dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. NELTE: are the Hitler Government and the High Command of the Armed Forces." Nowhere in this document have either concrete or verifiable instructions or orders by the Defendant Keitel or from the OKW been given. Then, on Page 134, Paragraph 1: In the documents previously quoted, either Keitel or the OKW is named as the responsible party. However, during the Prosecution's presentation many such official reports were quoted as evidence for Keitel's guilt, which do not even mention either the name of the defendant or the OKW. In this connection, I draw your attention to Documents USSR-8, 39, 45, 46, and 63. I only ask the Tribunal to examine the remaining documents with equal care in order to ascertain whether, if submitted in connection with Keitel and the OKW, they allow Keitel's guilt whether that is not the case. In this connection I should like to add that I am not going to read, and am not referring to, the remarks at the bottom of Page 134 (USSR-3). I beg the Tribunal to take note of my statements on the economic exploitation of the occupied territories-Pages 137 to 142- without my reading them. Since Reich Marshal Goering's defense counsel has already dealt with this problem and has clarified the spheres of competency and responsibility, it would mainly be repetition for me to speak on it. However, I wish to draw attention to this part of my presentation and beg the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. In the war against Poland as well as later in the West, extended on the basis of experiences in Poland, expert personnel trained in military economy were detached from the Armed Forces Economic Office in the form of small staffs and units to the Army Groups and Army High Commands as expert advisers and assistants in all military economic questions which resulted from the conquest and occupation of economically and industrially valuable territories. The Economic Armament Office, together with the OKW, prepared the organization of these groups of experts and technical detachments.
DR. NELTE: By and large, they consisted of: (a) Expert advisers with the unit staffs (at first known as liaison officers of the OKH Economic Armament Office); (b) Reconnaissance Staffs for factories and raw materials important to war economy; (e) technical detachments and formations for security, repairs, and protection from destruction of essential and vital plants and supply installations. This organization was prepared by the OKW (Economic Armament Office) because it relied on expert research personnel from all three branches of the Armed Forces and civilian economy with the 'technical emergency aid', (Technische Nothilfe). The Army completed the set-up itself. The organization was subordinated to the senior troop commanders in charge. Their employment took place exclusively on the orders of the troop command, for which each adviser submitted suggestions from time to time to the unit staffs (the General Staff Ib or the Chief Quartermaster). The missions of these technical detachments were: (a) Advising the command concerning the importance and significance of industrial plants and supply installations (fuel, water, electric current, repair plants, mines, et cetera); (b) Protection of these installations from destruction by the enemy and our own forces and the civilian population; (e) Utilization for the purpose of Germany's conduct of the war for troops and population, (d) Examination of essential and vital plants and establishment of their productive capacity for German use; (e) Establishment of raw material supplies of metals, ore, coal, fuel, et cetera, for reindustrialization of Germany's conduct of the war. All functions, with the exception of those mentioned under (d) and (e), served exclusively to supply the fighting troops, the occupational troops, and the native population. The statistical collections (d) and (e) were reported through military channels to the competent offices at home (Plenipotentiary for Economy, Four Year Plan, Minister of Armaments) who had to make disposition concerning use and utilization.
DR. NELTE: The Armed Forces itself had no independent right of action. It is correct that (according to the Thomas book, 2353-PS) raw materials and also machines were removed to Germany for the production of implements of war as the Prosecution charges, since both had served the enemy's conduct of the war and had necessarily gone out of production. No military agency could order the removal to Germany, because it had no right at all to dispose of "booty" of this sort. Only the three highest Reich authorities mentioned could effect such a removal on the basis of a general authority by the Fuehrer or a special order by him to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army. The OKW and the Chief of the OKW, as well as the Economic Armament Office, had no right of disposition and command outside of their own fields, nor did any separate chain of command exist from the OKW. Economic Armament Office to these detachments, et cetera. The communications and report chain ran via the unit staffs to the OKH Quartermaster General, with whom the highest Reich authorities (Food, Economy, Armament Ministry, Four Year Plan) had representatives who reported to their departmental chiefs. Orders by the Defendant Keitel as Chief of the OKW concerning utilization, use, or seizure of economic goods have not been given; this follows from Document 2353-PS. The unified leadership of the entire war economy in France and Belgium was then centered in Reich Marshal Göring as Delegate of the Four Year Plan by the Fuehrer Decree of 16 June 1940. For determining the responsibility it is of significance that the staff of the Economic Armament Office examined the problems which concerned the armament economy and utilization of economy in the occupied territories. Their appraisals, which in this respect were regarded as decisive, are collected in Document EC-344, coming from the Foreign Department in the OKW (headed by Admiral Canaris).
