dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
GEN. RUDENKO: My Lord, that will become Exhibit GB-298. [Turning to the defendant:] It says: 628 6 April 46 "The constant increase in acts of terror and sabotage in the occupied territories, committed more and more by bands under unified leadership, compels us to take the sternest countermeasures in a degree corresponding to the ferocity of the war which is forced upon us. Those who attack us from the rear at the crisis of our fight for existence deserve no consideration. "I therefore order: "All acts of violence committed by non-German civilians in the occupied territories against the German Wehrmacht, the SS, or the Police, or against installations used by them, are to be combated in the following manner as acts of terrorism and sabotage:" -- (l) - "The troops," -- the SS and so on -- "are to fight down on the spot... all terrorists and saboteurs." -- (2) -- "Those who are apprehended later are to be handed over to the nearest local Security Police and the SD office." -- (3) -- "Accomplices, especially women, who take no active part in the fighting, are to be employed on labor. Children are to be spared." Now, would you look at Paragraph II: "The Chief of the OKW will issue the necessary executive instructions. He is entitled to make alterations and additions as far as required by the exigencies of war operations." Did you think that was a cruel and severe order or not? KEITEL: Yes, I do think so, but may I make one small correction? It must have been incorrectly translated. The actual wording is: "Women are to be employed on labor. Children are to be spared." So it says in the original version which I have before me. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I said "spared." "Spared" meant that they were not to be treated thus. I was careful to mention that. KEITEL: Yes. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you had authority to make alterations and additions. Did you, by your alterations and additions, attempt to mitigate the severity of that order in any way? KEITEL: I have no recollection of having issued any additional orders to mitigate its severity.
GEN. RUDENKO: I may also say that I never would have issued anything without first presenting it to the Fuehrer. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just let us see what you did issue. Would you look at Document D-764, which will be Exhibit 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: 629 6 April 46 "All legal proceedings now going on in connection with acts of terrorism, sabotage, or other crimes committed by non-German civilians in the occupied territories which imperil the security or readiness for action of the occupying power are to be suspended. Indictments are to be dropped. Sentences already pronounced are not to be carried out. The culprits are to be handed over with a report on the proceedings to the nearest local Security Police and SD office. In the case of death sentences which have already become final, the regulations now in force will continue to apply. "Crimes affecting German interests but which do not imperil the security or readiness for action of the occupying power do not justify the retention of jurisdiction over non-German civilians in the occupied territories. I authorize the commanders of the occupied territories to draw up new regulations in agreement with the Higher SS and the Police Leader." And then you ask them to consider among the first, one handing them over to the SD for forced labor. That was certainly not mitigation of the order, was it? You were not making it any easier. KEITEL: There are a few sentences to be added here. This arose out of the daily discussion of these matters which I dealt with later on the same lines as the first decree. I made suitable annotations, and signed them. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, that is what you called terrorism and sabotage. Let us look at what happened to people who were guilty of something less than terrorism or sabotage. Look at Document D-763. That will be GB-300. "Non-German civilians... " KEITEL: Yes.
GEN. RUDENKO: SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: "Non-German civilians in the occupied territories who endanger the security or tactical preparedness of the occupying power otherwise than through acts of terrorism and sabotage, are to be handed over to the SD. Section I, Number 3 . .. " -- that is the part that says women will be employed on labor 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? KEITEL: I did not interpret it that way; the words "to be allocated on labor" were always used; but it has become clear to me from what I have learned that they frequently ended in the concentration camp. However, it was always described to us, to me, as 630 6 April 46 a labor camp. That was the description, "labor camps of the Secret State Police." SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But 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? KEITEL: Yes. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, let us ... KEITEL: I assume that you do not wish me to discuss this origin and development here. Otherwise I could explain them; but I will merely answer the question. The answer is, yes, it was a very severe measure. The explanation, if I may state it very briefly, is that, as is known, during the interminable daily situation reports on the incidents in all the occupied territories, I received from the Fuehrer instructions and orders which were afterwards crystallized in a form similar to this document; and I think I have already described in detail the way in which I discussed these things with him and how I worked, that on principle I never issued or signed anything which did not agree in principle with his wishes.
