dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
COL.AMEN: Now, may it please the Tribunal, I should like to offer in evidence a photostatic copy, or copies, of the entries made by the witness in every detail, together with a photostatic copy of the report. The originals are here in court, but cannot be lifted out of the box in which they are contained. They are so much damaged by a bomb explosion that if they were to be lifted out of the box, they would be destroyed beyond use, but we have had them photostated, and the photostatic copies are now available. That letter would be Exhibit USA-80, 3047-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand, Colonel Amen, that only such portions of these documents as are read in Court will be in evidence?
COL.AMEN: Well, these have been used by the witness to refresh his recollection.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know they have.
COL. AMEN: And none of them have been read in full in court, but they may be so read at any time, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: If you want them to go into evidence as documents, you must read them, of course. Colonel Amen, do you want to use the documents any more than you already used them for the purpose of refreshing the witness' memory?
COL.AMEN: I do not, Sir, except having used them in this fashion, I now think it is only fair to offer them in evidence for 30 Nov.45 the information and scrutiny of the Tribunal; as far as I'm concerned they have served their purpose.
THE PRESIDENT: If the Defense wants to see them for the purpose of cross-examination, of course, they may do so.
COL.AMEN: Oh, yes, Sir. I have offered them already Sir, to be Exhibit USA-80, 3047-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: But otherwise they may not be put in evidence.
COL.AMEN: Correct.
THE PRESIDENT: From this damaged paper, it seems to contain a report on the execution of Jews in Borrisov.
COL.AMEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That again will not be in evidence unless you read it.
COL.AMEN: Correct, Sir. We will include that in the offer which I just made to you, that unless what we are offering is desired by the Court I will not offer it in evidence or read it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Court does not desire it.
COL.AMEN: Very well. [Turning to witness] As a member of the Abwehr, were you generally well informed on the plans of the German Reich for the waging of war?
LAHOUSEN: Insofar as the effects of the plans concerned the preparatory activities or co-operation of the Amt Ausland Abwehr.
COL. AMEN: Did any intelligence information ever come to your attention which was not available to an ordinary person, or to an ordinary officer in the Army?
LAHOUSEN: Yes, certainly. That was in the nature of my office..
COL. AMEN: And, on the basis of the knowledge which you so obtained, did you in your group come to any decisions as to whether or not the attack on Poland, for example, was an unprovoked act of aggression?
THE PRESIDENT: Well . . .
LAHOUSEN: Would you be kind enough to repeat the question?
THE PRESIDENT: That is one principal question which this Court has to decide. You cannot produce evidence upon a question which is within the province of the Court to decide.
COL.AMEN: Very well, Sir. The witness is now available for cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it the Soviet Prosecutor's wish to ask any questions of this witness? General Rudenko?
GENERAL R. A. RUDENKO (Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): Witness Lahousen, you have made definite replies to questions by Colonel Amen and I should like to have certain details. Am I to understand you rightly that the insurgent units of the Ukrainian nationalists were organized under the direction of the German High Command?
LAHOUSEN: They were Ukrainian immigrants from Galicia.
GEN. RUDENKO: And from these immigrants were formed Commandos?
LAHOUSEN: Yes. "Commando" perhaps is not quite the right expression. They were people who were brought together in camps and were given a military or a semi-military training.
GEN. RUDENKO: What was the function of these Commandos?
LAHOUSEN: They were organizations of immigrants from the Galicia Ukraine, as I already previously stated, who worked together with the Amt Ausland Abwehr.
GEN. RUDENKO: What were these troops supposed actually to accomplish?
LAHOUSEN: Tasks were assigned to them before each combat by the office in charge of the command, that is, in the case of orders originating from the office to which I belonged, they were determined by the OKW.
GEN. RUDENKO: What functions did these groups have?
LAHOUSEN: These Commandos were to carry out sabotage of all kinds behind the enemy's front line.
GEN. RUDENKO: That is to say in what territory?
