dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I know of no agreement to inform defendants' counsel of any witness, nor of his testimony; nor would I want to make such. There are security reasons involved in disclosing to Defense Counsel the names of witnesses, which I don't need to enlarge upon, I am quite sure. We did advise them that they would be given information as to the documentary matters, and I think that has been kept. As to witnesses, however, a matter of policy arises. These witnesses are not always prisoners. They have to be treated in somewhat different fashion than prisoners; and the protection of their security is a very important consideration where we are trying this case, in the very hotbed of the Nazi organization with which some of Defense Counsel were identified.
THE PRESIDENT: I think, Mr. Justice Jackson, that that is sufficient. If you tell the Tribunal that there was no such agreement, the Tribunal will, of course, accept that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I know of nothing of that character, relating to witnesses. That does apply to documents. We find it very difficult to know just the meaning of the ruling which the Court has just announced. Count One of the Indictment is a conspiracy count, covering the entire substantive part of the Indictment. There are problems, of course, of overlapping, which I had supposed had been worked out between the prosecutors until this morning. It is impossible, trying a conspiracy case, to keep from mentioning the fact that the act, which was the object of the conspiracy, was performed. In fact, that is a part of the evidence of the conspiracy. I know I don't need to enlarge upon the wide scope of evidence in a conspiracy case. I think, perhaps, the best way to do is to swear the witness, and that the other prosecutors, if they feel their field is being trespassed upon, or the judges, if they feel that we are exceeding, raise the objection specifically; because I don't know how we can separate, particularly on a moment's notice, Count One from the other Counts. We have tried our best to work out an arrangement that would be fair, as between ourselves and the other prosecutors, but we find it impossible always to please everybody. With the greatest deference to the ruling of the Court, I would like to suggest that we proceed. I don't know just what the bounds of the ruling might be, but I think the only way we can find out is to proceed, and have specific objections to the specific things which anyone feels have been transgressed; and in doing that, I want to say that we do it with the greatest respect to the ruling, but that we may find ourselves in conflict with it, because of the difficulty of any boundary on the subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer?
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I must return to the matter raised by Doctor Nelte, namely his statement that before the beginning of the Trial the Defense and the Prosecution reached an agreement to the effect that the next day's program should always be made known to the Defense on the previous day. Such an agreement was actually reached, and I cannot understand why the Prosecution was not informed of it. We considered the possibility and then reached this agreement in a conference with Doctor Kempner, who was acting as our liaison man. I should like further to point out the following: The Prosecution stated that for security reasons the Defense could not be furnished with the names of witnesses to be called during the next day's proceedings. The press however received, as early as yesterday, information on the witnesses to be called today. We heard of this through representatives of the press this morning and, as far as I know, the information also appeared in today's papers. I cannot understand, therefore, why it was withheld from us, and why we were told that for security reasons, it could not be communicated to us. I think this amounts to a mistrust of the Defense's discretion that is quite unjustified. It is, furthermore, incorrect that we are now receiving documents in good time; they still reach us belatedly. For instance, a document which is to be dealt with in court today was put on our desks only this morning, moreover, in a language which many of the defending counsel cannot understand, since they do not have complete mastery of English. As I have already submitted this complaint to the Prosecution in writing, may I ask the Tribunal to reach a decision in this matter as soon as possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: It is quite correct that the name of the witness who is to be used today was given to the press. The question of our policy as to giving witnesses' names was submitted to me last night after Court recessed, because we had not been using witnesses heretofore; and I then stated to Colonel Storey that witnesses' names must not be given to the Defense Counsel for security reasons. He communicated that, I believe, to Doctor Dix. I found that later it had been given to the press. They, of course, have had adequate information therefore as to this witness. However, I am speaking about the policy. We cannot be under an obligation to inform these counsel of the names of witnesses who will be called, who are here in Nuremberg, but not in prison; the situation does not permit of that. Neither can we furnish transcripts of testimony or that sort of thing of witnesses in advance. Now we want to give the Defense Counsel everything that, in the fair conduct of the Trial, they ought to have. They are now receiving much more than any citizen of the United States gets on trial in the courts of the United States, in some respects, as to advance information and copies and help and service, and I do think that to ask us to disclose to them in advance either the names or substance of testimony-oftentimes the substance would disclose the witness-would not be proper. It was stated yesterday that we would take up a witness today.