GEN. RUDENKO: SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was severe enough for you for only 3 weeks, was it not, because on 4 September, which is barely 3 weeks later, you issued another order, Document D-766, Exhibit GB-301. Now, this was issued, as it shows, as an agreement with Himmler, Kaltenbrunner , the Reich Minister of Justice and Dr. Lammers. Now look at I: "Non-German civilians in occupied territories who have been sentenced by German courts for a criminal act against the security or tactical preparedness of the occupying power, the sentence having become final, and who are in custody in the occupied territories or in the home front area, are to be handed over, together with a report on the facts, to the nearest local Security Police and SD office. An exception is made only in the case of those sentenced to death for whom the execution of the penalty has been ordered. "II. Persons convicted of criminal acts against the Reich or the occupying power and prohibited, in accordance with the directives ... issued 
issued by the Fuehrer for the prosecution of such acts, from intercourse with the outside world, are to be given a distinguishing mark." and furthermore: You remember this basic idea of the order, that human life absolutely does not amount to anything. Do you remember this statement, the basic statement of the order, that "human life has absolutely no value"? Do you remember this sentence?
KEITEL: Yes.
GEN. RUDENKO: You signed the order containing this statement?
KEITEL: Yes.
GEN. RUDENKO: Do you consider that necessity demanded this extremely evil order?
KEITEL: I explained some of the reasons for this order yesterday and I pointed out that these instructions were addressed in the first place to the Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht offices in the Southeast; that is, the Balkan regions, where extensive partisan warfare and a war between the leaders had assumed enormous proportions, and secondly, because the same phenomena had been observed and established on the same or similar scale in certain defined areas of the occupied Soviet territory.
GEN. RUDENKO: Does this mean that you consider this order to have been entirely correct?
KEITEL: I have already explained in detail, in replying to questions, my fundamental standpoint with regard to all orders concerning the treatment of the population. I signed the order and by doing so I assumed responsibility within the scope of my official jurisdiction.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that you are not answering the question. The question was perfectly capable of an answer "yes" or "no" and an explanation afterwards. It is not an answer to the question to say that you have already explained to your counsel.
GEN. RUDENKO: I ask you once more, do you consider this order, this particular order -- and I emphasize, in which it is stated that "human life has absolutely no value" -- do you consider this order correct?
KEITEL: It does not contain these words; but I knew from years of experience that in the Southeastern territories and in certain parts of the Soviet territory, human life was not respected to the same degree.
GEN. RUDENKO: You say that these words do not exist in the order?
KEITEL: To my knowledge those exact words do not appear; but it says that human life has very little value in these territories. I remember something like that.
GEN. RUDENKO: According to your recollection now, you remember that you were interrogated by General Alexandrov on 9 November 1945. To a question in regard to the meaning of this sentence you replied: "I must admit that this sentence is authentic, although the Fuehrer himself inserted this sentence in the order." Do you remember your explanation?
KEITEL: That is correct. That is true.
GEN. RUDENKO: I can produce this order for you. I did not produce it because you were familiarizing yourself with it yesterday.
KEITEL: I did not read through all the points yesterday. I merely admitted its actual existence.
THE PRESIDENT: It would help the Tribunal if you got a translation of the document. When you are cross-examining upon a document and as to the actual words of it, it is very inconvenient for us not to have the document before us.
GEN. RUDENKO: Mr. President, I shall at once present this order to the defendant. [Handing the document to the defendant.]
THE PRESIDENT: Is it Document 389-PS?
GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, this is Document 389-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: When you are citing a document it would be a good thing if you would cite the number rather slowly because very often the translation does not come through accurately to us.
GEN. RUDENKO: All right, I shall observe this in the future, Mr. President. I numbered this document R-98, but it has a double number, R-98 and 389-PS. I cited Subparagraph 3b) of this order. Defendant Keitel, have you familiarized yourself with the document?
KEITEL: Yes. The text in the German language says that "in the countries affected human life frequently has no value ..."
GEN. RUDENKO: And further?
KEITEL: Yes, "... and a deterrent effect can be obtained only by extreme harshness. To atone for the life of a German soldier . . ."
GEN. RUDENKO: Quite clear. And in this same order, in this same Subparagraph "b," it is stated that: Is that correct?
KEITEL: The German text is slightly different. It says: "In such cases in general, the death penalty for 50 to 100 Communists may be considered adequate." That is the German wording.
GEN. RUDENKO: For one German soldier?
KEITEL: Yes. I know that and I see it here.
GEN. RUDENKO: That is what I was asking you about. So now I ask you once more ...
KEITEL: Do you want an explanation of that or am I not to say any more?
GEN. RUDENKO: I shall now interrogate you on this matter. I ask you whether, when signing this order you thereby expressed your personal opinion on these cruel measures? In other words, were you in agreement with Hitler?
KEITEL: I signed the order but the figures contained in it are alterations made personally by Hitler himself.
GEN. RUDENKO: And what figures did you present to Hitler?
KEITEL: The figures in the original were 5 to 10.
GEN. RUDENKO: In other words, the divergence between you and Hitler consisted merely in the figures and not in the spirit of the document?
KEITEL: The idea was that the only way of deterring them was to demand several sacrifices for the life of one soldier, as is stated here.
