dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
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. 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. 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: Do you remember that?
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.
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, 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: 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? My Lord, that will become Exhibit GB-298. [Turning to the defendant:] It says: Now, would you look at Paragraph II: Did you think that was a cruel and severe order or not?
KEITEL: Yes, I do think so, but may I make one small correction? It must have been incorrectly translated. The actual wording is: "Women are to be employed on labor. Children are to be spared." So it says in the original version which I have before me.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I said "spared." "Spared" meant that they were not to be treated thus. I was careful to mention that.
KEITEL: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you had authority to make alterations and additions. Did you, by your alterations and additions, attempt to mitigate the severity of that order in any way?
KEITEL: I have no recollection of having issued any additional orders to mitigate its severity. I may also say that I never would have issued anything without first presenting it to the Fuehrer.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just let us see what you did issue. Would you look at Document D-764, which will be Exhibit GB-299? Now, that is your executive order, countersigned I think by the Senior Military Judge, putting forward your order based on that decree; and would you look at Paragraphs 4 and 5: And then you ask them to consider among the first, one handing them over to the SD for forced labor. That was certainly not mitigation of the order, was it? You were not making it any easier.
KEITEL: There are a few sentences to be added here. This arose out of the daily discussion of these matters which I dealt with later on the same lines as the first decree. I made suitable annotations, and signed them.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, that is what you called terrorism and sabotage. Let us look at what happened to people who were guilty of something less than terrorism or sabotage. Look at Document D-763. That will be GB-300. "Non-German civilians... "
KEITEL: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, you knew perfectly well what would happen to anyone who was handed over to the SD, that he would probably be killed, certainly be put into a concentration camp, did you not?
KEITEL: I did not interpret it that way; the words "to be allocated on labor" were always used; but it has become clear to me from what I have learned that they frequently ended in the concentration camp. However, it was always described to us, to me, as a labor camp. That was the description, "labor camps of the Secret State Police."
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But this is August 1944. You will agree that that is a most severe course to take with people who have been guilty of something less than terrorism or sabotage, do you not?
KEITEL: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, let us ...
KEITEL: I assume that you do not wish me to discuss this origin and development here. Otherwise I could explain them; but I will merely answer the question. The answer is, yes, it was a very severe measure. The explanation, if I may state it very briefly, is that, as is known, during the interminable daily situation reports on the incidents in all the occupied territories, I received from the Fuehrer instructions and orders which were afterwards crystallized in a form similar to this document; and I think I have already described in detail the way in which I discussed these things with him and how I worked, that on principle I never issued or signed anything which did not agree in principle with his wishes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was severe enough for you for only 3 weeks, was it not, because on 4 September, which is barely 3 weeks later, you issued another order, Document D-766, Exhibit GB-301. Now, this was issued, as it shows, as an agreement with Himmler, Kaltenbrunner , the Reich Minister of Justice and Dr. Lammers. Now look at I: Now, had you any idea how many people would be affected by that order?
KEITEL: No, I cannot say anything about that. I know only that it was made necessary by the increasing tension in the occupied territories, due to lack of troops to keep order.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, let me remind you. You called a conference to consider this matter. That is shown in Document D-765, and I also show you D-767, the report of the conference. You need not worry about 765, which just says that there is to be a conference but in Document D-767, which will be Exhibit GB-303, there is a report of the conference. The second paragraph says: Can you give any answer now as to why 24,000 people who had been sentenced should be transferred to the tender mercies of the SD?
KEITEL: May I read this note? I do not know it; may I read it now, please?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly. You will see that I did not trouble you with it all, but it says what I had already put to you earlier, that the Nacht und Nebel Decree had become superfluous as a result of the terror and sabotage decree, and that the Wehrmacht Legal Department had presented these things for discussion. Now, can you give us any answer as to why these 24,000 unfortunate persons who had been sentenced should be handed over to the tender mercies of the SD?
KEITEL: I must say that I am surprised by the whole incident. I did not attend the conference, and apparently I did not read the note since, as a matter of principle, I always marked every document which had been presented to me with my initials. I am not acquainted with the figures quoted; this is the first time I have seen them; I am not acquainted with them and I do not remember them, unless another order was ...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will give you something which you have read.
