The farmers were working and every sign of peaceful life existed. German soldiers in the East? Are you aware of any cases of violations of international law and did you in such cases always use every means at your disposal to deal with them?
AAt least I tried to. I did that since I was interested in preserving the reputation of the German Army, and I did it because I wanted to preserve the relations between us and the Italians. For those reasons I proceededagainst German soldiers who violated any of these paragraphs with which we are here concerned. However, since I was aware that war is a nasty business and that as the years go by men become raw, I always considered it necessary to order preventative measures. noticed on the spot when they marched through Italy -- I am referring to my various decrees for punishing violators which were generally and publicly knownthese preventative measures prove the wards which I have just spoken. or if that was difficult, at least the interior of towns -- were to be cleared of administrative officers, and that towns and centres should be fenced off.
Furthermore, as far as anti-aircraft interests permitted, soldiers were to be accommodated in barracks or drawn together in a small order.
Furthermore, that isolated cases which always caused such orders were summed upand any return leave journeys used to proceed in groups. Thus the supervising authority were given strict instructions, field police and military police were attached; they had summary courts martial attached to them. stores were to be established on the return route, where soldiers should be able to purchase certain goods. Certain punitive measures were introduced. Cases which were reported to me by the Italians or Germans were always taken care of. Perpetrators were prosecuted. When operations prevented my personal interference on the spot, I made it known that all cases would later on be prosecuted by me. And in other cases, when solution became difficult, I fixed the death penalty and set up special courts-martial. Few of these death penalties served to solve the problem, However, against any superiors who would protect their soldiers, I proceeded -- if they were too lenient in carrying out their tasks. the reports from the front reached police and law courts and so forth. part of your opponents? large number -
GENERAL RUDENKO: I protest against putting the question in this way. From my viewpoint, the witness is not competent to conclude whether Germany's enemies have broken international law. I believe that this question should be put aside.
DR. LATERNSER: May I defend my attitude on that question? I am interested in having that question answered since subsequently I want to put the further question to the witness, whether after he heard of violations of international law from the other side he then failed to proceed against violators of international law on his own side. That is the reason I am anxious to have that question answered.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know exactly what your question is and why you say it is competent.
DR. LATERNSER: The exact wording of the question is as follows:
committed by the opposing side? following question: opponents he took the attitude that violations of international law committed by his own men should for this reason either not be punished at all or less severely. attitude and views of a member of the group, and for that reason I consider the answers to these questions of extreme importance.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to hear what Counsel for the United States says about it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If your Honor please, I believe it is a wellestablished principle of international law that a violation on one side does not excuse or warrant violations on the other side. There is, of course, a doctrine of reprisal, but it is clearly not applicable here, on any basis that has been shown. competent, here is a broad question, "Did you hear of violations of international law?" It would at least, even if the subject were proper, require that some particularity of a case be given. A broad conclusion of a charge -- a violation of internationallaw -- would hardly be sufficient to inform this Tribunal as to the basis on which this witness may have acted. to his attention, there might be some basis; but merely the question as asked by Counsel does not afford a basis here. this is far afield from anything that is involved in the case. I do not know what particular atrocities or violations of international law are to be excused by this method. There must have been atrocities committed, on the basis of which thereis sought to be excused atrocities committed by somebody else. Who else committed them, where they were committed -- is a subject we might have have to try if we went into this subject.
It seems to me that the inquiry is quite beside the point and if it were, if there is anyway that it is within the point, it is improper when put in this manner.
DR. STAHMER: This question which is of principal importance has some-
time ago already once been put before this Tribunal. It was when I applied to present "white books" in which reports about atrocities were contained. I think it was at the session of February 25. on that question and the Tribunal then permitted me to submit these "white books", subject to information on the subject of what out of these books was to be presented.
At that time the Tribunal's attention was drawn to the fact that the question whether atrocities were committed on the other side as well was important since this would primarily contribute information as to the German attitude and it would explain the German attitude, since the motive for the perpetration is also of decisive importance and important also for the findings. It will be necessary to realize that the perpetration on the German side will have to be judged differently, if in fact a perfectly correct procedure was adopted by the other side. concerned with reprisals. events be of importance and be permitted to be put.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal have considered the questions which Dr. Laternser proposed to put to the witness and have also considered the objections made by General Rudenko and Mr. Justice Jackson, and they hold the questions are inadmissible.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I assume that I may be entitled to put the following question. BY DR. LATERNSER: of international law of your own men when violations of that law by your opponents were reported to you?
THE PRESIDENT: That seems to me to be putting in one question what
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, that question is meant to cause the opponents.