GEN. RUDENKO: You...
THE PRESIDENT: That was not an answer to the question. The question was whether the only difference between you and Hitler on this document was a question of figures. That admits of the answer "yes" or "no." Was the only difference between you and Hitler a question of figures?
KEITEL: Then I must say that with reference to the underlying principle there was a difference of opinion, the final results of which I no longer feel myself in a position to justify, since I added my signature on behalf of my department. There was a fundamental difference of opinion on the entire question.
GEN. RUDENKO: All right. Let us continue. I would like to remind you of one more order. It is the order dated 16 December 1942, referring to the so-called "Fight against the Partisans." This document was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USSR-16; I shall not examine you in detail with regard to this order. It was presented to you yesterday by your defense counsel.
KEITEL: I do not remember that at the moment.
GEN.RUDENKO: You do not remember?
KEITEL: Not the one that was presented yesterday.
GEN. RUDENKO: All right. If you do not remember I can hand you this document in order to refresh your memory.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the PS number of this document?
GEN. RUDENKO: This is the document submitted by the Soviet Prosecution as Exhibit Number USSR-16 (Document Number USSR-16).
THE PRESIDENT: I just took down that it was USA-516, but I suppose I was wrong in hearing. It is USSR-16, is it?
GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, USSR-16.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
GEN. RUDENKO: [Handing the document to the defendant.] I shall interrogate you, Defendant Keitel, only on one question in connection with this order. In Subparagraph 1 of this order, Paragraph 3, it is stated, and I would draw your attention to the following sentence: Have you found this passage?
KEITEL: Yes.
GEN. RUDENKO: Have you found the order calling for the application of any kind of measures you like without restriction, also against women and children?
KEITEL: "To employ without restriction any means, even against women and children, if it is necessary." I have found that.
GEN. RUDENKO: That is exactly what I am asking you about. I ask you, Defendant Keitel, Field Marshal of the former German Army, do you consider that this order is a just one, that measures may be employed at will against women and children?
KEITEL: Measures, insofar as it means that women and children were also to be removed from territories where there was partisan warfare, never atrocities or the murder of women or children. Never!
GEN. RUDENKO: To remove -- a German term -- means to kill?
KEITEL: No. I do not think it would ever have been necessary to tell German soldiers that they could not and must not kill women and children.
GEN.RUDENKO: You did not answer my question. Do you consider this order a just one in regard to measures against women and children or do you consider it unjust? Amswer "yes" or "no." Is it just or unjust? Explain the matter later.
KEITEL: I considered these measures to be right and as such I admit them; but not measures to kill. That was a crime.
GEN. RUDENKO: "Any kind of measures" includes murder.
KEITEL: Yes, but not of women and children.
GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, but it says here "Any kind of measures against women and children."
KEITEL: No, it does not say "any measures." It says "...and not to shrink from taking measures against women and children." That is what it says. No German soldier or German officer ever thought of killing women and children.
GEN. RUDENKO: And in reality ... ?
KEITEL: I cannot say in every individual case, since I do not know and I could not be everywhere and since I received no reports about it.
GEN. RUDENKO: But there were millions of such cases?
KEITEL: I have no knowledge of that and I do not believe that it happened in millions of cases.
GEN. RUDENKO: You do not believe it?
KEITEL: No.
GEN. RUDENKO: I shall proceed to another question. I shall now refer to one question, the question of the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war. I do not intend to examine you in regard to the branding of Soviet prisoners of war and other facts; they are sufficiently well known to the Tribunal. I want to examine you in regard to one document, the report of Admiral Canaris, which was presented to you yesterday. You remember yesterday your counsel submitted to you the Canaris report; it is dated 15 September 1941 and registered under Document Number EC-338. As you will remember, even a German officer drew attention to the exceptional arbitrariness and lawlessness admitted in connection with the Soviet prisoners of war. Canaris in this report pointed to the mass murders of Soviet prisoners of war and spoke of the necessity of definitely eliminating this arbitrariness. Did you agree with the statements advanced by Canaris in his report, with reference to yourself?
KEITEL: I did not understand the last statement. With reference to myself?
GEN. RUDENKO: The last question amounts to this: Were you, Keitel, personally in agreement with the proposals made by Canaris in his report, that the arbitrary treatment permitted should be done away with where Soviet prisoners of war were concerned?
KEITEL: I answered my counsel yesterday ...
GEN. RUDENKO: You can answer my question briefly; were you in agreement with it?
KEITEL: Yes, I will be brief -- on receiving that letter, I immediately submitted it to the Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, especially on account of the enclosed publication by the Peoples' Commissars, which was dated the beginning of July, and I asked for a new decision. On the whole I shared the objections raised by Canaris, but I must supplement that ...