DR. NELTE: With reference to Articles 52, 53, 54, and 56 of the Hague Convention of Land Warfare, it is explained therein in connection with total warfare that "economic rearmament" must be regarded as forming part of the "belligerent enterprise," and accordingly all industrial supplies of raw materials, semifinished and manufactured goods as well as machinery, et cetera, are to be regarded as serving the war effort. Therefore, according to the viewpoint of the author of this opinion, all these goods are liable to be seized and used against compensation after the conclusion of peace. Furthermore, the problem of the need for war is examined and Germany's state of economic difficulty at that time is already affirmed. For the judgment of the Defendant Keitel this opinion is of significance insofar as the well-known Foreign Department under the responsible leadership of Admiral Canaris as late as November 1941 gave vent to an opinion which justified the economic utilization of the occupied countries. That was the office which concerned itself with problems of international law and on which the Defendant Keitel based his confidence. An organization for all economic requirements and intended to supersede the former organization was created for Russia on the basis of experiences in the West by Reich Marshal Goering by virtue of a general delegation of authority by the Fuehrer. The chief of the Economic Armament Office together with State Secretary Körner drew up this organization for Reich Marshal Göring without participation by the Chief of the OKW. The Chief of the OKW for this purpose put General Thomas at the disposal of Reich Marshal Göring. The Chief of the OKW did not acquire any influence at all on this organization, and severed his own and the OKW's connection with it after Reich Marshal Göring had received full powers and the OKW had put General Thomas at his disposal. General Thomas thus acted solely on instructions by Reich Marshal Goering.
DR. NELTE: The OKW and the Defendant Keitel were never under Reich Marshal Göring's orders nor were they bound by his instructions. The Defendant Keitel was not represented in Göring's Economic Staff and had nothing to do with the Eastern Economic Staff (See Thomas book, Page 366). The execution of the work was centrally directed by the Economic Operations Staff in Berlin as part of the Four Year Plan. The local higher command in the Eastern district was under the Eastern Economic Staff. To this organization was also attached ~- the troops' supply department. The OKW, and the Defendant Keitel as Chief of the OKW, never issued orders concerning the exploitation, administration, or confiscation of economic property in occupied territory. This is revealed in the book submitted by the Prosecution, Document 23s3-Ps. On Page 386 of this document, Thomas, in summarizing, correctly stated as follows: The Eastern Economic Operations Staff under the Reich Marshal or State Secretary Körner was responsible for the whole economic direction of the Eastern area; the state secretaries were responsible for departmental instructions; the Economic Armament Office was responsible for the reconstruction of the economic organization; the Eastern Economic Opera lions Staff was responsible for the execution of all measures." The same is shown by Document USSR-10: "Directives (of Reich Marshal Göring) for the unified conduct of economic management in the zone of operations and in political administrative areas to be subsequently established." This ought to prove that the OKW and Keitel are clear of any responsibility for the consequences attendant upon carrying out the measures within the scope of the Barbarossa-Oldenburg operation. I now come to Page 143 and following pages, where I refer to the assertion made by the French Prosecution regarding the participation of the OKW and Keitel in the cases of Oradour and Tulle. The French Prosecution have charged the Defendant Keitel in person with the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
DR. NELTE: The accusation concerns in particular the execution of French civilians without a trial. In this connection the cases of Oradour and Tulle received special emphasis. They are recorded in a report made by the French Government-Document F-236. The French Prosecution stated: "Keitel's guilt in all these things is certain." In this Connection it is not my task to discuss the frightful events of Oradour and Tulle. As defense counsel for the Defendant Keitel I have to examine whether the Prosecution's assertion that the Defendant Keitel bears any guilt or responsibility for these atrocious happenings has any foundation. You will understand that the Defendant Keitel attaches particular importance to the production of evidence to the effect that he is not responsible for these terrible occurrences, and, further, that when such things came to his knowledge he took steps to have them cleared up in order that the actual offenders might be brought to account. It is an indisputable fact that Keitel had no direct part in these crimes. Any responsibility and guilt attaching to the defendant can therefore be derived only from his official position. No orders of any kind bearing Keitel's signature have been submitted by the Prosecution, so that, whoever is guilty, Keitel is not, at any rate, among those directly responsible. The terrible sufferings inflicted on a large number of French villages are recorded in the notes of General Barred dated 6 July and 3 August 1944. I pointed out, when this document was submitted, that the submission of these complaints alone-that is, unaccompanied by the replies, which are also in the hands of the Prosecution-cannot convey an objective picture of the actual facts, on which to base a pronouncement on the guilt of the Defendant Keitel.
