dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
KEITEL: But as far as I know it has never happened. I do not know that such an order was given. According to the record, this is a proposal made by General Warlimont, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, perhaps in those circumstances you should read the three lines after the passage you have read.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I should. The next line:
KEITEL: May I say something about that? May I ask that Gauleiter Sauckel be asked at a given time whether and to what extent troops of the Armed Forces did actually participate in such matters. It is not known to me.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No doubt the Defendant Sauckel, will be asked a number of questions in due time. At the moment I am asking you. You say that you do not know anything about it?
KEITEL: No, I do not recollect that any order was given in this connection. I gather from the statement by Warlimont that discussions took place.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now I want to ask you a few questions about the murder of various prisoners of war. I want to get it quite clear. Did you mean yesterday to justify the order for the shooting of Commandos, dated 18 October 1942? Did you wish to say that it was right and justified, or not?
KEITEL: I stated yesterday that neither General Jodl nor I thought that we were in a position, or considered it possible, to draft or submit such a written order. We did not do it because we could not justify it or give reasons for it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next question that I put to you is this: Did you approve and think right the order that was made that Commandos should be shot?
KEITEL: I no longer opposed it, firstly on account of the punishment threatened, and secondly because I could no longer alter the order without personal orders from Hitler.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you think that that order was right?
KEITEL: According to my inner convictions I did not consider it right, but after it had been given I did not oppose it or take a stand against it in any way.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You know that your orders had contained provisions for the use of parachutists being dropped, for sabotage purposes, don't you? Your own orders have contained that provision of parachutists being dropped for sabotage purposes. Don't you remember in the Fall Grun against Czechoslovakia? I would put it to you if you like, but I would so much prefer that you try to remember it yourself. Don't you remember that your own orders contained a provision for parachutists being dropped for sabotage purposes in Czechoslovakia?
KEITEL: No.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You don't?
KEITEL: No, I do not remember the order.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I refer you to it. My Lord, it is Page 21 and 22 of the document book.
KEITEL: Which document book, please.?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. It ought to be your first document book, and quite early on. It is part of the Fall Grun, which is Document 388-PS, and it is Item 11. I think it is somewhere about Page 15 or 16 or 20. You remember the Schmundt minutes and then it is divided into items. The Tribunal will find it at the foot of Page 21: [Turning to the defendant.]
KEITEL: May I read the paragraph that I think you mean?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes; it is headed "Missions for the Branches of the Armed Forces... "
KEITEL: "Missions for the Branches of the Armed Forces." It states: These parachutists and airborne troops were in fact to be set to work on frontier fortifications, as I explained yesterday, since army authorities believed that the artillery resources at our command were insufficient to permit our combating them with artillery. This does not mean parachutists or saboteurs, but actual members of the German Air Force, and the sabotage service is mentioned at the end.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The sabotage service must be people who are going to do sabotage if they are going to be of any use, must they not? They do sabotage, don't they?
KEITEL: Undoubtedly; but not by means of airborne troops and parachutists, but through saboteurs in the frontier areas who offer their services for this kind of work. Yes, that is what they are thinking of. We had many such people in the Sudeten region.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not going to argue with you, but I want to have it clear. I now want to come to the way in which this order of the Fuehrer was announced. You will find the order -- the Tribunal will find it on Page 64 -- but what I want him to look at if he would be so kind, is Page 66 of the book, Page 25, Defendant, of your book. The second sentence of the Defendant Jodl's "To the Commanders" about this order. That is on Page 25, and Defendant Jodl says: "This order is for the commanders only and must not under any circumstances fall into enemy hands." Was that because you and the Defendant Jodl were ashamed of the order, that you had this secrecy provision put on it?
KEITEL: I have not found it yet, and I would like to know the connection. Page 25 is a teletype letter.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: From the Oberkommando Wehrmacht, dated 19 October. Now have you got it, the second sentence?
KEITEL: Dated 18 October 1942?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 19 October, issuing order of the 18th. "This order is for commanders only and must not under any circumstances fall into enemy hands." Was that because you were ashamed of the order, that it was put like that?
KEITEL: I have not seen the letter and I think General Jodl should be asked about it. I do not know the contents, but I have already stated the opinion of both of us. I cannot give you the reason.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You can't give me the reason for this secrecy?
KEITEL: I do not know the motives behind it and I would ask you to put this question to General Jodl. I have not seen it. But I have already stated my own views and those of General Jodl.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, I want you to look at the way that even Hitler expresses it with regard to this. If you look -- I guess it is Page 31 in our book. It is a report from Hitler wherein he says: You were doing your best -- and when I say "you," I mean you collectively, Hitler, yourself, and Jodl and everyone else concerned. You were doing your best to keep quiet about this, about anything being known about this order, weren't you?