GEN. RUDENKO: You shared them? Very well. I shall now present you with the original copy of Canaris' report, containing your decision. Mr. President, I shall now present to the defendant the document containing his decision. This decision was not read into the record in court and I shall also present the text of his final decision to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have the original?
GEN.RUDENKO: Yes, I gave it to the defendant. And now, Witness Keitel, will you please follow?
KEITEL: I know the document with the marginal notes.
GEN. RUDENKO: Listen to me and follow the text of the decision. This is Canaris' document, which you consider, a just one. The following are the contents of your decision: Is this your resolution?
KEITEL: Yes, I wrote that after it had been submitted to the Fuehrer for decision. I wrote it then.
GEN. RUDENKO: It is not written there that the Fuehrer said so; it is said "I sanction them" -- meaning Keitel.
KEITEL: And I state this on oath; and I said it even before I read it.
GEN.RUDENKO: This means that you acknowledge the decision. I will now draw your attention to another passage of this document. I draw your attention to Page 2. Please observe that the text of Canaris' report mentions the following: Canaris writes this; your decision, Defendant Keitel, is written in the margin. It says, "Highly expedient." Is that correct?
KEITEL: Please repeat the last question. The last words I heard were "Canaris writes."
GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, and I am now mentioning the fact that your decision "Highly expedient" appears in the margin, opposite that paragraph, and written by your own hand. Have you found this?
KEITEL: Yes. The word "expedient" refers to the fact that the army offices had nothing to do with these Einsatzkommandos and know nothing about them. It states that they are not known to the Wehrmacht.
GEN. RUDENKO: And furthermore it refers to the fact that the Security Police and the SD should wreak vengeance on civilians and prisoners of war? You consider that expedient?
KEITEL: No, I thought it expedient that the activities of these Kommandos be unknown to the Armed Forces. That is what I meant. That appears here and I underlined "unknown."
GEN. RUDENKO: I am asking you, Defendant Keitel, known as Field Marshal and one who, before this Tribunal, has repeatedly referred to yourself as a soldier, whether you, in your own bloodthirsty decision of September 1941, confirmed and sanctioned the murder of the unarmed soldiers whom you had captured? Is that right?
KEITEL: I signed both decrees and I, therefore, bear the responsibility within the sphere of my office; I assume the responsibility.
GEN. RUDENKO: That is quite clear. In this connection I would like to ask you, since you have repeatedly mentioned it before the Tribunal, about the duty of a soldier. I want to ask you: Is it in accordance with the concept of a "soldier's duty" and the "honor of an officer" to promulgate such orders for reprisals on prisoners of war and on peaceful citizens?
KEITEL: Yes, as far as the reprisals of August and September are concerned, in view of what happened to German prisoners of war whom we found in the field of battle, and in Lvov where we found them murdered by the hundreds.
GEN. RUDENKO: Defendant Keitel, do you again wish to follow the path to which you resorted once before, and revive the question of the alleged butchery of German prisoners of war? You and I agreed yesterday that as far back as May 1941, prior to the beginning of the war, you had signed a directive on the shooting of political and military workers in the Red Army. I have some ...
KEITEL: Yes, I also signed the orders before the war but they did not contain the word "murder."
GEN. RUDENKO: I am not going to argue with you since this means arguing against documents; and documents speak for themselves. I have a few last questions to ask you: You informed the Tribunal that the generals of the German Army were only blindly carrying out Hitler's orders?
KEITEL: I have stated that I do not know if any generals raised objections or who they were, and I said that it did not happen in my presence when Hitler proclaimed the principles of the ideological war and ordered them to be put into practice.
GEN. RUDENKO: And do you know that the generals, on their own initiative, promulgated orders on atrocities and on the violation of the laws and customs of war, and that these orders were approved by Hitler?
KEITEL: I know that high authorities in the Army issued orders altering, modifying, and even cancelling in part; for instance, as regards jurisdiction, the March decree and other measures, because they also discussed it with me.
GEN. RUDENKO: You do not understand me. I did not ask about modifications, but whether the generals, on their own initiative, ever promulgated orders inciting to the violation of the laws and customs of war.
KEITEL: I do not know of that. I do not know what order you are referring to, General. At the moment I cannot say that I know that.
GEN. RUDENKO: I shall refer to one order only. What I have in mind is General Field Marshal Reichenau's order governing the conduct of troops in the East. This document, Mr. President, was presented by the Soviet Prosecution as Exhibit Number USSR-12 (Document Number USSR-12). The passages to which I refer are underlined in this document, and I shall read into the record one quotation from this order governing the conduct of troops in the East:
KEITEL: I know the order. It was shown to me during a preliminary interrogation.