dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. SEIDL: I want to ask him whether he knows Ministerial Counsellor Wille, what position he occupied in the Government General, and what kind of assistance this Dr. Wille could possibly give if he had anything at all to do with this action. 10 April
THE PRESIDENT: Well, ask him that, Dr. Seidl, if you like, but the diary has no relevance to that question at all.
DR. SEIDL: But the question can only be answered sensibly if I, Mr. President, read him the corresponding passage from the diary. Otherwise he certainly won't see the connection.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal do not see the connection, either, and the Tribunal thinks there is no point in reading the diary to him.
DR. SEIDL: That will become apparent, Mr. President. I ask to be allowed to read one more passage from the diary, namely of 12 June 1940.
THE PRESIDENT: No, Dr. Seidl. You can ask him your question, but you can't read the diary to him. You stated what the question was, whether he knew somebody held a certain position in the Government General. You can ask him that question.
DR. SEIDL: Witness, do you know Ministerial Counsellor Wille?
LAMMERS: No, I can't remember him.
DR. SEIDL: You also do not know that he was the head of the main justice division in the Government General?
LAMMERS: No; that, too, I do not remember.
DR. SEIDL: Then the one question is already settled. The second question which I had to present to the witness is related again to an entry in Frank's diary in connection with concentration camps. I can, however, also ask this question only if beforehand I can read the witness a corresponding passage from the diary.
THE PRESIDENT: Tell us what the question is.
DR. SEIDL: The question would have read, "Is the point of view expressed in the entry in Frank's diary"-which I intended to read-"the correct point of view? Does it agree with his first explanation on Monday, or is the view expressed in the passage from the diary which the Prosecution presented yesterday the correct one?"
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal think you can put the question, if you put it in the form, "Do you know what was the attitude of Frank towards concentration camps?"-if you put it in that way-"and what was it?"
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the witness has already answered this question in his direct examination. He declared that Frank held a negative attitude toward concentration camps. Yesterday, however, an excerpt was read to him from Frank's diary which could prove the opposite. However, there are dozens of entries in Frank's diary that corroborate the point of view of the witness and which contradict that which was presented by the Prosecution. I can therefore only ask the witness a sensible question if I read him something from the diary.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, all those matters can be gone into with Frank. You can prove then every passage that ended in argument; you can prove every passage in the diary which is relevant; and you can put the most necessary passages to Frank.
DR. SEIDL: The third question would have been in reference to the telegram...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, it is only a very exceptional privilege that you, as counsel for Frank, are allowed to reexamine at all, and the Tribunal have expressed the opinion to you that they do not think this is a matter on which you ought to be allowed to reexamine. The person to reexamine is the one who calls a witness in the first place. We can't allow, in ordinary cases, reexamination by everyone.
DR. SEIDL: I then renounce any further question to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire. [The witness left the stand.] And now the Tribunal wishes to have General Westhoff brought in. Sir David, could you find me the German version of General Westhoff's statement in these papers here?
SIR DAVID MAXWEL-FYFE: I looked for it, but could not find it, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: You can't find it? [The witness Westhoff took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give me your full name?
ADOLF WESTHOFF (Witness): Adolf.
THE PRESIDENT: Your full name?
WESTHOFF: Adolf Westhoff.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing. [The witness repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. General Westhoff?, you made a statement before Brigadier Shapcott or before Captain J.B. Parnell, did you not?
WESTHOFF: I do not know the captain's name. I made a statement in England.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. On the 13th of June 1945?
WESTHOFF: That is possible, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You don't know English, I suppose?
WESTHOFF: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I will read you-have the Prosecution got another copy of this document?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, Sir David, if you would follow me whilst I read it and draw my attention to any passages which are really relevant...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: it is a considerably long document, I don't wish to read it all to the witness. What the Tribunal wants to know, General Westhoff, is whether you adhere to this statement or whether you wish to make any alterations in it. And I will read to you, so that you may remember it, the material passages from the statement.
WESTHOFF: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: "I was in charge of the 'General' department (Abteilung 'Allgemein') when the shooting of the escaped R.A.F. P.W. from Stalag Luft III took place. It was the first occasion on which Feldmarschall Keitel had sent for me. I went with General Von Graevenitz. He had been sent for and I was to accompany him. A certain number of officers had escaped from the Sagan Camp." Am I going too fast? "I don't remember how many, but I believe about 80..."
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, can I be of service to the Tribunal by handing him a German translation which has been placed at my disposal by the Prosecution?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very grateful to Dr. Nelte.
THE PRESIDENT: General Westhoff, would you read that statement of yours through as quickly as you can? You will be able to see what are the really material passages, and then tell the Tribunal whether that statement is correct.
