at Yale Law School at Yale Law SchoolSIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief for the United Kingdom): I want to ask you some questions about the shooting of officers who escaped from Sagan Camp. As I understand your evidence, very shortly after the escape you had this interview with Hitler at which certainly Himmler was present. That is right, isn't it?
WILHELM KEITEL (Defendant): The day after the escape this conference took place with the Fuehrer and with Himmler.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. Now, you say that at that conference Hitler said that the prisoners were not to be returned to the Wehrmacht but to remain with the police. They were really your words. That is right, isn't it?
KEITEL: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is what you said. So that is what you say took place. In your own mind you were satisfied when you left that conference that these officers were going to be shot, were you not?
KEITEL: No, that I was not.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE Now, will you agree with this? You were satisfied that there was a grave probability that these officers would be shot?
KEITEL: As I rode home I had a subconscious concern about it. It was not expressed at the conference.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then you sent for General Von Graevenitz and General Westhoff, did you not?
KEITEL: Yes, that is correct.
SIR DAVID MAXWELLL-FYFE: I don't know if you can remember, because General Westhoff was a comparatively junior officer compared with yourself, but he says that it was the first occasion on which you had sent for him. Does your memory bear that out?
KEITEL: No, I did not call him. But he had been brought along to be introduced to me. I did not know him. I had summoned only General Von Graevenitz.
1
8 April 45
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You had never met him before? Do you agree that you had never met General Westhoff before, since he had come into that job?
KEITEL: I had never seen him before.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is what he said. Now you agree, as I understand your evidence, that you were very excited and nervous?
KEITEL: Yes, I vented my disagreement and my excitement very strongly.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So that you agree with General Westhoff that you said something to this effect, "Gentlemen, this is a bad business" or "This is a very serious matter" or something of that kind?
KEITEL: Yes, I said, "That is an enormously serious matter."
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, General Westhoff said, in the next sentence, what you said was, "This morning Goering reproached me in the presence of Himmler for having let some more prisoners of war escape. It was unheard of."
KEITEL: That must be a mistake on Westhoff's part. It was a day later. We were then at Berchtesgaden and Generals Von Graevenitz and Westhoff called on Seethe next morning. And it must also be a mistake that I mentioned the name of the Reich Marshal Goering in this connection.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So you were not very sure about that, were you, as to whether or not Goering was present. You were not very sure, were you?
KEITEL: I only became uncertain about it when in a preliminary interrogation I was told that witnesses had stated that Goering was present; thereupon I said it is not completely impossible but that I did not recall it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, to put it quite right, when you were interrogated, an American officer put exactly the sentence that I put to you now. He put that sentence to you from General Westhoff's statement. Do you remember that he read what I have read to you now? "Gentlemen, this is a bad business; this morning Goering reproached me in the presence of Himmler for having let some more prisoners of war escape. It was unheard of." Do you remember the interrogator put that to you? Didn't he?
KEITEL: It was something like that at the preliminary interrogation, but I said that I was not certain that Goering was present.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I was going to put exactly what you said and you listen carefully, and if you have any disagreement, tell the Tribunal. You said, "I request that you interrogate
2
8 April 46
Jodl about the whole incident and the attitude which I displayed during the whole conference in the presence of Goering, of whose presence during that conference I am not absolutely certain, but Himmler was there." That was your view when you were interrogated on the 10th of November, wasn't it? You said, ". . . during the whole conference in the presence of Goering, of whose presence I am not absolutely certain...." That was your view on the 10th of November?
KEITEL: There must have been some misinterpretation in the minutes, which I never read. I expressed my uncertainty about the presence of Goering and in the same connection put the request to interrogate General Jodl about it, since, in my opinion, I was not sure that Goering was not present.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You agree that you did ask that General Jodl should be interrogated?
KEITEL: I made that proposal, yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, what do you complain about as to the next sentence? ". . . during the whole conference in the presence of Goering, of whose presence during that conference I am not absolutely certain...." Wasn't that your view?
KEITEL: Yes, I was rather surprised at this interrogation and when I was told that witnesses had confirmed that Goering had been present I was a little uncertain in this matter and asked that General Jodl be interrogated. In the meantime it became entirely clear to me that Goering was not present and that I was right as I had at first said.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Had you discussed it with Goering while you were both awaiting trial?
KEITEL: After my interrogations I had the occasion to speak with Reich Marshal Goering and he told me, "But you must know that I was not there," and then I remembered fully.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, as you say, the Reich Marshal said to you he had not been present at the interview. That is right, is it not?
KEITEL: General Jodl also confirmed to me Reich Marshal Goering was not present.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE Well now, did you tell General Von Graevenitz and General Westhoff that Himmler had interfered and that he had complained that he would have to provide another 60 to 70 thousand men for the Landwache? Did you tell them that?
KEITEL: No, that is also a misinterpretation. I did not say that. It is not correct.
3
8 April 46
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You said that Himmler had interfered.
