dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
GEN. RUDENKO: 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? 618 6 April 46 GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, this is Document 389-PS.
GEN. RUDENKO: 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: "To atone for the life of one German soldier, 50 to 100 Communists must, as a rule, be sentenced to death. The method of execution should strengthen the measure of determent." 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?
GEN. RUDENKO: 619 6 April 46 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.
GEN. RUDENKO: In Subparagraph 1 of this order, Paragraph 3, it is stated, and I would draw your attention to the following sentence: "The troops are therefore authorized and ordered in this struggle to take any measures without restriction even against women and children, if that is necessary to achieve success." Have you found this passage? 620 6 April 46 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 ... ?
GEN. RUDENKO: 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? 621 6 Apri1 46 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.
GEN. RUDENKO: 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. 622 6 April 46 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: "These objections arise from the military conception of chivalrous warfare. We are dealing here with the destruction of an ideology and, therefore, I approve such measures and I sanction them." Signed: "Keitel." 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: "The separation of civilians and prisoners of war who are politically undesirable, and decision to be made in regard to their fate, is to be effected by task forces (Einsatzkommando) belonging to the Security Police and the SD in accordance with directives not known to the Wehrmacht establishments and whose execution cannot be checked by the latter." 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.
GEN. RUDENKO: 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." 623 6 April 46 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?
GEN. RUDENKO: 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 624 6 April 46 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).
GEN. RUDENKO: 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: "Feeding the inhabitants and prisoners of war... is ... a mistaken humanity..." KEITEL: I know the order. It was shown to me during a preliminary interrogation. GEN. RUDENKO: This order, issued on Reichenau's initiative and approved by Hitler, was distributed as a model order among all the army commanders. KEITEL: I did not know that; I heard about it here for the first time. To my knowledge I never saw the order either. GEN. RUDENKO: Of course you would, quite obviously, consider such orders as entirely insignificant. After all, could the fate of Soviet prisoners of war and of the civilian population be of any possible interest to the Chief of the OKW, since their lives were of no value whatsoever? KEITEL: I had no contact with the commanders at the front and had no official connection with them. The Commander-in-Chief of the Army was the only one who had. GEN. RUDENKO: I am finishing your cross-examination. When testifying before the Tribunal you very often referred, as did your accomplices, the Defendants Goering and Ribbentrop , to the Treaty of Versailles , and I am asking you, were Vienna, Prague, Belgrade and the Crimea part of Germany before the Treaty of Versailles? KEITEL: No. GEN. RUDENKO: You stated here that in 1944, after the law had been amended, you received an offer to join the Nazi Party. 625 6 April 46 You accepted this offer, presented your personal credentials to the leadership of the Party, and paid your membership fees. Tell us, did not your acceptance to join the membership of the Nazi Party signify that you were in agreement with the program, objectives, and methods of the Party? KEITEL: As I had already been in possession of the Golden Party Badge for three or four years, I thought that this request for my personal particulars was only a formal registration; and I paid the required Party membership subscription. I did both these things and have admitted doing them. GEN.
GEN. RUDENKO: RUDENKO: In other words, before this formal offer was ever made, you already, de facto, considered yourself a member of the Nazi Party? KEITEL: I have always thought of myself as a soldier; not as a political soldier or politician. GEN. RUDENKO: Should we not conclude, after all that has been said here, that you were a Hitler General, not because duty called you but on account of your own convictions? KEITEL: I have stated here that I was a loyal and obedient soldier of my Fuehrer. And I do not think that there are generals in Russia who do not give Marshal Stalin implicit obedience. GEN. RUDENKO: I have exhausted all my questions. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, do you remember on the 2d of October 1945 writing a letter to Colonel Amen, explaining your position? It was after your interrogations, and in your own time you wrote a letter explaining your point of view. Do you remember that? KEITEL: Yes, I think I did write a letter; but I no longer remember the contents. It referred to the interrogations, however. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. KEITEL: And I think it contained a request that I be given a further opportunity of thinking things over, as the questions put to me took me by surprise and I was often unable to remember the answers. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to remind you of one passage and ask you whether it correctly expresses your view: "In carrying out these thankless and difficult tasks, I had to fulfill my duty under the hardest exigencies of war, often acting against the inner voice of my conscience and against my own convictions. The fulfillment of urgent tasks assigned by Hitler, to whom I was directly responsible, demanded complete self-abnegation." Do you remember that? 626 6 April 46 KEITEL: Yes. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, I just want you to tell the Tribunal, what were the worst matters in your view in which you often acted against the inner voice of your conscience? Just tell us some of the worst matters in which you acted against the inner voice of your conscience.