KEITEL: That was not my impression; on the contrary, in every case we subsequently published the facts in the Wehrmacht orders, the Wehrmacht report. It is my recollection, namely, that in the Wehrmacht report we stated that such and such an incident had occurred, followed by such and such consequences. That is my recollection.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am now only going to ask you to look at one document further on, because in that regard, you remember, after the Soviet Union tried certain people at Kharkov, when you were trying to get up some counter-propaganda -- now, look at this document, about these executions, it is Page 308, Document UK-57. You have got a copy of it. I am going to ask you about only two incidents. You see it is a memorandum and the passage that I want you to look at is Number 2, the fourth memorandum, Paragraph 2, which is headed "Attempted Attacks on the Battleship Tirpitz ." Do you see that?
KEITEL: Just one moment, I have not found it yet. Battleship Tirpitz , oh, yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Have you got it? Just listen, now: And now the next page: Did incidents such as that, under this order, come to your attention?
KEITEL: I do not remember the actual incident, but I can see that it has been reported by the department.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now you have told us that you have been a soldier for 41 years; that emphasizes your military position. What, in the name of all military tradition, has that boy done wrong by coming from a two-man torpedo to make an attack on a battleship; what had he done wrong?
KEITEL: No, this is an attack against a weapon of war, if carried out by soldiers in their capacity of members of the armed forces, it is an attack made with the object of eliminating a battleship by means of sabotage.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But why, why should you not if you were prepared to go on a two-man torpedo for an attack against a battleship, what is wrong with a sailor doing that? I want to understand what is in your mind. What do you, as a man who has been a soldier for 40 years, what do you see wrong for a man doing that, towing out a torpedo against a battleship? Tell us. I cannot understand what is wrong.
KEITEL: This is no more wrong than an attack with an aerial bomb if it is successful. I recognize that it is right, that it is a perfectly permissible attack.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, if you did not see that incident I will not go through putting the others in, as they are all just the same, men in uniform coming up to the Gironde to attack German ships. What I want to understand is this. You were a Field Marshal, standing in the boots of Blucher, Gneisenau, and Moltke. How did you tolerate all these young men being murdered, one after the other without making any protests?
KEITEL: I have stated here in detail my reasons for not making any further resistance or objection; and I cannot alter any statement now. I know that these incidents occurred and I know the consequences.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But, Field Marshal, I want you to understand this. As far as I know, in the German military code, as in every military code, there is no obligation on the part of a soldier to obey an order which he knows is wrong, which he knows is contrary to the laws of war and law. It is the same in your army, and our army, and I think in every army, isn't that so?
KEITEL: I did not personally carry out the orders of 18 October 1942. I was not present either at the mouth of the Gironde or at the attack on the battleship Tirpitz . I knew only that the order was issued, together with all the threats of punishment which made it so difficult for the commanders to alter or deviate from the order on their own initiative. You, Sir David, asked me yourself whether I considered this order to be right or to serve any useful purpose and I have given you a definite answer: that I could not have prevented the action taken at the mouth of the Gironde or in the case of Tirpitz if I had wanted to.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You see my difficulty. I have given you only two cases; there are plenty more. There are others which occurred in Italy which we have heard. The point I am putting to you is this: You were the representative; that you have told us a hundred times, of the military tradition. You had behind you an officers corps with all its...
KEITEL: No, Sir David, I must deny that. I was not responsible either for the Navy or for the Army or for the Air Force. I was not a commander; I was a Chief of Staff and I had no authority to intervene in the execution of orders in the various branches of the Armed Forces, each of which had its own Commander-in-Chief.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have heard about your staff rank, but I want to make this point perfectly clear. You were a Field Marshal, Kesselring was a Field Marshal, Milch was a Field Marshal, all, I gather, with military training behind them and all having their influence if not their command, among the Armed Forces of Germany. How was it that there was not one man of your rank, of your military tradition, with the courage to stand up and oppose cold-blooded murder? That is what I want to know.
KEITEL: I did not do it; I made no further objection to these things. I can say no more and I cannot speak for others.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, let us pass if you can say no more than that. I want to see what you did with regard to our French allies because I have been asked to deal with some matters for the French Delegation. You remember that on the Eastern Front you captured some Frenchmen who were fighting with the Russians. Do you remember making an order about that? You captured some De Gaullists, as you called them, that is Free French people who were fighting for the Russians. Do you remember your action with regard to that?