KEITEL: I said only that Himmler had reported the fact of the escape and I intended not to report it to Hitler on that day, since a number of escapees had been returned to the camp. I did not intend to report to the Fuehrer on that day.
SIR DAVID MAXWEL-FYFE: Now, whatever you said to General Von Graevenitz, you agree that General Von Graevenitz protested and said, "Escape is not a dishonorable offense. That is specially laid down in the Convention." Did he not say that?
KEITEL: Yes, it is true he said that. But I would like to add that the statement of General Westhoff is a reminiscence which goes back over several years.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, but you agree, as I understand your evidence, that General Von Graevenitz did make a protest about the action that was taken, is not that so?
KEITEL: Yes, he did so.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And then when he made the protest did you say words to this effect? I am reading of course from General Westhoff's statement, "I do not care a damn. We discussed it in the Fuehrer's presence, and it cannot be altered." Did you say words to that effect?
KEITEL: No, it was not like that, but I do believe I said something similar.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Similar?
KEITEL: But we are not concerned with...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Similar, to that effect?
KEITEL: I said something similar.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And after that did you say that your organization, the Kriegsgefangenenwesen, were to publish a notice in the prison camps where prisoners of war are held, telling all prisoners of war what action had been taken in this case, in order that it would be deterrent to other escapes?
Did you instruct these generals, your heads of the Prisoners of War Organization, to publish a notice in the camps saying what action had been taken in order to act as a deterrent?
KEITEL: I gave this due consideration while reading a report by the British Government and I came to the conclusion that there must be some confusion as to when I gave these instructions. I am sure I did not do so at this conference. That was later, several days later.
4
8 April 46
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, you will find it is stated in the statement of General Westhoff that we put in, at the bottom of Page 3. General Westhoff says:
"The Field Marshal gave us detailed instructions to publish a list at the camps, giving the names of those shot as a warning. That was done. That was a direct order that we could not disobey."
And in the statement which your counsel has put in, General Westhoff says:
"This must stop. We cannot allow this to happen again. The officers who have escaped will be shot. I must inform you that most of them are already dead and you will publish a notice in the prison camps where prisoners of war are held telling all prisoners of war what action has been taken in this case in order that it will be a deterrent to other escapes."
KEITEL: May I make a statement to this?
DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): The British Prosecutor is referring to a document, which I submitted in my document book. I assume that is correct. And it is a document which the French Prosecution wanted to submit and to which I objected, since it is a compilation of interrogations which Colonel Williams prepared. I submitted this document so as to furnish proof at the hearing of General Westhoff that this document does not agree in 23 points with the testimony given by him. He has gives me the necessary information. But he will first be in the witness box tomorrow. I therefore ask, if the British Prosecutor appeals to the Witness Westhoff, to produce at least his statement, which he made under oath at the request of the American prosecutor Colonel Williams. This affidavit up to now has not been produced, whereas all other pieces of evidence from him contain only reports which have never been submitted to Westhoff for his signature, or for his acknowledgement, nor have been confirmed by his oath.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My point was to make quite clear that I was not putting anything in from the first statement which was not contained in the defendant's document book. I thought that the complaint would be the other way, that if I took our own evidence alone that then it would be said that it is slightly different, for the difference is immaterial from the documents submitted in the defendant's document book. I have carefully collated them both. There is practically no difference between them but I thought it was only fair to put both sets of words.
THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): The Tribunal thinks the cross-examination is perfectly proper. Of course if Dr. Nelte does call General Westhoff as a witness, he will be able
5
8 April
to get from him any corrections which General Westhoff thinks are necessary, which he makes to the affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
[Turning to the defendant.] Now, what I want to know is: Did you give orders to General Von Graevenitz and General Westhoff that it was to be published in the camps as to what measures had been taken with regard to these officers?
KEITEL: Yes, but several days later; not on the same day that these officers were with me.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: How long later?
KEITEL: I believe 3 or 4 days later, but I can no longer tell you exactly; in any event, not before I found out that shootings had taken place.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, 3 or 4 days later would be just when the shootings were beginning, but what was published? What did you say was to be published as to the measures that had been taken?
KEITEL: In the camp a warning was to be published. In my opinion, we were not to mention shootings but only warn that those caught in flight would not be returned to the camp. I cannot remember the exact wording. It was traceable to an order which I had received from the Fuehrer resulting from a conference I had with him on the matter of shootings.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, is this a fair way to put your recollection of the order: That it was probable, according to your recollection, that those who attempted to escape would be handed over to the SD and, certainly, that very severe measures would be taken? Is that a fair way of putting your recollection of the order?
KEITEL: My recollection is that a warning, that is a threat, was to be published to the effect that those who attempted to escape would not be returned to the camp. That was the contents of this publication, according to my recollection, which I then forwarded. I myself did not word it. Besides, only the administration of the camp, or rather the Luftwaffe were to be notified.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, General Westhoff was not content with an oral order and came back to you with a draft order in writing, did he not?
