dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
LAHOUSEN: That is quite simple. Abwehr II was naturally very interested in an objective way that prisoners of war should be treated as well and as decently as possible, and the same applies to any intelligence service in the world. That was all.
DR. NELTE: Do I understand you to mean that Abwehr II, as a department, was not concerned with prisoner-of-war questions?
LAHOUSEN: It had absolutely nothing to do with prisoner-of-war questions.
DR. NELTE: Yesterday you spoke about the problem of the treatment of prisoners of war in connection with a conference that took place, if I remember rightly, at the end of July 1941?
LAHOUSEN: Yes, at this conference I did not represent only my section, but the whole Amt Ausland Abwehr, that is to say-for general questions of international law and military political questions, that is, those questions which to the greatest extent generally concerned foreign countries, and the intelligence sections. Department III which dealt with espionage was practically interested-because after all, the officers affiliated with it were in the prisoner-of-war camps. Naturally, from the point of view of my section it was important to be informed about those matters-and that my section was only interested within the frame of the entire problem, that people should not be killed off, but treated decently, quite apart from any of the other considerations which were mentioned.
DR. NELTE: You said yesterday that the prisoner-of-war camps in the operations zone of the Eastern sector were under the OKW. Is that correct?
LAHOUSEN: Yes, what I said about prisoner-of-war camps yesterday I knew from the conference with Reinecke, and not from any knowledge of the orders themselves, which I had neither seen nor read. At this conference I was able to obtain a clear idea of the prisoner-of-war question owing to the presence of Reinecke, the chief of the prisoner-of-war department, who represented his own department and the OKW, and I repeated everything I remembered about this.
DR. NELTE: What I was really asking was about the limitation of the jurisdictions.
LAHOUSEN: Yes.
DR. NELTE: Do you know that in the Army Operational Zone the army on operations was responsible for the care of prisoners of war?
LAHOUSEN: Yes.
DR. NELTE: And that the OKW became responsible for their care only when the prisoners of war arrived in Germany?
LAHOUSEN: Yes, I repeated what I knew about the matter at the time from what I had heard. This was that the General Staff of the Army had made all preparations to bring these people back, and Hitler then authorized the OKW to hold this up, and the OKW was then held responsible by the General Staff for the consequences. What happened after that I do not know and have no right to judge. I can only repeat what I saw and heard.
DR. NELTE: I thought that yesterday you expressed the conjecture that the prisoners were not brought back owing to an order from Hitler.
LAHOUSEN: I did not express a conjecture. I simply repeated what I heard at the time and what I know. It might, of course, have been wrong.
DR. NELTE: Heard from whom?
LAHOUSEN: I heard this from the people with whom I was in daily contact, that is, at the daily situation conferences, at which Canaris, the department chiefs, and other people who came there to report were present. I heard it there, and a great deal was said about this matter. I have always made this clear since my first interrogation. I told Reinecke to his face that what he himself said about this question at the time.
DR. NELTE: That has nothing to do with my question.
LAHOUSEN: I understand your question perfectly. I only want to make it quite clear how I came yesterday to say what I did-to examine how far this applies according to the actual, organizational and other divisions . . .
DR. NELTE: But you know that in principle the OKW had charge of prisoners of war only in Germany?
LAHOUSEN: There is no question about that.
DR. NELTE: How could it happen that the Abwehr office adopted the attitude you defined yesterday regarding the question of enemy commando activities? You were supposed to deal with these things from the German side, but you-that is, your department-were not officially concerned with the handling of these things?
LAHOUSEN: No, not immediately concerned. The Amt Ausland had something to do with these things because somehow it received intelligence of any order that was under consideration, even before it was put into shape, and certainly as soon as it was drawn up. The order in question had, of course, a bearing on an essential point of international law, and the Ausland section of the Abwehr department-or rather the "Sachbearbeiter" (expert) as he was called-was naturally concerned with it. As a matter of fact, my department was directly concerned with these things for reasons which I have already explained, because it might turn out that persons for whom I was responsible might be directly affected.