KEITEL: I recollect the transmission of a Fuehrer order in regard to the surrender of these Frenchmen to their lawful government, which was recognized by us.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is not, of course, the part of the order I want to put to you. Can you imagine anything more dreadful than taking severe measures against the mother of a young man who has helped him to go and fight with the allies of his country? Can you imagine anything more despicable?
KEITEL: I can think of many things since I have lost sons of my own in the war. I am not the inventor of this idea; it did not originate with me; I only transmitted it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You appreciate the difference, Defendant, between the point which you made and the point which I make. Losing sons in a war is a terrible tragedy. Taking severe measures against a mother of a boy who wants to go and fight for his country's allies, I am suggesting to you, is despicable. The one is a tragedy; the other is the height of brutality. Do you not agree?
KEITEL: I can only say that it does not state the consequences of the investigations and findings. I do not know.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if that is all the answer you can make I will ask you to look at something else.
KEITEL: No, I should like to add that I regret that any families were held responsible for the misdeeds of their sons.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I will not waste the time by taking up the word "misdeed." If you think that is a misdeed it is not worth our discussing it further. I just want to protest against your word. Now, let us see; that was not an isolated case. Just look at Page 110 (a) of the document book which you have, Page 122. This is an order quite early on 1 October 1941. Why were you so particular that, if you happened to arrest a democratic-bourgeois, your commanders should have a sufficient bag of democratic-bourgeois to shoot as hostages? I thought you were not a politician.
KEITEL: I was not at all particular and the idea did not originate with me; but it is in accordance with the instructions, the official regulations, regarding hostages which I discussed yesterday or on the day before and which state that those held as hostages must come from the circles responsible for the attacks. That is the explanation, or confirmation, of that as far as my memory goes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you agree with that as a course of action, that if you found a member of a democratic-bourgeois family who had been taking part in, say, sabotage or resistance, that you should shoot a number of democratic-bourgeois on his behalf? Did you approve of that?
KEITEL: I have already explained how orders for shooting hostages, which were also given, were to be applied and how they were to be carried out in the case of those deserving of death and who had already been sentenced.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am asking you a perfectly simple question, Defendant. Did you or did you not approve of a number of democratic-bourgeois to be taken as hostages, for one democratic-bourgeois who happened to be ...
KEITEL: It does not say so in the document; it says only that hostages must be taken; but it says nothing about shooting them.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would you mind looking at it since you corrected me so emphatically? Depending upon the membership of the culprit, that is, whether he is a nationalist, or a democrattc-bourgeois or Communist, "hostages of the corresponding group are to be shot in case of attacks."
KEITEL: If that is in the document then I must have signed it that way. The document referring to the conference with the commanders shows clearly how it was carried out in practice.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now answer my question. Did you approve of that?
KEITEL: I personally had different views on the hostage system, but I signed it, because I had been ordered to do so.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You say you had a different view. Will you just look at a letter from Herr Terboven, who was in charge in Norway, Document 870-PS, and it is Page 85, 71 (a), RF-281. This is a report from Terboven for the information of the Fuehrer and I want you to look at Paragraph 2, "Countereasures", Subparagraph 4. Do you see it? Have you got it, Defendant? I am sorry, I did give you the number; probably you did not hear it, 71 (a), Page 71 (a) of the document book. So sorry I did not make it clear. My. Lord, I am told that this has been put in by the French Prosecution as Exhibit RF-281. I gave it a GB number, as I recall.
THE PRESIDENT: What number is it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: RF-281. [Turning to the defendant.] Do you find Section 2, Paragraph 4? That is: Opposite the word "if I am actually allowed to perform executions by firing squads" there is the pencil note from you, "Yes, that is best." So that is a third example where I suggest that you, yourself, are approving and encouraging the shooting of next of kin for the act of some member of their family. What do you say to that, your own pencil mark?
KEITEL: I did make that marginal note. An order given in this matter was different. A reply was given which was different. I wrote that note.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is what I wanted to know. Why did you write this remark, "Yes, that is best," approving of a firing squad for relatives of people who, had committed some occupation offense in Norway? Why did you think it was best that there should be a firing squad for the relations? Why?
KEITEL: It was not done and no order to that effect was given. A different order was given.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is not what I am asking, and I shall give you one more chance of answering it. Why did you put your pencil on that document, "Yes, that is best"?
