing over to the SD is impossible, owing to the military situation and the state of communication, other effective measures are to be taken ruthlessly and independently."
Then, the next sentence: "There are, naturally"-- look at the word "naturally". I suppose that it was "natuerlich" in German. Is that correct?
AI haven't got the word "natuerlich" here. Two wards, so far as I can make out, have been inserted.
QBut it says: "There are, naturally, no objections to passing and executing death sentences by summary courts." What you are saying is that, of course, there is no objection to a summary court, but you are telling him addition to that, that he is to take effective measures ruthlessly and independently. If General Christiansen had shot these railway men jut of hand, after getting that letter from you, neither you nor any other superior could have blamed him for it, could you?
AAccording to the last sentence, it was his duty to carry out summary court procedure. It says that there are no objections to the executing of this sentence by summary court procedure under such circumstances.
QBut what did you mean by "effective measures to be taken ruthlessly and independently"? What did you mean by that, if it was only an ordinary summary court procedure?
ABy that I don't mean apart from summary court procedure, but by means of same. That is what the last sentence means.
QWell, I put my point to you.
AIt is unusual if a summary court is used in such connection.
QYes, even on your basis, to use a military summary court to short railway men who won't work is going rather far even for you, is it not? It is going rather far, isn't it?
AThat was certainly a very severe measure.
QDo you tell the Tribunal that when you make all those additions-taking you through the chain of additions that you made to the order replacing the Nacht and Nobel order, of which you disapproved, do you say that you went to Hitler for every one of these executive orders and answers that you made?
AYes. I didn't issue any of these orders without having submitted then to the Fuehrer first.
I must definitely emphasize that that was so.
DR. NELTE:Mr. President, I think a misunderstanding has crept into the translation.
It says in the translation "Standgericht", "Summary Court". I don't believe that the words "Summary Court" reflect accurately what we understand in the German language under "Standgericht.
I don't know just what you understand in the English or American language under "Summary Court", but I can imagine that this is some summary procedure.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: I was taking it in favor of the defendant that it meant the court he referred to yesterday, one officer and two soldiers.
I was taking that. If I am wrong, the defendant will correct me.
Is that right, defendant?
THE WITNESS:I briefly talked about this "Standgericht" court martial procedure yesterday, and it was a fact that it wasn't always necessary that a fully trained person needed to be present.
THE PRESIDENT:While you are on the subject of translation, the defendant seemed to suggest that there was he word in the German which is translated by the English word "naturally". Is that true?
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: I had it checked, and I am told that the translation is right.
THE PRESIDENT:There is a German word which is translated by "naturally"? I should like to knew that from Dr. Nelte.
DR. NELTE:I am told that possibly an error of judgment could he caused in this connection by assuming that in American rood British law a summary court is not at all entitled to pass death sentences.
I am told that a summary court-
THE PRESIDENT:Excuse me, Dr. Nelte; I didn't ask that question.
The question I asked you was whether there was any German word which is translated into English by the word "naturally". Is that not a clear question?
Perhaps you haven't got the German text.
DR. NELTE: In the German text it says "under such circumstances, of cours It is, in my opinion, not correct that the translation into English uses the word "Naturally". That is put at the beginning so that you could come to the conclusion that there are naturally no objections, whereas in the German it says "against passingof and executing death sentences by summary court procedure there are, under such circumstances, of course no objections."
THE PRESIDENT:Then the answer to my question is "yes" There is a word in the German which is translated "naturally"
DR. NELTE:Yes, but the words "naturally" and "under such circumstances" are separated in the English version, whereas in the German version they belong together. "Naturally" refers to "under such circumstances".
QNow I want to come to another point. You told us yesterday that with regard to forced labor you were concerned in it because there was a shortage of manpower and you had to take men out of industry for the Wehrmacht. Your office was concerned with using military forces in order to try to round up people for forced labor, was it not?
AI don't think that is quite the correct conception.
QIf you are going to deny it, I put the document to you. I put General Warlimont's views to you and see if you agree. I think it saves time in the end. If you look at document 3819-PS, which will be GB 306 -- page 9 of the English version -- it is the report of a meeting at Berlin on the 12th of July, 1944. You have to look on through the document after the letters from the Defendant Sauckel and the Defendant Speer -- the account of a meeting in Berlin. I think it is page 10 of the German version. It starts with a speech by Dr. Lammers and goes on with a speech by the Defendant Sauckel, then a speech from the witness Von Steengracht, then a speech from General Warlimont:
"The Deputy of the head of the OKW, General Warlimont, referred to a recent ly issued Fuehrer order." Have you found the portion? I will read it if you have
AYes, I have found the paragraph "The Deputy of the Chief of the OKW" Q "The Deputy of the Head of the OKW, General Warlimont, referred to a recently issued Fuehrer order, according to which all German forces had to place themselves in the service of the work of acquiring manpower.