In having that question answered, I merely want to
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would see no objection in your asking the witness whether he was anxious to avoid violations of international law; if you wish to put that ques ion to him there willbe no objection to that question. The question which you have suggested putting is really identical with the questions you put before. BY DR. LATERNSER: because of atrocities committed by German soldiers. Is not every soldier sufficiently well informed about international regulations, and has he not been instructed on that subject?
A I must asnwer that question in the affirmative. During the many addresses which I have delivered to my subordinate commanders, such pointers and instructions have continuously been issued.
Q Did you, as commander of an army group, try to protect towns containing art treasures and churches?
cultural objects and art treasures of churches. I gave orders accordingly, and during my tactical actions my measures were designed in that respect, fell into German hands? after certain controls which I had ordered to be carried out. If there were violations, the commandant in question was warned and these matters were terminated. enter the war?
A No, I had not been informed about that. As far as I know, the entry of Italy into the war occurred so spontaneously that even the political leaders were surprised. should be placed against America?
A No. I can't say anything about these questions.
Q And now the last question. What was the situation regarding the retirement of military leaders during the war?
AA resignation from the armed foeces on one's own initative, or an application to resign from the armed forces, was not permissible. During the later years --that is to say, 1944--an order existed which threatened severest penalties and prohibited the exercising of those rights or any changes in theleading positions. The Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces reserved for himself that right, alone, and exclusively.
Q Bid an order exist about that fact?
A Yes; I should so assume, yes.
DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions. BY PROFESSOR DR. JAHRREISS (Counsel for defendant Jodl): in the military field had the right and the possibility to put demands to the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, Hitler, and express their views.
Did I understand that correctly? with Hitler about matters referring to orders?
Q Were they actual conflicts?
A "Conflict" is probably saying too much; certain changes of opinion.
Q Shall we say quarrels, and frequently, if I understand you correctly? difficult customer.
A That must be admitted. On the other hand, I--I don't know why--was lucky enough to find him understanding as to the questions which I put up to him.
Q Didn't these quarrels with Hitler solve themselves?
Q You mean when you couldn't get through?
A No, when he couldn't put his point over.
Was Jodl also of a different opinion than Hitler? of opinion between the two gentlemen, and I found that Jodl--who was our administrative superior in the OKW--acted with remarkable energy and presented his views. He adhered to his views right to the end.
Q What do you mean, he was your representative at the OKW?
so-called OKW theaters of war. Contrary to other army theaters of war, the East was an army theater of war, whereas the others were known as OKW theaters of war. did the Army have no influence in the OKW theaters of war? I don't believe that everybody will understand the difference.
A It is asking a bit much, since I myself didn't have enough understanding for that situation.
Q You, in other words, were in an OKW theater of war. What does OKW stand for?
A Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. Immediate subordination of the supreme commander under Adolf Hitler, and then the command department under Jodl's staff of leaders. Who is OKW? Who gave these orders? that was Adolf Hitler. The other personalities were executive officers, which did not exclude, however, the executive organs having their own conception or the conception of the army groups under their command. They could include the views of army groups, when they represented these army groups with Adolf Hitler.
Q That surprises me somewhat, what you are saying now. The opinion has been voiced that Jodl, whom you defined as a sort of administrative man, was a cheap tool of Adolf Hitler?
A I believe one doesn't exclude the other. I cannot imagine a marriage lasting six years without both sides making attempts to misunderstand. On the other hand, I can imagine that in every good marriage there must be frightful disputes.
Q But in a normal marriage the husband doesn't necessarily have to be a cheap tool, a willing tool.
A Here the situation is rather different. That comparison, that example, seems to limp, as all examples do, and, of course, it limps once more.
In the military theory, we have the absolute subordination principle. as administrator for the supreme commanders sounds to me as if Jodl would have to be the intermediary. thus acting as an intermediary for everybody. Hitler's opinions, if Hitler published one of his orders? HQ, when I saw Jodl get red in the face, that he expressed his views in such a way that I considered it just about bordering the possibilities a military person had.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjour.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 13 March 1946, at 1000 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has made an order with respect to further proceedings on the charge against Organizations and the applications of members thereof. I don't propose to read that order, but the order will be posted on the Defense Counsel's information board and will be communicated to them and to the Prosecution.
Dr. Jahrreiss, had you finished your examination?
DR. JAHRREISS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Does any other of the Defense Counsel wish to examine the witness? BY DR. KAUFFMANN: Kaltenbrunner first became publicly known? The first time I had known Kaltenbrunner was when he appeared as the successor to Canaris. in January, 1943, was made the Chief of the RSHA? of it. exclude the country of Austria from the war. Have you any recollection of that? personalities who were working for an independent Austria, but any definite certain knowledge of that situation I have not.
an arrangement with the Red Cross at Geneva, which said that civilian internees should be led through the front and back to their homeland, that he had communicated that arrangement to your office--not to you personally--and that he had expressed the wish that a gap should be created in the fighting line to let these people through. made, but I did not gain any personal knowledge of it. I was away from my office a great deal. were first instituted in Germany?