LAHOUSEN: In those territories with which Germany had entered into war, or speaking of the concrete case here in question, with Poland, or to be more correct in Poland.
GEN. RUDENKO: Of course in Poland. Well, sabotage and what else?
LAHOUSEN: Sabotage, such as wrecking of bridges and other objectives of military importance. The Wehrmacht operational staff determined what was of military importance; details of that activity I have just described, namely, destruction of militarily important objectives or objectives important for a particular operation.
GEN. RUDENKO: But what about terroristic activities? I am asking you about the terroristic activities of these units.
LAHOUSEN: Political tasks were not assigned to them by us, that is, by the Amt Ausland Abwehr. Political assignments were made by the respective Reich offices responsible, where it should be said, often as a result of erroneous...
GEN. RUDENKO: You have misunderstood me. You are speaking about sabotage and I was asking you concerning terroristic acts of these organizations. Do you understand me? Was terror one of their tasks? Let me repeat again, as well as the sabotage acts, were there any terror acts assigned to them?
LAHOUSEN: On our part never.
GEN. RUDENKO: You have told me that from your side there was no question of terrorism; from whose side was the question put, who worked on this aspect?
LAHOUSEN: Well, that was the whole point all the time. Each one of these military Abwehr units was asked again and again to combine our purely military tasks which were determined by the needs of the Wehrmacht leadership with political or terroristic measures, as is clearly shown by the memorandum on our files concerning preparation of the campaign against Poland.
GEN. RUDENKO: Answering the question of Colonel Amen as to whether the Red Army man was looked upon as an ideological enemy and was subjected to corresponding measures, what do you mean by corresponding measures? I repeat the question. You have said that the Red Army man was looked upon by you, I mean by the German High Command as an ideological enemy and was to be subjected to corresponding measures. What does it mean? What do you mean by saying corresponding measures?
LAHOUSEN: By special measures I mean quite clearly all those brutal methods which were actually used and which I have already mentioned and of which I am convinced there were many more, more than I could possibly have seen in my restricted field and more than was known to me.
GEN. RUDENKO: You already told the Tribunal that there were special Commandos for the screening of prisoners of war. I understand that they were screened in the following way: Into those who were to be killed and the others who were to be interned in camps, is that right?
LAHOUSEN: Yes, these special Commandos of the SD were concerned, however, solely with the execution of those selected amongst the prisoners of war.
GEN. RUDENKO: That of course makes the chief of the Commandos responsible and decisive for the question as to who was to die and who was not to die.
LAHOUSEN: Yes, in the course of a discussion with Reinecke, the question was raised whether to give to the head of one such Commando unit the right to decide who, in view of the order, was to be looked upon as Bolshevistically tainted or not.
GEN. RUDENKO: And the chief of the Commando unit decided upon his own authority, what to do with them.
LAHOUSEN: Yes, at least up to the date of the discussion in which I participated, upon an order from Canaris. This point was one of the most important ones of this discussion.
GEN. RUDENKO: You have told us about your protest and the protest of Canaris against these atrocities, killings, and so forth. What were the results of these protests?
LAHOUSEN: As I have already stated, there were some very modest results, so modest that you can hardly call them results at all. For the fact that executions were not to take place in sight of the troops but only at a distance of 500 meters can in no way be called a good result.
GEN. RUDENKO: What conversation did you have with Mueller on this subject, concerning concessions he had made? You told us when you were asked by General Alexandrov....
LAHOUSEN: Who was Alexandrov?
GEN. RUDENKO: You were questioned by Colonel Rosenblith, a representative of the Soviet Delegation. I am sorry I made a mistake. Perhaps you will remember your communication to Colonel Rosenblith regarding the conversation and the concessions that Mueller made. I shall ask you to tell us that part again.
LAHOUSEN: The name of Alexandrov does not mean anything to me. What has the name Alexandrov to do in this connection?
GEN. RUDENKO: Alexandrov was a mistake on my part. Forget it. I am interested in the question of Mueller, concerning the shootings, torturings, and so forth.