WESTHOFF: Yes.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, there is still another part of the statement which I have also received from the Prosecution. It was a very extensive compilation. May I also in addition submit this to the witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that he has not the whole document?
DR. NELTE: No, he does not have all of it yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh yes, certainly.
DR. NELTE: I received it from the Prosecution in three sections and I should now like to give him these three parts so he may have it complete.
THE PRESIDENT: The statement that we have here in English is five pages done in type, and is certified in this way: "This appendix contains an accurate translation of oral statements made to me by Major General Westhoff on 13 June 1945 in reply to questions concerning the shooting of 50 R.A.F. officers from Stalag Luft III. Dated this 23rd day of the ninth month of 1945. J. E. Parnell, Captain, Intelligence Corps." Is that on...
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I do not know whether General Westhoff was not perhaps interrogated several times. In this document he also made statements regarding the whole policy regarding prisoners of war-in other words, not only about the Sagan case. We are here concerned with a continuous report, and the witness. . .
THE PRESIDENT: The only document which is in evidence is this document which I have in my hand, which is annexed to the report of Brigadier Shapcott.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I looked at the document, the part that Dr. Nelte has. I think my German is sufficient to identify it. It is the same document. If Your Lordship will look at Page 2, Your Lordship will see the passage, "Generalinspekteur, General Roettig." My Lord, that is where it starts, and I have checked it as to the last paragraph. It is the same, "I cannot remember having received any reports...." As far as my German goes, that is the same here; so this part of the document is the last half of the document that Your Lordship has.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Yes, Dr. Nelte, and Sir David, perhaps the best course would be if Sir David put the passages upon which he relies to the witness, and the witness could then be asked whether those were accurate.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And Dr. Nelte can ask any questions that he wishes to after that. [Turning to the witness.] Witness, counsel is going to ask you questions upon this document now, so you need not go on reading.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Witness, have you had a chance of reading the first paragraph of this statement?
WESTHOFF: Yes, I have read it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And is that correct? Is that true?
WESTHOFF: There are a few things in it that are not entirely correct. For instance, on the first page there is...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Let me take it, then I read it to you, and see how far it is correct: "I was in charge of the 'General' department (Abteilung 'Allgemein') when the shooting of the escaped R.A.F. P.W. from Stalag Luft III took place." That is correct, is it not?
WESTHOFF: Here is missing the phrase, ". . . when the shooting took place." SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE Now: . "It was the first occasion on which Feldmarschall Keitel had sent for me. I went with General Von Graevenitz. He had been sent for and I was to accompany him." Is that right?
WESTHOFF: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: "A certain number of officers had escaped from the Sagan Camp. I do not remember how many, but I believe about 80." That is correct, too?
WESTHOFF: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, the next sentence: "When we entered, the 'Feldmarschall' was very excited and nervous, and said, 'Gentlemen, this is a bad business.' " Is that correct?
WESTHOFF: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then: "We were always blamed whenever P. W. escaped. We could not tie them to our apron strings!" That is your own comment. Then you go on as to what the Field Marshal said: "This morning, Goering reproached me in the presence of Himmler for having let some more P.W. escape. It was unheard of!" You go on with your comment that: "Then they must have had a row because the camp did not come under us; it was a G.A.F. camp." Is that correct, that the Field Marshal said: "This morning, Goering reproached me in the presence of Himmler for having let some more P.W. escape?"
WESTHOFF: Not in Himmler's presence, but in Hitler's presence. Hitler's presence.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It ought to be in Hitler's presence?
WESTHOFF: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, the next sentence: "All G.A.F. camps came directly under the G.A.F. itself, but the inspector of P.W. camps was in charge of all camps for inspection purposes. I was not inspector yet." We have had all that explained. I do not think that there is any dispute about the organization. I won't trouble you about that. We have gone into that in this court in some detail. Unless the Tribunal want it, I did not intend to trouble this witness again. You say, "I was not inspector yet. General Von Graevenitz was inspector, and all camps came under him in matters concerning inspection and administration." Then you say: "Goering blamed Keitel for having let those men escape. These constant escapes were a bad show. Then Himmler interfered- I can only say what the Feldmarschall told us-and he complained that he would have to provide another 60,000 or 70,000 men as 'Landwachen,' et cetera." Is that right? Did the Field Marshal say that?
WESTHOFF: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, the second paragraph: "Feldmarschall Keitel said to us, 'Gentlemen, these escapes must stop. We must set an example. We shall take very severe measures. I can only tell you that the men who have escaped will be shot; probably the majority of them are dead already.' Keitel said that to us at the conference." Is that correct?