THE PRESIDENT: We have already heard two of the counsel on behalf of the Defense. Have you anything to add which is different to what they have said?
DR. DIX: Yes, I believe I can explain a misunderstanding and clarify the whole problem. Mr. President, as far as I am informed-I do not know what was discussed in my absence-the situation is this: Though discussions took place, no agreement was reached between the Prosecution and the Defense. There is, as Your Lordship knows, only a decision of the Tribunal regarding documents; that decision is known and I need not repeat. As far as witnesses are concerned I think I may assume that we are all agreed that the desire of the Defense to know the names of witnesses ahead of time is justified. The Tribunal must decide to what extent security reasons interfere with this desire, which is in itself justified. That is a matter which the Defense cannot determine. I think I understand Mr. Justice Jackson correctly in saying that if the press is being told what witnesses will appear on the next day, then it is a matter of course that the same information should be given to Defense Counsel at the same time. This was only a series of unhappy circumstances, which can be overcome by mutual understanding and good will. As I said, I do not know what was agreed upon before I was present here. I cannot therefore contradict my colleague, Dr. Stahmer, in this matter. I think it possible, however, that the misunderstanding arose as a result of the decision of the Court to have documents submitted to us 48 hours in advance and to have the film shown to us beforehand, a decision which led my colleague to the conclusion-and I consider it a justified conclusion-that all matters of this sort were to be submitted to us in advance. We do not, of course, expect to be informed of the contents of the witness' testimony.
DR. DIX: After this elucidation I should like to state my request that in the future we be informed as soon as possible which witness is to be called; and I should also like to ask that the security considerations be guided by the knowledge that the Defense as a body is reliable, determined and capable of assisting the Court in reaching its verdict by submitting to the discipline of the proceedings. I ask, therefore, that the cases in which the security officer believes that he should not communicate the name of the witness beforehand, should be reduced to an absolute minimum.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the submissions which have been made to them on behalf of Defense Counsel with reference to what shall or what shall not be communicated to them. With reference to the witness whom the United States desire to call, they will now be permitted to call him. With reference to what I said about confining his evidence to the first count, the Tribunal thinks that the best course would be for the other prosecutors to have the opportunity now to ask any questions which they think right, and that they may have the opportunity, if they wish, of calling the witness later upon their own counts. As to cross-examination by the defendants' counsel, that will be allowed to them in the most convenient way possible, so that if they wish to have an opportunity of communicating with their clients before they cross-examine, they may have the opportunity of doing so. Now we will continue.
COL.AMEN: May we have General Lahousen brought before the Tribunal? What is your name?
ERWIN LAHOUSEN (Witness): Erwin Lahousen.
COL.AMEN: Will you please spell it?
LAHOUSEN: L-a-h-o-u-s-e-n.
COL.AMEN: Will you say this oath after me: "I swear by God -the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth- and will withhold and add nothing." [The witness repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you think the witness had better sit down?
COL. AMEN: I think he should be allowed to sit down, particularly since he has a heart condition which may be aggravated.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; you may sit down.
COL.AMEN: Where were you born?
LAHOUSEN: I was born in Vienna.
COL.AMEN: On what date?
LAHOUSEN: On 25 October 1897.
COL.AMEN: What has been your occupation?
LAHOUSEN: I was a professional soldier.
COL. ALIEN: Where were you trained?
LAHOUSEN: I was trained in Austria, in the Military Academy in Wiener-Neustadt.
COL. AMEN: Were you immediately commissioned as an officer?
LAHOUSEN: In 1915 I was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the infantry.
COL. AMEN: Did you serve in the first World War?
LAHOUSEN: Yes, as second and first lieutenant in the infantry.
COL.AMEN: Were you promoted from time to time thereafter?
LAHOUSEN: Yes, I was promoted under the normal regulations valid in Austria at the time.