DR. NELTE: Did the department which dealt with international law in the Amt Ausland Abwehr ever put its official attitude in writing?
LAHOUSEN: As I pointed out yesterday, I wrote a contribution on the subject, from the point of view of my section, which was transmitted to Canaris and was to be part of the long document. I only learned what use was made of it from what Buerckner said at the time, and which was that his department passed the thing on in this manner, either in writing or verbally, as a protest or counter re monstrance, at any rate pointing out the dangers. This happened a second time, and again I cannot say in what form, whether verbally or in writing or vice versa -the first time in writing and then verbally-after executions had already taken place, and because I had again started to make myself heard because of the executions that had already taken place. That was the logical development.
DR. NELTE: You also said something yesterday about putting a distinguishing mark on Russian prisoners by branding. Did it become known to you that such a scheme, as brought out in this question, was cancelled by a telephoned order from the Chief of the OKW, who had gone to the Fuehrer's headquarters for this purpose, and that it was only because of a regrettable, a terrible misunderstanding, that a few copies of this order were issued.
LAHOUSEN: No, I do not know about this, because, generally speaking, I only heard of the things which happened in the Amt Ausland Abwehr, that is, from Canaris' section downwards, if I was directly concerned with them. What happened on the higher levels, that is, from Canaris upwards, was and could only be known to me if I was in some way connected with it.
DR. NELTE: You yourself did not see the order?
LAHOUSEN: Which order are you referring to?
DR. NELTE: The one concerning the branding of Russian prisoners.
LAHOUSEN: No. As in the case of the Commando Order and others, I attended only the very lively discussion of this question, and with regard to the branding of Russian prisoners I remember Canaris mentioning that a doctor had furnished a written report on how this could be done most efficiently.
DR. NELTE: You stated yesterday that Admiral Canaris had said that the Defendant Keitel had given the order to do away with General Weygand?
LAHOUSEN: Yes.
DR. NELTE: The Defendant Keitel denies that. He now asks whether you ever saw any document or written proof of this order. He wants to know the origin of any statement which concerned General Weygand.
LAHOUSEN: This order was not given in writing, but it came to me because I was supposed to put it into execution, that is, not I, but my department. It came up through Canaris, in that circle which I have so often described, and which means that it was known only to a few. I was brought into the matter through a talk which Canaris gave at Keitel's office in the OKW and at which I was present. Keitel had already addressed me on the matter. I recorded this in my personal notes and I mentioned the date. After all, such a thing was not an everyday occurrence, at least not to me. It was 23 December 1940.
DR. NELTE: Do you not remember the actual wording of the question that Defendant Keitel was supposed to have asked?
LAHOUSEN: Of course I cannot remember the precise wording; the incident happened too long ago. I remember the gist very well. What he meant was, "What has been done in this matter? How do things stand?"
DR. NELTE: You said yesterday that you gave an evasive answer.
LAHOUSEN: I said yesterday that I could not remember exactly how I worded my answer but I certainly did not say what I had said in the presence of Canaris, namely, "I would not think of executing such a murderous order; my section and my officers are not an organization of murderers. Anything but that." What I probably said to Keitel was something about how difficult the matter was, or any evasive answer that I may have thought of.
DR. NELTE: If the Chief of the OKW had ordered such an action on his own initiative or on higher orders, this would, because of the high rank of General Weygand, have amounted to an act of state. You did not tell us yesterday whether after December 23, 1940 anything transpired in this matter, that is to say, whether the Chief of the OKW took up this question again.
LAHOUSEN: No, I did not say anything about that yesterday, but I frequently mentioned during the interrogations that after that the Chief of the OKW did nothing more about it. Canaris' attitude made it obvious that nothing further had been heard of it, for in the hierarchy of commands which for me was authoritative, he would have had to transmit orders to me. On the other hand, the information which I received in the Giraud matter was authoritative.