GEN. RUDENKO: KEITEL: I found myself in such a situation quite frequently, but the decisive questions which conflicted most violently with my conscience and my convictions were those which were contrary to the training which I had undergone during my 37 years as an officer in the German Army. That was a blow at my most intimate personal principles. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wanted it to come from you, Defendant. Can you tell the Tribunal the three worst things you had to do which were against the inner voice of your conscience? What do you pick out as the three worst things you had to do? KEITEL: Perhaps, to start with the last, the orders given for the conduct of the war in the East, insofar as they were contrary to the acknowledged usage of war; then something which particularly concerns the British Delegation, the question of the 50 R.A.F. officers, the question which weighed particularly heavy on my mind, that of the terror-fliers and, worst of all, the Nacht und Nebel Decree and the actual consequences it entailed at a later stage and about which I did not know. Those were the worst struggles which I had with myself. SIR DAVID MAXVIELL-FYFE: We will take the Nacht und Nebel. My Lord, this document and a good many to which I shall refer are in the British Document Book Number 7, Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl , and it occurs on Page 279. It is L-90, Exhibit USA-503. [Turning to the defendant.] Defendant, I will give you the German document book. It is 279 of the British document book, and 289... KEITEL: Number 731? SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is Page 289, I do not know which volume it is; Part 2, I think it is. You see, the purpose of the decree is set out a few lines from the start, where they say that in all cases where the death penalty is not pronounced and not carried out within a week, ". . . the accused are in the future to be deported to Germany secretly, and further proceedings in connection with the offenses will take place here.
GEN. RUDENKO: The deterrent effect of these measures lies in: (a) the complete disappearance of the accused; 627 6 April 46 (b) the fact that no information may be given as to their whereabouts or their fate." Both these purposes, you will agree, were extremely cruel and brutal, were they not? KEITEL: I said both at the time and yesterday, that I personally thought that to deport individuals secretly was very much more cruel than to impose a sentence of death. I have ... SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would you turn to Page 281 -- 291 of yours -- 281 of the English Book? KEITEL: Yes, I have it. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You say that this is your covering letter: "The Fuehrer is of the opinion:" -- Line 4 -- "In the case of offenses such as these, punishment by imprisonment, or even penal servitude for life, will be considered a sign of weakness. Effective and lasting intimidation can only be achieved either by capital punishment or by measures which keep the culprit's relatives and the population generally uncertain as to his fate." You will agree that there again these sentences of the Fuehrer which you are here transmitting were cruel and brutal, were they not? KEITEL: Yes. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, what I ... KEITEL: May I add something? SIR DAVID MAXWELL-YYFE: Certainly, as shortly as you can. KEITEL: I made a statement yesterday on this subject and I drew your attention particularly to the words: "It is the Fuehrer's long considered will," which were intended to convey to the generals who were receiving these orders what was written between the lines. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But, you know, Defendant, that that was by no means the end of this series of orders, was it? This order was unsuccessful despite its cruelty and brutality in achieving its purpose, was it not? This order, the Nacht und Nebel Order, in that form was unsuccessful in achieving its purpose; it did not stop what it was designed to stop? Is that right? KEITEL: No, it did not cease. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So that in 1944 you had to make a still more severe order. Would you look at Document D-762?