COL. AMEN: By 1930 what rank had you attained?
LAHOUSEN: In 1930 I was a captain.
COL. AMEN: And commencing in 1930 did you take any additional training?
LAHOUSEN: In 1930 I entered the Austrian War School, which corresponds to the Military Academy in the German Army. There I received the training of an officer of the General Staff.
COL.AMEN: How long did this training last?
LAHOUSEN: This training lasted 3 years.
COL.AMEN: In 1933 to what regular army unit were you assigned?
LAHOUSEN: In 1933 I was serving in the Second Austrian Division, that was the Vienna Division.
COL.AMEN: What type of work did you do there?
LAHOUSEN: I was an intelligence officer; that branch of the service for which I was already destined at the end of my training.
COL. AMEN: Did you then receive a further promotion?
LAHOUSEN: I was promoted normally in accordance with the regulations valid in Austria, and roughly at the end of 1933 I became a major. About l935 or the beginning of 1936 I was transferred to the General Staff, and in June, or at any rate, in the summer of 1936, I became a lieutenant colonel of the Austrian General Staff.
COL.AMEN: And were you assigned to the Intelligence Division at or about that time?
LAHOUSEN: I entered the Austrian Intelligence Division which corresponds technically to the Abwehr in the German Army. I must add that an Intelligence Division was only added to the Austrian Army about this time, i. e. 1936; before that year it did not exist. Since it was planned to re-establish within the framework of the Austrian Federal Army the military Intelligence Division which had ceased to exist after the collapse of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, I was trained to assist in organizing this division within the framework of the Austrian Army.
COL.AMEN: After being assigned to the Intelligence Division, how were your activities principally directed?
LAHOUSEN: My responsible chief, or more exactly, the responsible chief at that time, was Colonel of the General Staff Böhme. He was the division chief to whom I was subordinate, the Chief of the Intelligence Division, the man to whom I was responsible, from whom I received my orders and instructions; later on it was the Chief of the Austrian General Staff.
THE PRESIDENT: Can't you shorten this, Colonel Amen? We really need not have all this detail.
COL. AMEN: Very good, Sir. It is, however, I think important for the Tribunal to understand more of this information than you ordinarily would by virtue of the fact that he was taken over subsequently to a corresponding position in the German Army, which I did want the Tribunal to appreciate. Now, will you state to the Tribunal what your principal activities were after being assigned to the Intelligence Division? What information were you interested in and seeking to obtain?
LAHOUSEN: May I repeat-I don't know if I understood you correctly-I was a member of the Austrian Intelligence Division, and not of the German Abwehr.
COL. AMEN: After the Anschluss, what position did you assume?
LAHOUSEN: After the Anschluss I was automatically taken into the High Command of the German Armed Forces, where I did the same work. In that position I was then a member of the Abwehr and my chief was Admiral Canaris.
COL.AMEN: And what was the position of Admiral Canaris?
LAHOUSEN: Canaris was at that time Chief of the German Abwehr, the German Intelligence.
COL. AMEN: And will you explain briefly the responsibility of the principal departments of the Abwehr under Admiral Canaris?
LAHOUSEN: When, after the Anschluss in 1938, I entered the Amt Ausland-Abwehr there were three Abwehr divisions, and the division called "Ausland," and together they formed the organization known as "Ausland-Abwehr." That was the set-up of the organization in my time. How it was composed before I became a member of it, I cannot say exactly.
COL. AMEN: And what were your duties?
LAHOUSEN: First, I automatically came into Abwehr Division I. That was the division concerned with collecting information. It was also called the Secret Information Service. I worked under a divisional chief, the then Colonel in the General Staff Pieckenbrock, whom I knew already from my Austrian past. I also knew Canaris from my time in Austria.
COL.AMEN: Admiral Canaris was your immediate superior?
LAHOUSEN: Admiral Canaris was my immediate superior.
COL.AMEN: From time to time did you act as his personal representative?
LAHOUSEN: Yes, in all cases and on all occasions when his actual deputy-namely, Colonel Pieckenbrock-was not present, or when Canaris, for one reason or another, considered it necessary or advisable to have me appear as his representative.