DR. NELTE: As the Defendant Keitel, not being empowered to issue orders in the matter, cannot possibly be taken into consideration as the originator of the orders which led to the complaint, any responsibility and guilt on Keitel's part can therefore be based only on the fact that he did not cause the necessary steps to be taken on receiving information from the German Armistice Commission. What Keitel did or did not do can be gathered only from the reply notes and from the directives issued by the OKW to the German Armistice Commission. Here, too, the Defendant Keitel would have been unable to provide proof to the contrary, had not the French Prosecution themselves submitted a document, F-673, which was intended to furnish proof of Keitel's individual guilt. This document was already read by the French Prosecution at the session of 31 January 1946: `High Command of the Armed Forces; F. H. Qu., 5 March 1945; Secret. "WFST./ Qu. 2 (I) No. 01487145 g. "Subject: Alleged Killing of French Nationals without Trial. ''German Armistice Commission; Group Wa/Ib No. 5/45 g. "1) German Armistice Commission; 2) Commander-in-Chief West. "Received: 17 March 1945. ``In August 1944 the French delegation of the German Armistice Commission addressed a memorandum to D. W. St. K. (German Armistice Commission) describing in detail incidents leading to the alleged shooting without justification of Frenchmen during the period of 9 to 23 June 1944. Statements made in the French note were almost entirely made in such detail that an examination by Germany was possible without any difficulty. ``On 26 September 1944 the High Command of the Armed Forces charged the German Armistice Commission with the handling of the case. Thereupon, the German Armistice Commission asked the Commander-in-Chief West to investigate the incidents and to take action with regard to the representation of facts given in the French memorandum. "On 12 February 1945 the German Armistice Commission was informed by the Judge of Army Group B that since November 1944 the case was in the hands of Army Judge of Pz.
DR. NELTE: AOK/6 (6th Armored Army Command) and that Pz. AOK/6 and 2. SS Pz. Division 'Des Reich' (2nd Armored SS Division 'Des Reich') had in the meantime separated from the Army Group. "Handling of this matter calls for the following remarks: ``The Frenchmen, and the delegation of the Vichy Government, have made the grave charge against the German Armed Forces of numerous cases of unjustified killing of French nationals, in other words, of murder. Germany's interest demanded a reply to this charge at the earliest possible moment. Considering the length of time which has elapsed since receipt of the French memorandum, it should have been possible to take up at least some of the charges and to refute them through actual investigation irrespective of subsequent development in military matters and the transfer of troops incidental thereto. If even a portion of the charges made had been refuted at once, the French people would have been shown that their whole subject matter is based on doubtful material; but because nothing was undertaken by the Germans, the opponents' impression must be that we are not in a position to answer these charges. `4The manner in which this case was handled indicates that there possibly still exists a great deal of ignorance as to the importance to be attached to all reproaches against the German Armed Forces, to counteract any enemy propaganda, and to refute immediately any purported German acts of atrocity. ``The German Armistice Commission' is hereby instructed to continue to devote to this matter all possible energy. It is requested to render any assistance possible, and particularly to take all steps for expediting matters within its own sphere of action. The fact that Pz. AOKl6 (6th Armored Army Command) no longer forms part of the forces of the Commander-in-Chief West is no reason to hold up the necessary investigations in order to clarify and refute the French charges. "For information: Army General Staff (Gen. St. d. }I.); Headquarters Gen./Qu. "(signed) Keitel." This document of the OKW, signed by Keitel, shows that: 1.
DR. NELTE: On receiving the French complaint of 26 September 1944, the OKW issued orders to the German Armistice Commission to investigate and deal with the matter. 2. The German Armistice Commission thereupon instructed Commander-in-Chief West to investigate the incidents. 3. On receiving a letter from Army Group B. the OKW expressed itself as follows: "It was in the German interest to answer these charges at the earliest possible moment. "This case shows that there is still widespread ignorance as to the importance of combating all imputations made against the German Armed Forces and all enemy propaganda, and of refuting immediately any alleged acts of atrocity on the part of the Germans. "The German Armistice Commission is hereby instructed to continue to pursue their investigations as energetically as possible. It is requested that every possible assistance be rendered to the commission and that all possible steps be taken to expedite matters in your own sphere of action. The fact that Pz. AOK/6 is no longer under the jurisdiction of Commander-in-Chief West is no reason for discontinuing the necessary investigation in order to clarify and refute the French charges." It may therefore be considered as proved that in this case the Defendant Keitel, on receiving information, took energetic steps in accordance with the range of his competency as Chief of the OKW, and as far as he was in a position to do so. This eliminates the charge made by the Prosecution insofar as the Defendant Keitel is concerned. At the same time, however, the way in which the Defendant Keitel handled this case suggests that he acted in similar manner in other cases. Mr. President, before dealing with the problem of hostages which I may discuss later, I should like to discuss the grave evidence on the Night and Fog Decree on Page 154. War, which is frightful even under orderly international law, becomes atrocious when the last restraints are removed.
