dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
LAMMERS: No, I cannot remember doing that, because I believed that Goering was merely transmitting the Fuehrer's order. I have no knowledge of Keitel's participation; I did not hear of that until today.
COL. POKROVSKY: Who has been talking of Keitel? He was not mentioned at all; it was Heydrich.
LAMMERS: Heydrich had this assignment. I discovered from the reports of my assistants that such an assignment existed. I was interested in ascertaining what kind of assignment it was, and I applied to Himmler for information.
COL. POKROVSKY: And so you were not successful?
LAMMERS: I did not see a written order.
COL. POKROVSKY: Yesterday you said, "all except me" expressed their opinion on Jewish problems. Who are all these, "all" except you? You remember that testimony yesterday?
LAMMERS: I testified yesterday that I had spoken to Himmler about this question and that I reserved for myself the right to report to the Fuehrer. I also testified that I had this interview with the Fuehrer but that the Fuehrer was very difficult to persuade in these matters. I also testified yesterday that there were rumors about Jews being killed which led me to make 'investigations. I further testified yesterday that these rumors, as far as I could find out, were gossip. So there was nothing else for me to do but to go to the Fuehrer in this matter-first to go to Himmler, and then to the Fuehrer.
COL. POKROVSKY: Witness, I do not ask you what you said yesterday. I do not want to hear your testimony for the second time. What I am interested in, and what I want to clarify at the moment, is the fact that you mentioned yesterday that, "All except me expressed their opinion in regard to the Jewish problem." "All" means whom? Name them. Whom do you mean? And answer my question directly.
LAMMERS: I do not understand the question "all."
COL. POKROVSKY: I will repeat this question for the third time, so that you can understand it better: Yesterday you said, when you were testifying on the solution of the Jewish problem, "All except me expressed their opinion and defined their attitude in regard to the Jewish problem. I was also asked to give my opinion." Do you remember it now?
LAMMERS: Yes, I remember that.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well.
LAMMERS: The word "all" refers to all the departmental representatives invited to attend their conference. The heads of the departments concerned were invited to attend all these RSHA conferences. That is what "all" applies to.
COL. POKROVSKY: Which of the defendants here were present?
LAMMERS: There were no ministers present at all. This was merely a conference of experts. I was not there. I do not know who attended this conference.
COL. POKROVSKY: You were present at the conference in Hitler's quarters on 16 July 1941? You underhand what conference I mean, do you not? That is the one which was for the purpose of considering objectives of war against the U.S.S.R. Do you understand it now?
LAMMERS: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: Was Keitel present at the conference?
LAMMERS: To my knowledge, yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: Do you not remember what Keitel said about the aims of the war against the U.S.S.R.?
LAMMERS: I cannot remember whether he mentioned that subject.
COL. POKROVSKY: And did you stay until the end of the conference?
LAMMERS: I assume I stayed to the end.
COL. POKROVSKY: And Keitel, too? And Keitel also stayed until the end?
LAMMERS: I cannot remember that now. I assume that he did but he may have left earlier.
COL. POKROVSKY: You cannot be positive about it?
LAMMERS: No, I cannot be certain.
COL. POKROVSKY: On 13 October 1945, you were interrogated by a lieutenant colonel of the American army., and on that occasion you testified that Rosenberg was appointed Minister for the Eastern Territories according to the personal wish of the Fuehrer. Do you remember this testimony?
LAMMERS: I know that I testified.
COL. POKROVSKY: Further, you testified, on the same day and during the same interrogation, that you did not recommend Rosenberg for this post, since you had certain objections in regard to his candidacy. What were the objections against Rosenberg's candidacy?
LAMMERS: There were many objections to Rosenberg's appointment. These were specifically raised by Bormann. Reichsleiter Bormann did not want to have Rosenberg in this position.
COL. POKROVSKY: Tell us something about your objections. What were your own objections?
LAMMERS: I submitted the question to the Fuehrer at the time whether, if military complications arose, it was necessary to have such a man at all for the East; and, if so, whether Rosenberg was the right man to organize the matters.
COL. POKROVSKY: That was in April 1941?
LAMMERS: I no longer remember; it was in the spring.
COL. POKROVSKY: On orders from Reich Minister Rosenberg, forced labor was introduced, forced labor for the Jewish population of the Eastern regions, on 16 August 1941. Everyone of Jewish origin between the ages of 14 and 60 had to perform forced labor. If they refused to work they were liable to be executed. Do you know about this order or not?
LAMMERS: I did not know of it. I cannot recall it.
COL. POKROVSKY: Take a look at this document and try to remember. Mr. President, this document is printed on Page 50 of the second part of Goering's Green Folder, which is already submitted to the Tribunal under Document Number EC-347.
LAMMERS: I cannot remember this document.