KEITEL: I am no longer in a position to explain that today, in view of the fact that I see hundreds of documents daily. I wrote it and I admit it now.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Of course, unless it means something entirely different from what you have written, it meant that you approved it yourself and thought the best course was that the relations should be shot by a firing squad. I think Your Lordship said that you wished to adjourn.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not finished, My Lord. I have a few matters for Monday morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the defendant can return to the dock, and we will proceed with the other applications. [The defendant left the stand.] Sir David, shall we deal with these applications in the same way as we have done before?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord. The first one that I have is an application on behalf of the Defendant Kaltenbrunner for a witness called Hoess, who was former Commander of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp. My Lord, there is no objection on the part of the Prosecution to that.
THE PRESIDENT: So that is the application which has to be made by a great number of the defendants' counsel.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh, yes, Your Lordship is quite right. My Lord, as Commandant of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp, the Prosecution feel that he could contribute to the information of the Tribunal, if no objection is forthcoming;
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, I see that you are among the counsel who applied for him. Is there anything you wish to add about that?
DR. STAHMER: I have nothing to add to my written application.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Then the Tribunal will consider this, you see, after you have dealt with them.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the next one is Dr. Naville. Dr. Naville was allowed as witness to the Defendant Goering, provided he can be located. He has been located in Switzerland and I understand he has informed the Tribunal that he sees no use in his coming here as a witness for Goering, and he is now asked for by Dr. Nelte, Counsel for Keitel, to prove that prisoners of war had been treated according to the rules of the Geneva Convention, Dr. Naville having been a representative of the Red Cross. Dr. Nelte, I am told, will be satisfied with an interrogatory, and the Prosecution have no objection to an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte?
DR. NELTE: That is correct; I agree, providing that I am allowed to put my questions to Dr. Naville in writing. But may I add something here, not to this application to present evidence, but with reference to another application, which I already submitted to the Prosecution through the Translation Division yesterday or the day before. My application to admit Hitler's stenographers as witnesses was rejected by the Tribunal as irrelevant. I have now received a letter and an affidavit from one of these stenographers, and in that affidavit I find a passage which refers to Keitel's attitude towards Hitler at interviews and conferences with him. Public opinion has criticized the defendants as being in the habit of quoting dead men whenever they want to say anything in their favor; and similar statements have been made in this Court. The Defendant Keitel requests that the part of the affidavit which I have already submitted and which I intend to submit, be admitted as an affidavit so that the witness can still be rejected and yet it will be possible for me to submit that passage of the affidavit with the agreement of the Prosecution.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Nelte, My Lord, will submit the passage, we will consider it, but I have not had the chance of doing it up until now.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you will carry out that course and if you want, there is no objection to it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Very well, you will let me have it, a copy of it?
DR. NELTE: Certainly.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the next application is on behalf of the Defendant Von Schirach, a request to submit an affidavit of Dr. Hans Carossa. The gist of the affidavit is that the defendant tried to keep himself independent of Party directives in matters of literature and art and that, while Gauleiter in Vienna, he repeatedly intervened on behalf of Jews and concentration camp inmates. My Lord, the Prosecution have no objection to an affidavit being filed. The next is an application on behalf of the Defendant Funk for interrogatories to be submitted to Mr. Messersmith, dealing with Funk's relation to the Party and his work in the Reich Ministry of Propaganda. My Lord, the Prosecution have no objection, but remind the Tribunal that the Defendant Funk has already, on the 15th of March, asked permission to submit another affidavit to Mr. Messersmith, dealing with Mr. Messersmith's affidavit. The Prosecution did not raise any objections, but the Tribunal has not, as far as we know, granted that yet. So I wanted the Tribunal to know there was a previous request ...
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean an affidavit or interrogatory on the 15th of March?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Interrogatories.
THE PRESIDENT: Interrogatories? Surely we must have dealt with it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, that is the information that my office had. They have not seen the ...
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In case the Tribunal had not dealt with it, we want to point out that there is one outstanding. We have no objection to either. Then the Defendant Rosenberg requests Hitler's decree to Rosenberg of June 1943. There is no objection on the part of the Prosecution. I am told that we can not trace any previous application but the position at the moment is that we haven't any objection to it. Then, My Lord, the next is Von Neurath , an application for a questionnaire for Professor Kossuth, long a resident of Prague. Really they ask for interrogatories, My Lord, there is no objection to interrogatories. Then, My Lord, there is an application in reverse, if I may put it so, from Dr. Dix on behalf of the Defendant Schacht , the downgrading of Herr Huelse, who was drafted as a witness, to an affidavit. My Lord, we have no objection to that.