WESTHOFF: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then you say: "We were amazed as that was a conception we had never come across before. The affair must have happened in March. We were sent to the 'Feldmarschall' in Berlin a few days after the escape, not on that account but for some other business. We knew they had escaped, and we were taken by surprise by that declaration at the conference." Then you go on again with your account of the conference: "General Von Graevenitz intervened at once and said, 'But, Sir, that is out of the question. Escape is not a dishonorable offense. That is specially laid down in the Convention.' " Is that correct, that General Von Graevenitz said these words?
WESTHOFF: General Von Graevenitz made objections with reference to the Geneva Convention, but there is missing in this report the fact that the Field Marshal said to General Von Graevenitz that this was a matter of a Fuehrer decree. That is missing here.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if you look at the next sentence that I was going to read to you, you say: "He"-that is General Von Graevenitz-"raised these objections, whereupon Keitel said, 'I do not care a damn; we discussed it in the Fuehrer's presence, and it cannot be altered.' " Is that correct?
WESTHOFF: No. The Field Marshal said, "That is a matter of indifference to me. That is a matter of indifference to me."
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think it would be easier, General, if you told the Tribunal now, to the best of your recollection, what did the Field Marshal say after General Von Graevenitz had made his objections?
WESTHOFF: I have deposed a sworn statement to the Court on that subject, which I might perhaps read: "Regarding the presence of General Von Graevenitz and myself at the headquarters in March of 1944, Field Marshal Keitel . . ."
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: General Westhoff, the Tribunal may want that later. It would be easier if you would try to stick to this statement for the moment-whether it is right or wrong at the moment-and then we will deal with any other one later on. It is just this point, if you could direct your mind to it: After General Von Graevenitz had made his objection, as you have told us, on the ground of the Convention, what did the Field Marshal say? What did he say at that point? If you would just try and do that, it would be a great help to us all.
WESTHOFF: The Field Marshal then said, "It is now a matter of indifference; we must set an example."
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I thought you said that he did mention that there was a Fuehrer decree to that effect, or a Fuehrer order, or something of that sort. Did he mention that?
WESTHOFF: That he had already said at the very beginning, that this was a matter of a Fuehrer decree.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In the next paragraph you point out in this statement-and I think it is only fair to yourself to read it it is the second sentence: "But in this case none of our men"-the men of the Wehrmacht-"had shot any of the P.W. I made inquiries at once." Then you say: "None of them had been shot by a soldier, but by Gestapo men only or else police sentries. That proves that probably Himmler-of course, I do not know whether he made the suggestion to the Fuehrer, or how they arranged it. It should be possible to find that out from Goering, who was present at the conference. Naturally, I do not know." Do you remember making these answers?
WESTHOFF: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then, you say again: "At any rate, it is a clear fact that our men did not shoot any of them; they must all have been shot by policemen." And you point out in the last sentence: "But in this particular case, only those caught by our people were brought back to the camp, that is; those caught by soldiers." Now, in the next paragraph you say that you had no authority to give the police orders, and you repeat that the members of the Wehrmacht did not shoot any of them. And then in the third sentence you say: "I had a report sent me at once, and told General Von Graevenitz, 'Sir, the only thing we can do is to see that no dirty business is carried out where we are in charge."' Is that right: Does that correctly describe what you did, General?
WESTHOFF: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you go on to say, a sentence or two later, that you were faced with a fait accompli; and then you say, after repeating General Von Graevenitz's protests to Field Marshal Keitel, when he had said, "That's quite impossible, we cannot shoot any people" "How the shooting was carried out I heard from the representative of the protecting power, Herr Naville, of Switzerland." Is that right?
WESTHOFF: No.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: How did you hear of the shooting?
WESTHOFF: I turned to the Gestapo and wanted the particulars of the shootings for the Foreign Office, and I did not get them. The representative of Switzerland, Herr Naville, whom I had sent to the camp, visited me on his return, and from him I learned the only thing that I ever heard about this matter, namely, that apparently a prisoner of war who had returned to the camp had seen that the escaped airmen had been driven out of the Gorlitz Prison on a truck heavily chained and under strong guard. That is the only thing I learned about this affair at all, and I have up to now not found out in what way these airmen perished. The Gestapo refused to inform me of this.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But it is correct that generally what information you did receive you received from the representative of the protecting power. I don't know if you remember whether his name was Naville or not. But it is right, isn't it?
WESTHOFF: I did not understand the question.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What information you did receive-you tell us that it was very lithe-you received from the representative of Switzerland, of the protecting power. Is that right?