COL. POKROVSKY: All right. We will let that go. Take a look at another document. Perhaps your memory will be somewhat better in regard to this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, in that last document that you were referring to, have these paragraphs of the ordinance been read into the record?
COL. POKROVSKY: I would not be quite positive about that, Mr. President; I do not know whether this particular paragraph was read into the record. All the second part of Goering's Green Folder was presented to the Tribunal in evidence and listed under Exhibit USA-320 (Document Number EC-347). The document about the preliminary investigation bears the Number EC-347. This part was read into the record. I think that inasmuch as the witness does not remember this document now, we shall touch upon it when it is needed more urgently at the interrogation of another defendant. Now, we will take care of something else. Turning to the witness.] This document, Your Honors, is also one of the documents of the second part of Goering's Green Folder. It is presented to the Tribunal in English. [Turning to the witness.]
LAMMERS: Yes, I signed this document. This is a measure which the Fuehrer decreed at the Reich Marshal's suggestions.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well; and how do you explain the fact that Keitel was signing directives or orders like this one, concerning general governmental matters of the Reich which were not of a military nature? How do you explain this? Why should it be signed by Hitler, Keitel, and Lammers?
LAMMERS: This was a Fuehrer decree; and Fuehrer decrees were attested by myself and also signed by Keitel, as Chief of the Own, if the Wehrmacht was in any way interested. They might also be signed by Bormann as a third member, if Party interests were involved. That caused Bormann's signature . . .
COL. POKROVSKY: Bormann's signature is not here. It is signed by Hitler, Keitel, and Lammers. Is that right?
LAMMERS: It was signed first by Keitel because it dealt with the occupied regions in the East.
COL. POKROVSKY: In other words, Keitel was responsible for all legislation in occupied territories; is that so? Do you hear my question? Was the Defendant Keitel responsible for all legal measures in occupied territories? Do you hear my question?
LAMMERS: The signature does not involve any responsibility . . . COL. POKROVSKY Then why his signature and what was the purpose of his signature? Just for decorative purposes?
LAMMERS: Since he was interested or concerned in the matter, he attested that, along with us, but to speak of responsibility . . .
COL. POKROVSKY: You should know better than anybody else. All the same it is not quite clear why there was any necessity to have his signatures on the document; and his signature is right above yours. What does it deal with? 9 April 4G
LAMMERS: It was probably assumed that this decree would affect Wehrmacht interests. Field Marshal Keitel must know better than I do why he signed it at that time. COL. POKROVSKY You read this document yourself, and you could see very well for yourself that the Armed Forces are not affected by it. ~ I have two more questions for you. You testified today that Seyss-Inquart received SS rank and uniform but he did not have the rights of a commander of the SS. Is that correct? LAMMERS. Yes, that is correct.
COL. POKROVSKY: Well, then, should one conclude after this that the rank of a police official and the police uniform were really an honorary distinction in the Reich?
LAMMERS: SeyssInquart did not belong to the Police but to the General SS.
COL. POKROVSKY: But the SS was actually being used for police measures, was that not so?
LAMMERS: No, the general SS had no police assignments; that is not correct. And the SS uniform represented a special distinction in the Reich.
COL. POKROVSKY: He received his uniform as a sort of reward for certain work he had done?
LAMMERS: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: Now, I want to ask you one last question . . .
LAMMERS: It was not always a reward for exceptional service, but certain leading personages in the Reich received. . .
COL. POKROVSKY: I am satisfied with your answer and I do not need any further details. Now I want to ask you one last question. On 17 January the Defendant Keitel sent an application to the Tribunal to have you brought in as a witness. He stated in his application that you could testify here before the Tribunal that he, Keitel, as the head of the Armed Forces along with the military agencies under his charge in the occupied territories, opposed Rosenberg's plunder squads and issued orders for their arrest. You were called before the Tribunal to answer this question and for some unknown reason this was the only question not put to you. I would like you to answer this question now. What do you know about the struggle of Keitel and the Armed Forces against Rosenberg's looting squads, as Keitel calls them?
LAMMERS: I know only that Rosenberg was commissioned to buy up objects of art and that he was also commissioned to get furniture in the western occupied territories which was needed for the offices an the East. He received this assignment in his capacity of Minister of the Reich.
COL. POKROVSKY: Witness, evidently you misunderstood me. [The witness attempted to interrupt.] Wait a moment. Now, we are not talking about the worries of Rosenberg; but I am asking you what you know about the fight of the military command against Rosenberg's looting squads-to use Keitel's words. Do you understand my question? Do you know anything at all about this or do you know nothing?
LAMMERS: No, I know nothing about that.