DR. NELTE: We shall come to that presently. It is extraordinary that if an act of state, such as the murder of General Weygand, had been ordered, nothing more should have been heard of it. Can you explain this?
LAHOUSEN: I can only explain it in the light of the construction which not only I myself, but also the others, put on the matter at that time. The situation at that time was very agitated; events followed each other very rapidly and something happened all the time; and we assumed-I shall come back to why we assumed it-that this matter and the importance attached to it had been superseded by some more important military or political event, and that it had receded into the background.
DR. NELTE: Do you wish to say anything else?
LAHOUSEN: Yes. I wish to state that what I am saying now has a certain bearing on the inner development of the Giraud affair. We-that is, Canaris, myself, and the others-who knew about this when the matter started, had hoped that it would take the same course as the Weygand affair; that is, that the matter would be dropped. Whether the order had been given by Keitel, or Hitler or Himmler, it would have been shelved when it came to Canaris and to me. In our circles it would have been relatively easy to intercept it or to divert it. That was what we hoped when the Giraud affair came up, as we had seen what actually had happened in the Weygand affair. Whether that was right or wrong I cannot judge. This is the explanation.
DR. NELTE: For a less important matter your argument might be plausible, but in such an important matter as the Weygand case it does not seem to me to hold water. But even if it had been so, had the intention to do away with Weygand existed in any quarters and for any reason, how do you explain the fact that Weygand, who later was taken to Germany and housed in a villa, lived undisturbed and honored and met with no harm? It would have been understandable if the order to eliminate him had been seriously expressed in any quarters, that it should have been carried out on this occasion.
LAHOUSEN: I can only answer to this that the attitude towards personalities in public life, whether at home or abroad, varied a great deal. There were high personalities who at one moment were in great favor and thought of very highly, and at the next moment were to be found in a concentration camp.
DR. NELTE: Now regarding the Giraud case, you stated that Admiral Canaris said in your presence and the presence of others that General Giraud was to be done away with on orders from higher quarters.
LAHOUSEN: Yes. That it is so is borne out by the remark that Pieckenbrock made, and which I remember very well, that Herr Keitel should tell these things to Herr Hitler once and for all.
DR. NELTE: So according to the communication made to you by Admiral Canaris, it was not an order of Keitel's but an order of Hitler's.
LAHOUSEN: As far as we knew in the Abwehr office, it was Keitel who gave the order to Canaris. I can only assume this in view of an order Hitler made to this effect. I do not know who actually gave this order, because I had no insight into the hierarchy of command beyond Canaris. It was, as far as I was concerned, an order from Canaris-an order which I could discuss immediately with him, in the same way as I can discuss it here.
DR. NELTE: You yourself did not hear this order?
LAHOUSEN: No, I personally did not hear it. I never said I did.
DR. NELTE: But you mentioned that later Keitel spoke to you about this matter?
LAHOUSEN: The procedure was the same as in the case of Weygand.
DR. NELTE: Do you remember whether any precise or positive expression such as "killing," "elimination," or something similar was used on this occasion?
LAHOUSEN: The word generally used was "elimination" (um legen).
DR. NELTE: What I mean is whether in this connection such a word was used by the Defendant Keitel in addressing you?
LAHOUSEN: Yes, of course-when I gave my report, the notes of which I have, together with the date, just as in the Weygand case. For reasons unknown to me, the Giraud affair was apparently carried further than the Weygand affair, for Canaris and I could determine the different stages in its development.
DR. NELTE: You did not answer my question. What did the Defendant Keitel say to you in this instance, when you were present at the occasion of a report by Canaris and the question of Giraud was brought up? What did he say?
LAHOUSEN: The same thing: "How does the matter stand?" And by "matter" he clearly meant Giraud's elimination, and that was the very subject we discussed under similar conditions in the Weygand affair.