KEITEL: As regards the facts about which you ask, I must answer in the affirmative. I do not know the figures, only the facts.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you cannot answer my question. You cannot give us any reason as to why the Wehrmacht and these other offices were sending the 24,000 people, who had been sentenced by ordinary courts, over to the SD? You cannot give us any reason for that?
KEITEL: No; I may say that up to a point I can. I think "SD" is a misinterpretation. I think police custody was meant. That does not mean the same thing.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly not.
KEITEL: I do not know if it might have been the same thing.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Surely you have been at this Trial too long to think that handing people over to the SD means police custody. It means a concentration camp and a gas chamber usually, does it not? That is what it meant in fact, whether you knew it or not.
KEITEL: I did not know it, but it obviously led to the concentration camp in the end. I consider it possible; in any case, I cannot say that it was not.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the last paragraph but one refers to the OKW.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, I am just coming to that. [Turning to the defendant.] If you will notice that, Defendant, two paragraphs below the one I put to you it states: It is quite clear that your office was deeply concerned in this business, was it not, Defendant?
KEITEL: I do not know exactly what it means, but it was obviously mentioned at that conference.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, before I put the next document, I want you to realize how we have been going. We started with the Nacht und Nebel Decree, which disappeared, and we went on to the Terror and Sabotage Decree. We then proceeded to acts which were less than terror and sabotage, but were criminal acts under the rules of the occupying power. I now want you to consider what was done to people who simply refused to work. Would you look at Document D-769? That is Exhibit GB-304. That is a telegram from Luftwaffe General Christiansen, who was in the Netherlands, Commander of the Air Forces in the Netherlands, through his Chief of Staff. Now listen to this: Then General Christiansen comes in with this: Now, Defendant, will you agree that shooting, with or even without trial, railway men who will not work, is about as brutal and cruel a measure as could well be imagined by the mind of man? Do you agree?
KEITEL: That is a cruel measure, yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What was your answer to that cruel measure? KEITEL. I cannot say. I do not recollect the incident at all, but perhaps the answer is there.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, look at the Document D-770, which is, I think, your answer; it is Exhibit GB-305. You will notice on the distribution list that that goes to the Commander of the Armed Forces in the Netherlands, and further to the signal which we have just been looking at. Now, you say: I can not remember, Defendant, whether you have ever had an independent command yourself or not. Have you? Have you had an independent command, apart from your division? I think that was the last independent command you had. You have not had an independent command yourself, have you? Don't I make myself clear?
KEITEL: I did not understand. What do you mean by "independent"?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I mean that you have not been a commander or chief of an army or army group yourself, if I remember rightly, or of an area, have you?
KEITEL: No, I have not.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I ask you to put yourself in General Christiansen's position. That answer of yours was a direct encouragement, practically, amounting to an order, to shoot these railway men out of hand, was it not? "To take other effective measures ruthlessly and independently."
KEITEL: That is explained by the form of summary courtmartial. It is not left to the discretion of the individual; jurisdiction of summary court-martial was provided.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just look at the way it is put, Defendant. I suggest to you that it is quite clear. One sentence states: "If handing over to the SD is impossible, owing to the military situation and the state of communications, other effective measures are to be taken ruthlessly and independently." Then, the next sentence: "There are, naturally" -- look at the word "naturally." I suppose that it was "naturlich," in German. Is that correct?
KEITEL: I have not the word "naturlich" here. Two words, so far as I can make out, have been inserted.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But it says: "There are, naturally, no objections to passing and executing death sentences by summary court-martial procedure." What you are saying is that, of course, there is no objection to a summary court, but you are telling him, in addition to that, that he is to take effective measures ruthlessly and independently. If General Christiansen had shot these railway men out of hand, after getting that letter from you, neither you nor any other superior could have blamed him for it, could you?
KEITEL: According to the last sentence, he was obliged to carry out summary court martial procedure. It says: "There are no objections to the executing of this sentence by summary courtmartial under such circumstances." That is how I meant it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But what did you mean by "effective measures to be taken ruthlessly and independently"? What did you mean by that, if it was only an ordinary summary court procedure?
KEITEL: Not apart from summary court procedure, but by means of the same. That is what the last sentence means. It is already unusual to appoint a summary court-martial in such cases.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, even on your basis, to use a military summary court to shoot railway men who will not work is going rather far even for you, is it not? It is going rather far, isn't it?