COL. POKROVSKY: All right, I am quite satisfied. I have no further questions to ask the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, in order to be accurate: I understood you to say with reference to that document that you were putting to the witness just now, of 2 June 1941, that this document had no reference to military authority. But Paragraph 2 of it says: `'To achieve this end he"-that is Goering-"may give direct orders to the respective military authorities in the Eastern Occupied Territories." Therefore, it is not accurate to say that the document does not refer to the military authority at all.
COL. POKROVSKY: I suppose that the Tribunal remembers the testimony which was given here in regard to the circumstances under which Keitel signed general directives and general law. He explained it by saying that all these orders and directives were of an operational staff nature. In this particular case the question concerns but a general Reich office which has directly nothing to do with staff affairs. . THE PRESIDENT: I do not want to argue with you. I only want to point out it was not accurate to say that the document did not refer to military matters at all. Dr. Nelte, do you want to reexamine?
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I should be grateful if Colonel Pokrovsky would make clear his last question to the witness, Dr. Lammers. He has stated that the Defendant Keitel called Dr. Lammers as a witness to the fact that he, Keitel, had opposed the efforts made by Rosenberg's special staff in the Eastern territories. Did I understand him correctly? Perhaps the translation from Russian into German was not very good.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not sure that I understood the question, but I understood the witness was not able to answer it. But I do not think it can be of very great importance. The witness was not able to answer the question.
DR. NELTE: No, I thought that the Soviet prosecutor meant that Dr. Lammers had been called as a witness to give certain evidence and I did not ask the witness any such question. I only want to make it clear that this is not the. case; otherwise I have no query on the matter, nor have I personally any further questions to put to the witness on behalf of the Defendant Keitel.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think the Tribunal think that it is necessary for you to go into that. You have covered the ground fully in your examination-in-chief. Then, Dr. Nelte, have you any ether witnesses to call?
DR. NELTE: I can finish in half an hour tomorrow morning. I have no further witnesses to examine.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Francis Biddle, Member for the United States): I would like to ask two or three questions about the Reich Cabinet. You said the first meeting was on 30 January 1933 and the last was in November 1937. Were there any other meetings in 1937?
LAMMERS: No, the Cabinet meetings were not replaced by any other meetings.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I did not ask you that. Would you listen? You said there was a meeting in November 1937. Were there any other meetings in the year 1937?
LAMMERS: Yes, there were some before that. There were several Cabinet meetings but not very many. There were comparatively few in 1937.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many would you say in 1937?
LAMMERS: How many? There might have been five or six Cabinet meetings. I do not think there were more.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you know how many there were in...
LAMMERS: There may have been less.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you know how many there were in 1936?
LAMMERS: There were rather more Cabinet meetings then, but not as many as at the beginning of 1933 and 1934. The number of Cabinet meetings has...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is enough, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Laternser?
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I have no questions to put to the witness, but I simply wanted to interpose a few remarks on the following matter: Dr. Thoma this morning felt that he had not underlined it and he also felt that there was undoubtedly a mistake in the translation and Colonel Dostert tells us that there is no mistake in the translation and that it was underlined.
THE PRESIDENT: Well now, Dr. Nelte, we should like to know what your position is about General Westhoff and-I think it is the Obergruppenfuehrer Wielen or something of that sort. You were given the opportunity of calling those witnesses and we understand you do not desire to do so.
DR. NELTE: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I think that the cross-examination has made it clear that the Prosecution has abandoned the original charge against Keitel, namely, that he issued an order, or transmitted an order from Hitler, to the effect that the 50 Royal Air Force officers should be shot. Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe confronted the defendant with the four points of which he accused the Defendant Keitel in connection with this case; and the defendant admitted these four points. Since I named General Westhoff as a witness only to testify that Keitel did not issue the order and he did not pass it on, and as Westhoff was not present at the conference at the Obersalzberg and has no firsthand knowledge, there is no further need for me to call this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, you, of course, are to decide whether you call him or not. But unless Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe says that he has withdrawn any charge against Keitel I do not think that you ought to refrain from calling him on the ground that a charge has been abandoned. There has not been any express abandonment of any charge. Subject to anything that Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe says I should not have thought that that would be a good reason for not calling him, but it is entirely a matter for you. Yes, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, there is no abandonment of any charge. In fact, the Prosecution stands by what is stated by General Westhoff in his statement which I put to the Defendant Keitel. That is the evidence for the Prosecution and the Prosecution stands by that as it is put in.
DR. NELTE: May I ask whether the Prosecution wish to assert that General Westhoff has testified that Keitel did issue this order or transmit it?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, you have seen the document which contains an excerpt of the statement by General Westhoff. You therefore know what he says in that statement. The Tribunal, subject to what counsel desires to address them on the subject-they will, of course, hear them-but the Tribunal propose to call General Westhoff themselves in order to hear his statement whether he adheres to his statement; and also Wielen,Wielen's evidence, of course, is principally against the Defendant Kaltenbrunner.