WESTHOFF: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, I want to deal with the next bit in the statement where you tried to get in touch with the Foreign Office, and if you look down the paragraph you will see that you say: "At any rate, we did not get any news, and so it was pointed out to the Field Marshal that such a state of affairs was impossible, that we had to get in communication with the Foreign Office. Then he emphatically stated that it was forbidden to get in touch with the Foreign Office." Is that correct?
WESTHOFF: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will read on, two sentences: "Then the affair was raised in the House of Commons in England, and then a note was sent by our side. Then I was quite suddenly called up by Admiral Burckner of the Foreign Department (Amtsgruppe Ausland) in the OKW, which keeps contact with the Foreign Of lice. He called me up by telephone at night and said, 'The Feldmarschall has given me orders to prepare an answer for England immediately. What is it all about? I don't know anything about the case.' I said, To 'Herr Admiral, I am sorry, but General Von Graevenitz received strict orders not to talk to anyone about it. Nothing was allowed to be put down in writing either. Apart from that, we ourselves were faced with an accomplished fact. This order was apparently issued by Himmler, and the position was such that we could do nothing more at all about it." Is that a correct account?
WESTHOFF: Here again the word "Himmler" stands where the word "Hitler" should stand.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That should be Hitler. Apart from that, that is correct? I mean, in substance is that a correct account of the conversation between Admiral Burckner and yourself?
WESTHOFF: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You then go on to say that Admiral Burkner wanted you to tell him about the affair; that you only knew what the gentlemen from Switzerland had told you; and that you had made various attempts to approach the Gestapo. And then, if you look at just before the end of that paragraph: "Then the Foreign Office itself got into touch and took charge of this affair. Then another of my men, Lieutenant Colonel Krafft, went to Berchtesgaden while I was on a journey. At that time a note to England was to be prepared. Then, when we read this note to England in the newspaper, we were all absolutely taken aback. We all clutched our heads. Mad! We could do nothing about the affair." Is that correct? Did you say that, and is that correct?
WESTHOFF: The matter was then turned over to the Foreign Office, and the Foreign Office was charged with the preparation of a note to England. At this discussion Lieutenant Colonel Krafft was apparently called in as a specialist for the Sagan case to clarify any doubts, if such were still at hand. That is not to mean at all, however, that Lieutenant Colonel Krafft was in any way concerned with the preparation of the note; that was purely a matter for the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office had only called him in so that, if there were still any doubts about the matter, they could be clarified on the spot.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, General, the next part of the statement I did not intend to read unless the Tribunal wanted it, because you are making quite clear that in your opinion the Inspector General, General Roettig, had nothing to do with the affair at all. And if you accept it from me that that is the substance of the next two paragraphs, I won't trouble you with it in detail. You are making clear that General Roettig had nothing to do with it. Is that right?
WESTHOFF: No.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I am sorry. If you will look at the first sentence-I thought it represented it fairly. Look at the first sentence: "Generalinspekteur General Roettig had nothing to do with it, nothing at all. He did not have any hand in the affair at all. He was completely excluded from it by the fact that these matters were taken out of his hands, apparently at that conference with the Fuehrer in the morning, that is to say, the conference between Himmler, Field Marshal Keitel, and Goering, which took place in the Fuehrer's presence." Is that right? I only wanted to put it shortly that you were trying to, and quite rightly if it is true, to give your view that General Roettig had nothing to do with it. Is that right, that is, that sentence I read to you? Did you say, "yes"?
WESTHOFF: The Inspector General was responsible for measures to prevent escape, but had nothing to do with this matter.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is no difference between us. That is what I was suggesting. Now, I'd like you to look at the next paragraph. It also deals with General Roettig. Then, after that, you explain the position of the officers. You say this: "I only know an order existed that only officers, and, I believe, only those who were caught by the Gestapo, should be handed over to them." Then you say-you talk about intelligence-I don't want to trouble you about that. Then, if you would look at the next paragraph: "I received a report from the camp saying so and so many men had been shot whilst attempting to escape. I did not hear from the Gestapo at all. It is like this. The reports ate sent to the camp. Then the camp informed us that a certain number of men had been recaptured and a certain number shot. Things are reported in that way. The Gestapo sent me no information whatsoever; they merely told us casually whenever we made inquiries, that they had recaptured a certain number." Now the next sentence I want you to look at carefully: "The Field Marshal gave us detailed instructions to publish a list at the camp, giving the names of those shot, as a warning. That was done. That was a direct order which we could not disobey." Is that correct?
WESTHOFF: It was ordered that a list of all those who were shot be posted up in the camp as a warning.