A Yes. It was in 1933. I remember three concentration camps, the installing of which I cannot exactly remember when. I passed them quite frequently; I flew over them, and I am thinking of Dachau which was talked about a great deal, and Weimar which was a concentration camp over which I flew quite frequently, and I have no recollection of any other concentration camp, but perhaps I may add that, as to the rumors which were very frequent during these days of crisis I had no time to devote myself to such rumors since I was extremely busy. clear-cut picture regarding who would be brought to these concentration camps?
A I did have. I heard views on that-I cannot remember who from-which seem plausible to me. I was told that the National Socialist Revolution should be achieved without loss of blood and that political opponents should be put into a safe place until the construction of the new State was given a firm basis and then they should be returned to public life. That is my view, my knowledge of the situation, but from that I rather concluded--to answer your question--that these people were mostly persons who were opposed to the National Socialist views.
conception, people were treated in these camps; what was your idea about the treatment of these internees in the camps? There may be a difference whether you are thinking of the first and earlier or later years? knowledge at all. During the earlier years, when I was still active in Germany, one heard rumors to the effect that treatment was normal. In the later years I was abroad, that is to say, in the war, and I was so far away that I gained no knowledge of these things and wasn't interested in it. were concerned, which did actually occur, you had no positive knowledge? March 1945, when I became Supreme Commander in the best; even then things, stories from concentration camps were completely strange to me. This I attributed to two facts. One, the personal attitude which I have expressed earlier, that I principally concerned myself with my own business, which was very considerable, and secondly, that within the State a Police State had developed which, in a hermetic way, closed itself off from the rest of the world.
Q Have you any clues from contact with your officers corps that there was more knowledge about these things then what just came to yourself?
A The contact which was with my office was extremely a good one. I do not believe that any large number of officers could have existed who knew more about these things, but of course I can not answer that question for the individuals. physically? whether this was a competent question? conversation and any military questions were talked about and asked about, no question was put to Hitler. When I was invited to a meal, then historical matters of general interest would be talked about, but very few political problems of the work on political questions never came up for question. I personally can not remember any instance where Hitler influence any of the other gentlemen with regard to making an act personal.
Q Did you believe in Hitler's personality in a sense that Hitler was determined to leave the German nation for a better Germany, but with consideration of personal freedom and respect to human dignity. What was your conception about that?
THIS PRESIDENT: What relevancy is that of a witness belief upon a subject of that sort. What relevancy has it got to do with any part of the case of defendant Kaltenbrunner. The Tribunal considers these sort of questions are a waste of the Tribunal's time. BY DR. KAUFFMANN: of course, any contradiction by a human being of an order was impossible?
A In that form I would not deny that. One could certainly represent one's own views, but if one's own views were enacted by some decision than the absolute obedience became necessary, and that absolute obedience was demanded under certain circumstances with the application of the penal laws. In other words, the resistance to that order, or an order, was under my impression, or to my knowledge, a personality and attitude of Adolf Hitler which was quite adequate to the question that he was not to be mislead about anything.
resist such an order, would he not have to expect to lose his life? not be won? that a gainful peace could not be achieved. I emphasize that one had to expect that possibility, considering certain measures of the organization as correct that state could have been changed.
Q Did you ever discuss these questions on a" higher level, in other words, your objection to continuing the war? ferred to a number of constructions which night influence the end of the whole war, but as representative of a certain military fear I though I would not be entitled in my position to judge the whole military situation, since after all I did not know the situation regarding the production, regarding the organization, and regarding the manpower; that I could not judge these matters from ay small opinion of view. As I said before, I refused as an amateur to make a statement about a situation, which under certain circumstances might be regarded as an official statement, since this would have been like a statement of that man Field Marshall Kesselring.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly explain to the Tribunal what relevancy the last two or three questions have to the case of Kaltenbrunner?
DR. KAUFFMANN: I want to show that Kaltenbrunner, that he could not resist an order, that is what he said. It would have meant loss of his life.
THE PRESIDENT: You asked the witness whether at any time during the war he thought how long the war would last. What has that got to do with Kaltenbrunner?
DR. KAUFFMANN: The prosecution accuses several defendants that they held the knowledge of the possibility of victory had Germany continued to fight, to extend the war in that manner, and that is the problem that I want to clarify in my questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think it was put specifically against Kalten-
brunner. If it is your last question you may put it. BY DR. KAUFFMANN:
Q Did I understand you correctly, Mr. Witness, then, what you are trying to explain is that the leading motive of your continuing to fight was your duty towards your country?