LAHOUSEN: I had a long conversation with Mueller, especially with regard to making the selections. I cited, to be concrete, as an example of the methods used, the case of the Crimean Tartars, Soviet Russian soldiers who, according to their nationality, originated from the Crimea; and cases where, for certain reasons, Mohammedan people were declared Jews, and were then executed. Thus, aside from the brutality of these and all other similar measures, this proved the entirely irrational point of view, incomprehensible to any normal person, which characterized the handling of the entire matter. To that, among other things, I made reference.
GEN. RUDENKO: You told us how these measures were carried out.
THE PRESIDENT: He doesn't hear you, carry on but go a little bit more slowly.
GEN. RUDENKO: Have you finished your report concerning the conversation with Mueller?
LAHOUSEN: No, I didn't quite finish, I had many discussions with Mueller on the subject-it was the central point of all these conversations. All the subjects about which I have given evidence were discussed first with Mueller, who was the competent man, at least in his sector. As for Reinecke, he then merely decided according to his ideas, which were contrary to those held by me and my office. I would be grateful if you would tell me what particular points you would like to have me explain and I would gladly repeat anything.
GEN. RUDENKO: Your usual topic of discussion was murders, shootings, and so forth, especially shootings. I am interested in all that. What did Mueller say about it? How were shootings to take place, especially in relation to your protests?
LAHOUSEN: He told me in a rather cynical way, that if the troops were so terribly disturbed by these shootings, as you claim, and their morale is suffering therefrom the shootings would simply take place at some distance, et cetera . That was the main meaning of what he said.
GEN. RUDENKO: That was the result of your protests?
LAHOUSEN: Yes, that was the very poor result of the protest, and then still a certain concession ...
GEN. RUDENKO: And one last question. The conditions of the concentration camps where Soviet prisoners were taken and where mass destruction of prisoners was committed was all this dependent on directives of the German High Command?
LAHOUSEN: In some sort of cooperation with the competent authorities, the Reich Main Security Office. In addition to all I have stated, I must point out that at the time, I myself did not read the orders and that I learned of the collaboration, or the coordination in this question mainly from the conversation with Reinecke, who came to me as a representative of the OKW and with the aforementioned Mueller.
GEN.RUDENKO: Excuse me, did you get that information in private or official sessions or conversations?
LAHOUSEN: It was a strictly official meeting called by General Reinecke as chairman. I was not there as "Lahousen," but as a representative of the Aunt Ausland Abwehr.
GEN. RUDENKO: Did the orders which were passed on in these sessions come to you directly from the German High Command?
LAHOUSEN: They came from the German High Command and from one of the highest offices of the RSHA according to what Reinecke said. I have never seen or read them with my own eyes, therefore this is all I can state.
GEL. RUDENKO: But you have heard during these meetings where they were discussed and when they were discussed.
LAHOUSEN: Yes, during the discussion, the course of which I have already described, or at least its essential aspects, of course.
GEN. RUDENKO: And during these sessions which you mentioned were the questions raised about murders and burning of cities?
LAHOUSEN: There was no talk at these discussions about setting on fire, but mention was made of the orders which had been issued with respect to the prisoners.
GEN.RUDENKO: About the murders only.
LAHOUSEN: About the executions.
GEN.RUDENKO: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the French Prosecutor wish to ask any questions?
MR. DUBOST: One single question. Who gave the orders for the liquidation of the Commandos?
LAHOUSEN: What was it exactly that you meant? Presumably the killing I members of the Commando troops?
MR. DUBOST: Who gave the orders for the execution?
LAHOUSEN: I did not read the order myself, but according to what was said in our circles about this subject, the idea came from Hitler himself; but who was responsible for transforming this idea into an order, I do not know.
MR. DUBOST: The Defendants Keitel, Jodl-what orders did they handle; what orders did they give?
LAHOUSEN: I cannot say that because I do not know it.