DR. NELTE: Then may I also ask the Prosecution to submit to the Tribunal the affidavit deposed by General Westhoff with regard to this matter, so as to make clear. . .
THE PRESIDENT: When you say affidavit, do you mean the statement?
DR. NELTE: No; I mean the affidavit, not an unsworn statement. So far, the Prosecution have dealt only with statements not made under oath. Apart from these, however, Colonel Williams required and received an affidavit from the witness Westhoff, and this affidavit contains a precise statement from Westhoff to the effect that he does not wish to say and never has said that Keitel ever issued or transmitted any such order.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no affidavit. I have checked with Mr. Roberts and we have not got one. There were two interrogations, if my recollection is correct, one which was early and one on 2 November. There were two interrogations, one of which I put in. They are in Dr. Nelte's document book. I have no affidavit. If I had, of course, I should produce it at once. I do not know where Dr. Nelte got the information, but certainly no affidavit has ever been brought to my attention. Am; PRESIDENT: The only thing the Tribunal has got is a statement made by General Westhoff which is annexed to the report of a certain brigadier whose name I have forgotten. Oh yes, Brigadier Shapcott. The course which the Tribunal proposes to do is to call General Westhoff and to ask him whether his statement made in that document is accurate and also true.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution has not the slightest objection to that.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will have General Westhoff and also Wielen-they mill be here tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
MARSHAL (Colonel Charles W. Mays): Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn. [The Tribunal adjourned until 10 April 1946 at 1000 hours.]
DR. THOMA: High Tribunal, Mr. President, I stated yesterday that the Lapouge passage was not marked red in my document book and should not be read. My assertion was not correct. I made this assertion for the following reasons: My client, Herr Rosenberg, sent me the following note yesterday while I was delivering my case: "The passages in the document book to be cited are certainly marked in red; the other parts do not have to be translated at all." The passages referred to in the French text had not been marked. I consequently assumed that the passages should not be translated. This communication from Rosenberg, however, had a different meaning. Rosenberg had made a sign in certain documents that were marked in red to indicate that these passages do not have to be read. That includes the quotation from Lapouge, and therefore the error occurred. I also said yesterday that the passage cited by Mr. Justice Jackson was incorrectly translated. That, too, was an error which occurred on my part apparently because the emphasis of the word "Bastardisierung" shocked me. I presume that "miscegenation" was meant. I request the translation department to pardon me. The document book itself...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal quite understand that there must have been some mistake, and no one, I hope-and certainly not the Tribunal-is accusing you of any bad faith in the matter at all. The Tribunal quite understand that there must have been some misunderstanding or some mistake which led to whatever happened.
DR. THOMA: I thank you very much.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, permit me to ask the Tribunal a short question related to procedure matters in the case of Westhoff. Yesterday I stated the reasons why I believed I could forego calling the witness Westhoff. According to the explanation of the British Prosecution the error has been cleared up, and therefore my assumption is no longer true. I should like now to ask the Tribunal, "Is the original situation thereby automatically restored, and may I also claim to examine this witness before the Court as a defense witness, or must I make a formal application to be authorized to call this witness again?"
THE PRESIDENT: No, Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal do not desire you to make any formal application. You can ask the witness any questions when he has answered the questions which the Tribunal will put to him, and the Prosecution, of course, can also ask him questions.
DR. NELTE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Seidl, I think you wanted to put some questions to this witness, did you not, on behalf of the Defendant Frank? We hope that they won't be very long.
DR. SEIDL: Witness, the Prosecution asked you a question yesterday in connection with the AB Action. For your information AB Action means extraordinary pacifying operations. It was necessary in connection with uprisings during 1940 in the Government General. In this connection the Prosecution read you a quotation from Frank's diary of 16 May 1940. I want to read to you, first of all, one further sentence from this same citation, from the same entry. It reads as follows: "Every arbitrary action is to be prevented with the most severe measures. In every case the point of view which takes into consideration the necessary protection of the Fuehrer's authority and of the Reich must be in the foreground. Moreover, action will be postponed until 15 June 1940." The Prosecution then read you a further citation from 30 May from which one could draw the conclusion...
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal do not think that you fealty can read passages of Frank's diary to the witness. I mean, you are reexamining to clear up. He had not seen the diary.
DR. SEIDL: I shall ask him a question. Before that, however, I must read another short passage; otherwise he cannot understand the question.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the question? You can put the diary to Frank when you call Frank.
DR. SEIDL: The witness was heard yesterday in connection with this AB Action, and he was presented with a passage from this diary that must have given him the impression that a rather large number of Poles had been shot without any court proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: What question do you want to put?