A That is a matter of course, naturally. I had other courses as well, which were passed, one of which was that possibility of a political termination of the war was denied of peace officially, but that I had this knowledge, and that I am still convinced today, that this could be proved by the fact that I discussed -- that I took up negotiations together with Wolff, and and American, hoping that a political discussion in that way would reach to that end.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other counsel for the defense. BY DR. PAECKMANN: Dr. Paeckmann, Counsel for the defense for the SS.
Q Witness, Dr. Kauffmann asked you whether the officers' corps had knowledge of the condition and installment of concentration camps. Do you know that within the Army force, so called National Socialist instruction courses were conducted? Political courses of instruction, which were had from 15th to 23rd December, 1937, and I am referring now to document No. 1992APS, that during that course the establishment of concentration camps was talked about by Himmler, before the officers, who had said something like this: Naturally, we take a difference between those who may be there for a few months, and for educational purposes, and those who will be there for a long time. Now I skip a few sentences, and I come to the one part which is important to me: The order begins by having these people living in clean barracks, and something like that can only be achieved only with German help. There is hardly any other nation would be so human, we ask you, as we are. Laundry is frequently changed. These people are instructed to wash twice a day, and use the tooth brush is advised, to some of them it is sometimes not known to them before. Do you know that in this way it is entirely different from the fact that the Army was instructed in this way?
and this lecture by Himmler is unknown to me.
DR. PAECKMANN: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other Defense Counsel wish to ask any questions? Then the Prosecution may cross examine. BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: of the High Command of the General Staff, as that definition is included in the Indictment, you are accused as a member of that group, do you not?
Q And that you are testifying here virtually as one of the Defendants? by the National Socialist Party, and I want to ask you whether it is not the fact that the police state rested on two institutions, very largely, first, the secret police, and, secondly, the concentration camp. concentration camp was a means to achieve that. by Hermann Goering, is that not a fact known to you? to have you so instructed. Just answer my questions. Wasn't the concentration camp also established by Hermann Goering?
A I don't know.
Q You don't know that. Did you favor the police state? as a state would keep certain things away from public knowledge. public life to prevent that abnormal condition coming to Germany?
A I can't remember anything like that, except that during conversations with my superiors I may have brought the point up for discussion, but I emphasize particularly that I confined myself to my tasks in my spheres.
there was a campgin on by this state to persecute the Jews in Germany? Is that the way you want your testimony to be understood?
Q Isn't it a fact that Jewish officers were excluded from your army and from your command?
A Jewish officers didn't exist.
Q Isn't it a fact that certain officers of your army, certain officers of the Luftwaffe, took steps to aryanize themselves in order to escape the effect of Goering's decrees? Did you know about that? consisted in showing that the normal father was not the actual father, didn't it
Q Yes. Bid you know anything about the Jewish riots, anti-Jewish riots of November 9th and 10th in Germany in 1938?
AAre you talking about the action "Mirror" (Spiegel)? I am not sure what you are talking about. made Goering so very angry. Didn't you hear about that in 1938?
A No, I didn't hear anything about it.
Q Where were you in 1938?
Q In November?
Q In Berlin. And you never heard about the anti-Jewish riots of the 10th and 11th of November, 1938?
A I have only heard about the so-called action Spiegel (Mirror).
Q What was that? You have me down. I don't know anything by that name. rather large proportions in Berlin.
Q You did hear, then, about the anti-Jewish riots? the insurance that was to make reparations to those Jews who owned shops? Did you hear about Goering's action in that respect?
A I didn't quite understand. May I ask to have it repeated? later, November the 12th, to be exact, confiscating the insurance of the victims of those raids and fining the Jewish community a billion reichsmarks? certain recollection.
Q But you did hear about it. You did not regard those things as persecution? the Jews. Hitler, that it was permissible for officers to differ with him in opinion so long as they obeyed his orders. Is that what you want understood?
A I have to apologize, but I didn't quite understand the last half of that sentence. May I please ask to have it repeated? perfectly free to disagree with Hitler and to make suggestions to him and give him information, but that after his mind was made up and an order issued it had to be obeyed. That is to say -Hitler and give him technical information, such as the state of the preparedness of his branch of the service?
A Generally speaking, no. For that purpose the leaders of those army sectors were the only people admitted for that purpose. the air force would reach Hitler was through Hermann Goering, is that a fact? who was his deputy at onetime or another. unprepared, based on your information of the situation, would it or would it not have been possible for the Luftwaffe officers to have advised Hitler of that fact? he was the only person who had a certain amount of influence upon Adolf Hitler. In that way we knew, since we always knew his peaceful attitude, that we were perfectly secure, and we relied on it. a commander? You went into Poland and you went into Soviet Russia, did you not? and Russian campaigns that the Hague Regulations would not be applied to Soviet Russia as to the treatment of prisoners of war?
A That wasn't known to me, no.