MR. DUBOST: What were the reasons for these orders, as far as you know?
LAHOUSEN: Not merely was it my opinion, but it was common knowledge, that the reasons for these orders were to cause an intimidating effect and thus to prevent and paralyze the activity of the Commandos.
MR. DUBOST: Who gave the order to have General Giraud executed or murdered?
LAHOUSEN: I did not hear the first part of the question.
MR. DUBOST: Who gave the order to kill Weygand and Giraud?
LAHOUSEN: The order to liquidate, that is, to be explicit, to murder Weygand and Giraud, was given to me by Canaris, who received it from Keitel. This order and this intention regarding the matter Weygand, were furthermore transmitted to me through direct speech with Keitel. Keitel asked me after Canaris had read to him a report in my presence, on December 23, 1940, according to my notes, about the progress in the case Weygand. As regards the second case, that is the case Giraud, I had it from Canaris himself that the order was sent to him by Keitel-as did also the other chiefs who were present. I further heard of it a second time during a report from Canaris to Keitel, in my presence, in July 1942, when this order was communicated to me in a manner similar to that of the case Weygand, and, finally, I received it in a direct manner from Keitel through telephone conversation which I described here, and transmitted as urgent intelligence. [The British Prosecutor indicated that he had no questions.]
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to ask any questions, Dr. Nelte?
DR. NELTE: The witness, Lahousen, has given very important evidence, particularly charging in a grave manner the Defendant Keitel, represented by me...
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to make a speech now?
DR. NELTE: My client, the Defendant Keitel, would like to put numerous questions to the witness after he has had a discussion with me. I therefore ask the Tribunal to allow either that there may be a considerable adjournment now or that at the next session these questions may be discussed in cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. You shall have an opportunity to cross-examine at 10 o'clock tomorrow. Does any member of the Tribunal wish to ask any questions of the witness now?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I should like to ask the witness whether the orders to kill the Russians and in connection therewith the treatment of the prisoners were in writing.
LAHOUSEN: As far as I know, yes, but I did not see or read these orders myself.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Were they official orders?
LAHOUSEN: Yes, they were official orders, of course, though the facts were brought out in a roundabout way. It was these orders which Reinecke and the others discussed and this is how I learned about the essential points of these orders. I did not read them myself at that time. But I knew that they were not oral agreements because they were commented upon; consequently I knew that something existed in writing. Only I could not and cannot say whether there were one or more orders, and who signed them. This I did not claim to know. I submitted my knowledge which is based solely on discussions and reports from which I quite clearly could deduct the existence of orders.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you know to whom or to what organizations such orders were usually addressed?
LAHOUSEN: Orders of this kind, involving the question of principle, went to the OKW, because things relating to prisoners of war were and had to be the concern of the OKW, and in particular of Reinecke, which also explains the discussions with Reinecke.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So usually the members or some of the members of the General Staff would have known of such orders, would they not?
LAHOUSEN: Certainly, many members of the Wehrmacht knew of the essential contents of this order, for the reaction of the Wehrmacht against this order was tremendous. Apart from official discussions which I have reported here, these orders were discussed a great deal in casino clubs and elsewhere, because all these matters became manifest in the most undesirable form and had a most undesirable effect on the troops. As a matter of fact, officers, and high-ranking officers at the front, either did not transmit these orders or sought to evade them in some way and this was discussed a great deal. I have named some of these officers; some are listed in the notes, diary, et cetera. It was not an everyday occurrence, and it was then the topic of the day.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And were the orders known to the leaders of the SA and SD?
LAHOUSEN: They must have been known to them, for the ordinary soldiers who watched all these proceedings knew and spoke about them. To a certain extent they were even known to the civilian populace; civilians learned far more details about these matters from wounded soldiers returning from the front than I could tell here.
THE PRESIDENT: General Nikitchenko wants to ask a question.
THE TRIBUNAL (Major General I. T. Nikitchenko): You have told us that you received instructions about the murder of prisoners of war and brutal treatment. You received these orders from Reinecke?