DR. NELTE: That is your opinion, but that is not the fact on which you have to give evidence. I wish to find out from you what Keitel actually said to you. When speaking to you or in your presence, did he use the expression "dispose of" or "eliminate"?
LAHOUSEN: I cannot remember the expression he used, but it was perfectly clear what it was all about. Whatever it was, it was not a question of sparing Giraud's life or imprisoning him. They had had the opportunity to do that while he was in occupied territory.
DR. NELTE: That is what I want to speak about now. You are familiar with the fact that after Giraud's flight and his return to Unoccupied France, a conference took place in Occupied France.
LAHOUSEN: Yes, I heard of that.
DR. NELTE: Ambassador Abetz had a talk with General Giraud which dealt with the question of his voluntary return to confinement. You know that?
LAHOUSEN: Yes, I heard of that.
DR. NELTE: Then you probably also know that at that time the local military commander immediately called up the Fuehrer's head quarters by way of Paris. It was believed that an important communication was to be made; namely, that Giraud was in Occupied France and could be taken prisoner?
LAHOUSEN: I know about this in its broad outline.
DR. NELTE: Then you know also that the OKW-that is to say in this case, Keitel-then decided that this should not happen.
LAHOUSEN: No, that I do not know.
DR. NELTE: But you do know that General Giraud returned to Unoccupied France without having been harmed?
LAHOUSEN: Yes, I do know that.
DR. NELTE: Well, in that case, the answer to my previous question is self-apparent.
LAHOUSEN: I speak the truth when I say I do not know. I could not have known unless they had talked about it in my presence.
DR. NELTE: Well, it is so, and the facts prove it to be so. Did you know that General Giraud's family lived in Occupied France?
LAHOUSEN: No, I did not know that.
DR. NELTE: I thought the Abwehr division was entrusted with surveillance of this region?
LAHOUSEN: No, you are mistaken-certainly not my department. I do not know whether another department was in charge of that.
DR. NELTE: The question was asked simply to prove that the family did not suffer because General Giraud escaped and later refused to return to captivity. I have one more question which you may be able to answer.
LAHOUSEN: I beg your pardon. May I return, please, to the question of Giraud?
DR. NELTE: This question also has to do with General Giraud.
LAHOUSEN: Very well.
DR. NELTE: Do you know that one day your chief, Canaris, received by special courier a letter from Giraud in which Giraud asked whether he might return to France? Do you know that?
LAHOUSEN: No. No, I do not know about it. Perhaps I was not in Berlin at the time. I was not always in Berlin.
DR. NELTE: I am aware of that. I thought it might be mentioned in the diary.
LAHOUSEN: No, I did not keep the diary. I simply made additions to it so far as my particular department was concerned, but I was not familiar with the diary in its entirety.
DR. NELTE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now for 10 minutes. [A recess was taken]
FLOTTENRICHTER OTTO KRANZBUEHLER (Counsel for Defendant Doenitz): I would like to make a motion in connection with the technical side of the proceedings. In the course of the proceedings, many German witnesses will be heard. It is important that the Tribunal should know exactly what the witnesses say. During the hearing of this witness I have tried to compare what the witness actually said with the English translation. I think I can state that in many essential points the translation did not entirely correspond to the statement of the witness. I would, therefore, like to suggest that German stenographers take down directly the statements of the witness in German so that Defense Counsel will have an opportunity of comparing what the witness actually says with the English translation and, if necessary, of making an application for the correction of the translation. That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr. Justice Jackson.
MR. JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON (Chief of Counsel for the United States): I just want to inform the Court and Counsel, in connection with the observation that has just been made, that that has been anticipated and that every statement of the witness is recorded in German, so that if any question arises, if Counsel addresses a motion to it, the testimony can be verified.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that German record available to Defendants' Counsel?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I don't think it is. It is not, so far as I know. It would not be available unless there were some occasion for it.