COL.AMEN: And in this capacity did you have any contact with Field Marshal Keitel?
LAHOUSEN: Yes.
COL. AMEN: Did you also have contact with Jodl?
LAHOUSEN: Yes, occasionally, but to a much lesser extent.
COL.AMEN: And did you occasionally attend conferences at which Herr Hitler was also present?
LAHOUSEN: Yes, I attended a few of the sessions or discussions at which Hitler was present and which he conducted.
COL.AMEN: Will you tell the Tribunal whether the leaders of the Abwehr were in sympathy with Hitler's war program?
LAHOUSEN: I have to make clear in this connection that, at that time, we chiefs in the Abwehr were deeply influenced and captivated by the personality of Canaris, his inner bearing was perfectly clear and unequivocal to a small group of us.
COL.AMEN: And was there a particular group or groups in the Abwehr who worked against the Nazis?
LAHOUSEN: Within the Amt Ausland-Abwehr there were two groups which in their aims and actions were closely connected, but which, nevertheless, must somehow be kept apart.
COL. AMEN: And what were those two groups?
LAHOUSEN: Before I answer this question, I must briefly picture the personality of Canaris, who was the spiritual leader and focus of this group.
COL. AMEN: Please make it as brief as you can.
LAHOUSEN: Canaris was a pure intellect, an interesting, highly individual, and complicated personality, who hated violence as such and therefore hated and abominated war, Hitler, his system, and particularly his methods. In whatever way one may look on him, Canaris was a human being.
COL.AMEN: Now, will you refer back to the two groups of which you spoke and tell me about each of those two groups and their respective memberships?
LAHOUSEN: One might characterize the first of the groups as Canaris' circle. It included the heads of the Amt Ausland-Abwehr: Canaris himself as its spiritual leader; General Oster, Chief of the Central Division (the head of the Abwehr); my predecessor, Lieutenant Colonel Grosscurth, who had introduced me into the circle of Canaris in Vienna in 1938; the Chief of Abwehr Division I, Colonel Pieckenbrock, who was a close friend of Canaris; Pieckenbrock's successor, Colonel Hansen, who was executed after July; my successor, Colonel Von Freytag Loringhoven, who committed suicide on 26 July 1944, before arrest; also, in a somewhat different way, what applies to all these persons, the Chief of Abwehr Division III, Colonel Von Bentivegni, and then various people in all these divisions, most of whom were executed or imprisoned in connection with the events of July 20, 1944. I must also name here a man who did not belong to this group but who knew of the actions designed to prevent the execution or issuing of orders for murder and other atrocities, namely, Admiral Buerckner who was Chief of the Ausland Division at that time. Those, in the main, are the leaders of the first group called the Canaris circle. The second and much smaller group was centered around General Oster as its spiritual leader. This group included members of the Ausland-Abwehr who, as early as 1938-I recognized this clearly by 1939-40 and later on-were actively concerned with schemes and plans designed to remove the originator of this catastrophe, Hitler, by force.
COL.AMEN: What was the purpose of the group to which you belonged; that is, Canaris' inner circle?
LAHOUSEN: On its political motives or aims, I was not informed. I can only reiterate the thoughts and considerations which I, since I was one of Canaris' most intimate confidants, knew well. His inner attitude, which influenced and moulded not only my own actions but also those of the other men whom I mentioned, can be described as follows: We did not succeed in preventing this war of aggression. The war implies the end of Germany and of ourselves, a misfortune and a catastrophe of very great extent. However, a misfortune even greater than this catastrophe would be a triumph of this system. To prevent this by all possible means was the ultimate aim and purpose of our struggle. The sense of what I have just said was often expressed by Canaris among the group of which I am speaking.
COL.AMEN: Now, did this group of which you and Canaris were members meet frequently?
LAHOUSEN: I must explain that his group or circle was not to be regarded as an organization in the technical sense, or as a sort of conspirators' club. That would have been quite contradictory to Canaris' nature. It was rather a spiritual organization of men holding the same convictions, of men who had vision and knowledge-their official functions provided them with knowledge-of men who understood each other and acted, but each in his own way and in accordance with his own individuality. This is also the reason for the differentiation of which I spoke earlier. The same demands were not made on each individual, but Canaris always approached the person whose attitude he knew from personal knowledge to be the most suitable to carry out a certain task.