LAHOUSEN: Well, I must correct something that I said. It is not I and not the Amt Ausland Abwehr who got the order, because we had nothing to do with it, but I knew about it, as I was present at this conference as a representative of the Amt Ausland Abwehr. But we ourselves had nothing to do with the treatment of prisoners of war, and certainly not in this negative sense.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Apart from these meetings, the meetings of the High Command, were such instructions ever given? Were there any meetings of the High Command headquarters about killings and ill-treatment of prisoners of war?
LAHOUSEN: There certainly must have been a number of discussions on this subject, but I was present at only one of them, which I have already described, so I cannot say anything more about it.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): At headquarters?
LAHOUSEN: In the OKW-at headquarters.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): At the headquarters of the German Army?
LAHOUSEN: Certainly in the OKW where Amt Ausland Abwehr had sent a delegate in my person, if for no other reason than to enter protest. As a matter of fact our Amt had nothing to do with prisoners of war in this sense. But contrarywise we were, because of technical and easily understandable reasons, interested in proper treatment of the prisoners.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): The meetings were not about good treatment of prisoners, but rather about ill-treatment and killing them? Was Ribbentrop also present at these meetings?
LAHOUSEN: No! On no account. This discussion-I mean the one conference about which I have given testimony-took place after the accomplished fact. Everything had already happened; executions had taken place, and now effects began to make themselves felt. Protests of all kinds, from the front and from other places, such as, for example, our own office, Amt Ausland Abwehr, followed. This conference was intended to show the necessity for the orders which had already been given, and to justify measures already taken. These discussions took place after the beginning of the operations, after the orders which had been given had already been carried out, and all that I have touched upon or stated had already happened and produced its evil effects. The accomplished fact had been thoroughly discussed with the idea of making one more attempt, a last attempt on our part, to put to an end, and break off, the matter.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Did all these conversations bring about results?
LAHOUSEN: That is what I talked about, and that was the subject of the discussions with Reinecke in which I took part. I did not take part in the other discussions and therefore can say nothing about them.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): At which other meetings had orders been given about killings of Ukrainians and burning of towns and villages in Galicia?
LAHOUSEN: I would like to achieve clarity relative to what the General has in mind. Am I being asked about the conference in the Fuehrer's train in 1939 prior to the fall of Warsaw? According to the entries in Canaris' diary, it took place on 12 September 1939. This order or directive which Ribbentrop issued and which Keitel transmitted to Canaris, Ribbentrop also giving it to Canaris during a brief discussion, was in reference to the organizations of National Ukrainians with which Amt Abwehr cooperated along military lines, and which were to bring about an uprising in Poland, an uprising which aimed to exterminate the Poles and the Jews; that is to say, above all, such elements as were always being discussed in these conferences. When Poles are mentioned, the intelligentsia especially are meant, and all those persons who embodied the national will of resistance. This was the order given to Canaris in the connection I have already described and as it has already been noted in the memorandum. The idea was not to kill Ukrainians but, on the contrary, to carry out this task of a purely political and terroristic nature together with the Ukrainians. The cooperation between Amt Ausland Abwehr and these people who numbered only about 500 or 1000, and what actually occurred can be clearly seen from the diary This was simply a preparation for military sabotage.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): These instructions were received from Ribbentrop and Keitel?
LAHOUSEN: They came from Ribbentrop. Such orders which concerned political aims couldn't possibly come from Amt Ausland Abwehr because any...
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): I am not asking you whether they could or could not. I am asking you where they came from.
LAHOUSEN: They came from Ribbentrop, as is seen from the memorandum. This is the memorandum that I made for Canaris.
DR. DIX: I have three short questions. May I put them?
THE PRESIDENT: It is now past 4, and we have to hear the requests of the Defendant Hess, and the Court has to be cleared for them. So I think you had better postpone them until tomorrow. [A recess was taken and all defendants except Hess were removed from the courtroom.]