DR. NELTE: Many terrible things have happened during this war and it is impossible to tell which chapter of this book of sorrows and tears is the saddest; but, in any case, one of the most lamentable chapters is that of the treatment of hostages. In international law the question of treatment of hostages is controversial. The taking of hostages is almost generally admitted. Doubtless, although taking hostages is assumed to be admissible under international law, that has as yet no bearing on their treatment. The treatment, even more than the seizure, of hostages must be subject on the one hand to the law of absolute military necessity which cannot otherwise be met, and, on the other, to the application of all guarantees to prevent the indiscriminate shooting of hostages as a principle. Any primitive and brutal handling of this very institution, which is doubtful under international law and is apt to affect the absolutely innocent, must be rejected. Unfortumately, this problem which seldom arose in previous wars between civilized people, acquired considerable importance during World Wars I and II. The cases previously taken into consideration and also explained in the Army Manual 2g (H. Dv. 2g) (Document Book 1, Exhibit Number Keitel-7) resulted from military necessity of troops in operation. As happened with so many things in this war, but especially due to the change-over from theater of operations to rear area, there finally developed a broadening and degeneration in the application of a principle which originally was indisputable according to international law. The immediate connection with military necessity was absent, that is to say, with military action; its place was taken by interests which naturally included military safeguards, particularly of lines of communications between the front zone and home. It must be said that this fundamental change ought to have been recognized, and ought to have been taken into consideration in the handling of the existing rules governing hostages.
DR. NELTE: The degeneration in the treatment of hostages was decisively influenced by the fact that civil administrative and police organizations claimed for themselves one of the extreme means of soldierly warfare and often made use of it arbitrarily, wherever they wanted to break resistance, by arresting people without concrete individual or even presumptive guilt and by treating them from the viewpoint of reprisals. Collective arrests for individual offenses come into this category. All these cases have nothing to do with the original facts in the cases of hostages, but since the word ``hostage" is used for all these cases, the Prosecution in many cases has placed on the Armed Forces a responsibility which they should not bear. I request the Tribunal, when judging this complex and when examining the responsibility of the Defendant Keitel, to take into consideration: (1) The concept of hostages, the basic conditions governing the taking of hostages and their treatment had become known to all authorities in command and their of flees in the armed Forces by the Army manual regulations (H. Dv. 2g) before the war, especially before the campaign in the West. The Documents 1585PS; submitted by the Prosecution itself (discussions of the hostage question with the Luftwaffe), and 877-PS (operation orders of the Army for "Case Yellow" and the attack in the West, dated 29 October 1939) reveal that special regulations had originally been issued for the seizure of hostages. Their application was justifiably transferred to the Army offices and later to the military commanders who were subordinate to the Army, never to the Armed Forces High Command (OKW). (2) Nobody could be in doubt, according to existing regulations (H. Dv. 2g), as to what authority Army commanders had and as to who had to make a decision on a possible shooting of hostages. No supplementary order or supplementary regulation was ever issued by the Armed Forces High Command (OKW).
DR. NELTE: The letter from Falkenhausen (Military Commander in Belgium), dated 16 September 1942 (Document 1594-PS), mentioned by the Prosecution, and the report of this military commander (1587-PS) are not addressed to Keitel, but quite correctly to his superior office, the Army High Command (OKH) Quartermaster General; Keitel received neither the letter nor the report. Whether Hitler received them in his capacity of Supreme Commander of the Army and Military superior of the military commanders, Keitel does not know. (3) The OKW was not informed of the cases in which inhabitants of the occupied territories were mistakenly and falsely described as hostages and treated without legal procedures. (4) Whenever hostages, without being connected with the plots and terror acts against the occupying power, were held responsible for them without local or material connection, such practice is contrary to service regulations. (a) Insofar as the OKW or the Defendant Keitel was approached by military agencies in individual cases referring to hostage problems, for example by the Military Commanders in France and Belgium, the evidence has shown that the "hostages" to be shot were to be selected from the circle of persons already 9July 46 sentenced to death by virtue of the law. However, so that this should not be outwardly recognized-for producing the desired deterrent effect-it was to be announced that hostages had been shot. The French Prosecution has cited the OKW and Keitel in connection with this complex by means of Document 389-PS, which is the same as UK-25, a Fuehrer order of 16 September 1941 drawn up by Keitel. This document, whose contents are monstrous, does not, however, have anything to do with the question of taking hostages and the treatment of hostages. The word ``hostages" does not appear in the text.