KEITEL: That was a very severe measure, yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you tell the Tribunal that when you make all these additions, taking you through the chain of additions that you make to the order replacing the Nacht und Nebel Order, of which you disapproved, do you say that you went to Hitler for every one of these executive orders and answers that you made?
KEITEL: Yes. I went to him on the occasion of every one of these orders. I must emphasize the fact that I did not issue any of these orders without previously submitting it to the Fuehrer. I must expressly point out that that was so.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I think a misunderstanding has crept into the translation. The translation interprets "Standgericht" as summary court. I do not believe that the words "summary court" reflect accurately what we understand in the German language by "Standgericht." I do not know just what you understand in the English or American language by "summary court," but I can imagine that this means some summary procedure.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I was taking it in favor of the Defendant that it meant the court he referred to yesterday, one officer and two soldiers. I was taking that. If I am wrong, the Defendant will correct me. Is that right, Defendant?
KEITEL: I described this Standgericht (summary court-martial procedure) briefly yesterday, and the criterion of a summary courtmartial was that it was not always necessary for a fully trained legal expert to be present, although it was desirable.
THE PRESIDENT: While you are on the subject of translation, the Defendant seemed to suggest that there was no word in the German which is translated by the English word "naturally." Is that true?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I had it checked and I am told that the translation is right.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a German word which is translated by "naturally"? I should like to know that from Dr. Nelte.
DR. NELTE: I am told that a false conception or false judgment might be produced in this connection since in British and American law a summary court has no right to pass sentences of death. I am told that a summary court ...
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, Dr. Nelte, I did not ask that question. The question I asked you was whether there was any German word which is translated into English by the word "naturally." Is that not a clear question?
DR. NELTE: In the German text it says "under such circumstances, of course." I think the English translation is incorrect in using the word "naturally" and in putting it after "in these circumstances" instead of at the beginning, so that one is led to conclude that it means, "there are naturally no objections (es gibt naturlich keine Einwendungen)," whereas the German text says, "Against the passing and executing of death sentences by summary court procedure there are -- under such circumstances, of course -- no objections (Gegen die Verhangung und Vollstreckung von Todesurteilen im standgerichtlichen Verfahren bestehen unter solchen Verhaltnissen selbstverstandlich keine Bedenken)."
THE PRESIDENT: Then the answer to my question is "yes." There is a word in the German which is translated "naturally."
DR. NELTE: Yes, but the words "naturally" and "under such circumstances" are separated in the English version, while in the German version they belong together. "Naturally" refers to "under such circumstances."
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now I want to come to another point. You told us yesterday that with regard to forced labor you were concerned in it because there was a shortage of manpower and you had to take men out of industry for the Wehrmacht. Your office was concerned with using military forces in order to try and round-up people for forced labor, was it not?
KEITEL: I do not think that is quite the correct conception. The Replacement Office in the High Command of the Wehrmacht ...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If you are going to deny it, I put the document to you: I put General Warlimont's views to you and see if you agree. I think it saves time in the end. If you look at Document 3819-PS, which will be Exhibit GB-306, Page 9 of the English version. It is the report of a meeting at Berlin on 12 July 1944. You have to look on through the document after the letters from the Defendant Sauckel and the Defendant Speer , the account of a meeting in Berlin. I think it is Page 10 of the German version. It starts with a speech by Dr. Lammers and goes on with a speech from the Defendant Sauckel, then a speech from the witness Von Steengracht, then a speech from General Warlimont: "The Deputy of the head of the OKW, General Warlimont, referred to a recently issued Fuehrer order." Have you found the portion? I will read it if you have.
KEITEL: Yes, I have found the paragraph "The Representative of the Chief of the OKW... "
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: After reading this report of General Warlimont's words, do you still say that the Wehrmacht.
KEITEL: I am not aware that the Armed Forces have ever received an order mentioning the rounding-up of workers. I would like to say that I know of no such demand and I have not found any confirmation of it. The conference as such is unknown to me and so are the proposals you mentioned. It is new as far as I am concerned.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is quite clear that General Warlimont is suggesting that the Wehrmacht should help in the rounding up of forced labor, isn't it?