Wherever the Wehrmacht was and was not employed exclusively in pressing military duties, as for example, in the construction of the coastal defenses, it would be available, but it could not actually be assigned for the purposes of the G A. General Warlimont made the following practical suggestions:
"a) The troops employed an fighting partisans are to take over in addition the task of acquiring manpower in the partisan areas. Every me who cannot fully prove the purpose of his stay in these areas is to be seized forcibly.
"b). When large cities, due to the difficulty of providing food, are wholly or partly evacuated, the population suitable for labor commitment is to be put to work with the assistance of the Wehrmacht.
"c) The seizing of labor recruits among the refugees from the areas near the front should be handled especially intensively with the assistance of the Wehrmacht."
After reading this report of General Warlimont's words, do you still say that the Wehrmacht -
AI am not aware that the armed forces have over received an order referring to the rounding up of workers. I haven't found any indication of such a case. The conference as such is unknown to me and so are the proposals you mentioned. It is new as far as I am concerned.
QIt is quite clear that General Warlimont is suggesting that the Wehrmacht should help in the rounding up of forced labor, isn't it?
ABut as far as I know it has never happened. I don't know that any such order was given. According to the record, this is a proposal made by General Warlimont, yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Sir David, perhaps in these circumstances you should read the three lines after the passage you have read.
My Lord, I should. The next line: "Gauleiter Sauckel accepted these suggestions with thanks and expressed the expectation that certain successes could therewith already be achieved."
AMay I say something about that? May I ask that when the time comes Gauleiter Sauckel should be asked whether and to what extent troops of the armed forces did actually participate in such matters. It is not known to me, anyway.
QNo doubt the Defendant Sauckel will be asked a number of questions in due time.
At the moment I am asking you. You say that you don't know anything about it?
ANo, I don't recollect that an order has been given in this connection. That measures have been taken I can gather from the statement from Warlimont.
ANow I want to ask you a few questions about the murder of various prisoners of war. I want to get it quite clear. Did you mean yesterday to justify the order for the shooting of commandos, dated the 18th of October, 1942? Did you wish to say that it was right and justified, or not?
AI stated yesterday that neither General Jodl nor I thought that we were in a position or considered it suitable that a written order should be drafted or submitted. We didn't do it because we couldn't explain offhand reasons for it.
QThe next question that I put to you is this: Did you approve and think right the order that was made that commandos should be shot?
AI no longer resisted, firstly because of the fear of punishment, and secondly because I could no longer alter that order without personal orders from Hitler.
QDid you think that that order was right?
AAccording to my inner convictions I did not consider it right, but after it had been given I did not contradict or resist or work against it in any way.
QYou know that your own orders had contained provisions for the use of parachutists being dropped for sabotage purposes, don't you? Your own orders have contained that prevision of parachutists being dropped for sabotage purposes. Don't you remember in the Fall Gruen against Czechoslovakia I would put it to you if you like, but I would so much prefer that you try to remember it yourself. Don't you remember that your own orders contained a provision for parachutists being dropped for sabotage purposes in Czechoslovakia?
ANo.
QYou don't?
ANo, I do not remember that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it is page 21 and 22 of the document book.
THE FITNESS:May I ask which document book?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:Yes. It ought to be your first document book, and quite early on. It is part of the Fall Gruen, which is document 388-PS, and it isitem 11. I think it is somewhere about page 15 or 16. You remember the Schmundt minutes are divided into items.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL FYFE: The Tribunal will find it at the foot of page 21, "For the success of this operation, cooperation with the Sudeten German fronteir population, with deserters from the Czechoslovakian Army, with parachutists or airborne troops, and with units of the sabotage service will be of importance."
THE WITNESS:May I read the paragraph in question, what I think you mean?
BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
QYes; it isheaded "Missions for the Branches of the Armed Forces ..."
AFor the armed forces staff, for the armed forces, part A, yes, I got it.
QYes, that is right. It says "...cooperation with the frontier population in theSudetan German territory" and in it, "the deserters from the Czechoslovakian Army .."
A "....parachutists or airborne troops ..."
Q "... and with units of the sabotage service will be of importance."
A "...can be of importance." Is that the one? These parachutists and airborne troops were in fact meant to be used against Russia for the operations that I mentioned yesterday since, in accordance with the conception of the armed forces, it would be too difficult to use the artillery. These are not saboteurs, these are actual members of the German Air Force, and then at the end the sabotage service is mentioned.
AThe sabotage service must be people who are going to be of some use, aren't they? The sabotage service must be going to do sabotage, must they not?
AIndubitably, but not by using airborne troops and parachutists, rather by using saboteurs in the frontier zones. That had been thought of. We did in fact have such people in the Sudetenland.
QI am not going to argue with you but I want to have it clear. I now want to come to the way in which this order from the Fuehrer was announced. You will find the order -- the Tribunal will find it on page 64 -- but what I want him to look at if he would be so kind, is page 56 of the book, page 25 of the defendant, of your book. The second sentence of the defendant Jodl "Top Secret copy to Commandos" about this order.