COL.AMEN: Did you have conversations at these official meetings, at which Canaris expressed his views with respect to the use of force in Poland, for example?
LAHOUSEN: These and similar methods were repeatedly, I may say always, discussed in our circle and they were naturally repudiated by all of us.
COL. AMEN: Do you recall what Canaris said about the Polish war at the time of its commencement?
LAHOUSEN: I very clearly recall the hour at which Canaris entered, completely shattered, to tell us that the situation had after all become serious, although it had earlier appeared as if the matter might still be postponed. He told us then: "This is the end."
COL.AMEN: Did you have conversations with Canaris and the other members of your group with respect to eliminating Nazis from your staff?
LAHOUSEN: While I was still in Vienna, before I took up my post in the OKW, I received instructions from Canaris not to bring any National Socialists with me to his department in Berlin. I was also instructed, whenever possible not to employ Party members or officers sympathizing with the Party in my division, especially in high positions. Thus the actual organization . . .
COL. AMEN: Did Canaris keep a diary?
LAHOUSEN: Yes, Canaris kept a diary. He did so even before the beginning of the war-a diary to which I personally had to contribute and did contribute much.
COL.AMEN: Was it a part of your duties to make entries in that diary?
LAHOUSEN: No, it was not a part of my actual duties, but it naturally fell to me to write entries on the conferences which I attended with Canaris or as his representative.
COL. AMEN: And did you keep copies of the entries which you made in Canaris' diary?
LAHOUSEN: Yes, I kept copies, with Canaris' knowledge and approval.
COL.AMEN: Do you have the original of some of those copies with you here today?
LAHOUSEN: I do not have them on me, but they are available here.
COL. AMEN: And you have refreshed your recollection in reference to those entries? LAHOUSEN Yes.
COL.AMEN: What was the purpose of Canaris in keeping such a diary?
LAHOUSEN: As a truthful answer to this question I must repeat what Canaris himself said to me on this subject: "The purpose and intention of this diary is to portray to the German people and to the world, at some future date, the leaders who are now guiding the fate of their nation."
COL.AMEN: Now, do you recall attending conferences with Canaris at the Fuehrer's headquarters, just prior to the fall of Warsaw?
LAHOUSEN: Canaris and I took part in discussions not in the Fuehrer's headquarters, but in the Fuehrer's special train, shortly before the fall of Warsaw.
COL.AMEN: And having refreshed your recollection from reference to the entries in Canaris' diary, can you tell the Tribunal the date of those conferences?
LAHOUSEN: According to the notes and documents at my disposal it was on September 12, 1939.
COL.AMEN: Did each of these conferences take place on the same day?
LAHOUSEN: The discussions in the Fuehrer's train took place on the same day: September 12, 1939.
COL.AMEN: And was there more than one conference on that Day? Were they split into several conferences?
LAHOUSEN: One cannot really call them conferences; they were discussions, conversations, of varying duration.
COL. AMEN: And who was present on this occasion?
LAHOUSEN: Present, regardless of location and time, were the following: Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop; Keitel, the Chief of the OKW; Jodl, head of the Wehrmacht Operations Staff; Canaris; And myself. COL.AMEN Do you see Ribbentrop in this courtroom?
LAHOUSEN: Yes.
COL.AMEN: Win you indicate for the record where he is sitting?
LAHOUSEN: Over there. [Indicating.] In the first row, third from the left.
COL.AMEN: Do you also see Keitel in the courtroom?
LAHOUSEN: Yes; he is next to Ribbentrop.
COL. AMEN: Do you also see Jodl in the courtroom?
LAHOUSEN: Yes; he is in the second row, next to Herr Von Papen.
COL. AMEN: Now, to the best of your knowledge and recollection, will you please explain, in as much detail as possible, to the 30 Nov.45 Tribunal, exactly what was said and what took place at this conference in the Fuehrer's train?