THE PRESIDENT: It is transcribed, I suppose?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I don't know how far that process is carried. I will consult the technicians and advise about it, but I know that it is preserved. The extent of my knowledge now is that it is preserved in such a form that, if a question does arise, it can be accurately determined by the Tribunal, so that if they call attention to some particular thing, either the witness can correct it or we can have the record produced. It would not be practicable to make the recording available without making reproducing machines available. While I am not a technician in that field, I would not think it would be practicable to place that at their disposal.
THE PRESIDENT: Wouldn't it be practicable to have a transcription made of the shorthand notes in German and, within the course of one or two days after the evidence has been given, place that transcription in the Defendants' Counsel room?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think that is being done. I think perhaps Colonel Dostert can explain just what is being done better than I can, because he is the technician in this field. I am sure that no difficulty need arise over this matter of correct translations.
COLONEL LEON DOSTERT (Chief of Interpreters): Your Honors, the reports of the proceedings are taken down in all four languages and every word spoken in German is taken down in German by German court stenographers. The notes are then transcribed and can be made available to Defense Counsel. More over, there is a mechanical recording device which registers every single word spoken in any language in the courtroom, and in case of doubt about the authenticity of the reporters' notes, we have the further verification of the mechanical recording, so that Defense Counsel should have every opportunity to check the authenticity of the translation.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am advised further by Colonel Dostert that 25 copies of the German transcript are being delivered to the defendants each day.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, I was not informed that the German testimony is being taken down in shorthand in German. I assumed that the records handed over to us were translations. If German shorthand notes are being taken in the court, I withdraw my motion.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we shall get on faster if the Defendants' Counsel, before making motions, inquire into the matters about which they are making the motions.
DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant Ribbentrop): I would like to ask a few questions of the witness. Witness, you previously stated that at some time an order was given, according to which, Russian prisoners of war were to be marked in a certain manner and that this order had been withdrawn by the Defendant Keitel. You did say that, did you not?
LAHOUSEN: Yes, I said that I have knowledge that there was this purpose.
DR. SAUTER: This is interesting from the point of view of the Defendant Ribbentrop, and I would like to hear from you whether you know about this matter. Ribbentrop maintains that when he heard about the order to brand Russian prisoners of war, he, in his capacity as Reich Foreign Minister, went immediately to the Fuehrer's headquarters to inform General Field Marshal Keitel of this order, and pointed out to him that he, Ribbentrop, in his capacity as Foreign Minister, as well as in his capacity as the guarantor of international law, objected to such treatment of Russian prisoners of war. I would be interested to know, Witness, whether in your circle something was said as to who drew Keitel's attention to this order and asked him to retract it?
LAHOUSEN: I was not informed of that and I only knew, as I said yesterday, that there had been this intention, but it was not carried out.
DR. SAUTER: Then I have another question. Witness, you spoke yesterday about some remarks of the Defendant Ribbentrop, especially one statement to the effect that an uprising should be staged in Poland-not in Russia-and that all Polish farm houses should go up in flames and all Jews should be killed. That, roughly, was how the statement ran.
LAHOUSEN: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Now, later on, I believe, in answering a question of one of the Russian prosecutors, you amplified your statement by mentioning an order of the Defendant Ribbentrop. I would now like to know whether you really meant to say that it was an order from Ribbentrop to a military department?
LAHOUSEN: No.
DR. SAUTER: Just a minute please, so that you can answer both questions together. I would also like to remind you that yesterday, when this matter was first discussed, you spoke of a directive which, I believe, your superior officer had, as you said, received from Ribbentrop?
LAHOUSEN: No, the Chief of the OKW received it, not my superior officer, who was Canaris. I would like to repeat it, in order to clarify this matter. It was a matter that came up for discussion on the 12th of September 1939 in the Fuehrer's train. These meetings took place in the following sequence with respect to time and locality: At first a short meeting took place between the Reich Foreign Minister Ribbentrop and Canaris in his coach.
DR. SAUTER: Were you present?