KEITEL: I do not believe that he came to me. I believe he sent me this.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You. I am sorry, but when I said "came back to you," I was talking generally; you are quite right
6
8 April 46
that he passed on for your consideration a draft order in writing for you to approve; that is right, isn't it?
KEITEL: I do not believe that it was an order; but as far as I remember it was just a memorandum, a note. However, I must add that I was first reminded of this matter in the course of the interrogation by Colonel Williams.
SIR DAVID MAXWEL-FYFE: Well, what General Westhoff says, is:
"Contrary to Feldmarschall Keitel's order, I pretended that I had not understood properly. I worked the thing out on paper. I said to ObersMeutnant Kraffl I want to have the word "shoot" included, so that Keitel can see it in writing. He may adopt a different attitude then."'
Now, this is a bit later:
"When I got the thing back, he had written the following in the margin: 'I did not definitely say "shoot"; I said "hand over to the police or hand to the Gestapo." ' "
Then adds General Westhoff:
"So, that was a partial climb down."
Now, did you put a note on it: "I did not definitely say 'shoot'; I said 'hand over to the police or hand over to the Gestapo.'" Did you?
KEITEL: I cannot remember the exact wording of the note-as little as General Westhoff. But I did make a notation in the margin to the effect: "I did not say 'shoot'..."
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You see the point that I'm putting to you, Defendant? I want you to have it perfectly clear. Rightly or wrongly, General Westhoff believed that you had inserted the word "shoot"; and General Westhoff, to protect himself, put it back to you; and then you say, "I did not definitely say 'shoot'; I said 'hand over to the SD or the Gestapo."'
KEITEL: No, I did not say "shoot" either, but Colonel Williams said I had written in the margin, "I did not say 'shoot."' That is on record in the minutes of my interrogation.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, what I want to know --and it is perfectly clear-is, do you deny that that in substance represents what you put in the document: "I did not definitely say 'shoot'; I said, 'hand over to the police or hand over to the Gestapo"'? Did you put words to that effect on the document?
KEITEL: It is probable that I wrote something similar to that for I wanted to make clear what I had said to those two officers. What I said was nothing new, but it was a clarification of what I had said.
7
8 April 46
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, the next point that I want to direct your attention to: Had you an officer on your staff called Oberst Von Reurmont, on your PW staff, Kriegsgefangenenwesen?
KEITEL: No, he was never on my staff.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What was his position in the OKW?
KEITEL: I believe there was a Colonel Reurmont. He was a department chief and had nothing to do with the prisoner-of-war system; he was department chief in the general Wehrmacht office.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In your office.
KEITEL: In the office, in the general Wehrmacht office under General Reinecke, yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you know that on 27 March, that is on a Monday, there was a meeting, in which Colonel Von Reurmont took the chair, attended by Gruppenfuehrer Muller from the Gestapo, Gruppenfuehrer Nebe, and Colonel Wilde from the Air Ministry, from their PW inspector of 17; do you know that?
KEITEL: No, I never heard anything about it. It has remained entirely unknown to me.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Are you telling the Tribunal that you had this colonel in your office, a colonel from the Air Ministry, two extremely important officials from the police, and they have a meeting to discuss this matter 2 days after you had your first meeting, 1 day after you had seen Von Graevenitz and Westhoff, and you did not know a word about it?
KEITEL: No, I knew nothing about this meeting. I cannot remember.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, most of us are very familiar with the working of service departments. I do ask you in fairness to yourself to consider this. Are you telling this Tribunal that no report was ever made to you of that joint meeting between the representative of the OKW, high police officials, and the Air Ministry? And it never came up to you? Now, really think before you answer.
KEITEL: I cannot remember even with the best of my will. I was surprised by the communication about this conference, and I can remember nothing about it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you know that-I put it in Colonel Welder's statement when I was cross-examining the Defendant Goering-he said that at that conference it was announced that these officers were to be shot and that many of them had been shot? Did no report come to you that these officers were being shot and were to be shot?
8
8 April 46
KEITEL: No, not on the 27th. It was already discussed a while ago, when I received the first report. At that time I knew nothing about it; on that day, or even on the day following this conference.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You agreed, though, that you got to learn, as I understand you, that they were being shot on the 29th; that would be a Thursday?
KEITEL: I can no longer say what day, but I do remember that it was later. I believe it was several days later.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, let us, Defendant, make every point in your favor. Let us take it that it was, say, Saturday the 31st, or even Monday, the 2d of April. By Monday, the 2d of April-that is 9 days after the escape-you knew then that these officers were being shot?
KEITEL: I heard about it during these days, perhaps around the 31st, through the Fuehrer's adjutancy when I again came to the Berghof for a situation briefing. I was not told though, that all of these officers had been shot; some of them had been shot while attempting to flee. I was told that a little before the beginning of the conference.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They were not all shot until the 13th of April, which was nearly another fortnight. Were you told of the manner, in which they got out of the cars to relieve themselves and were then shot in the back of the head by someone with a revolver? Were you told of that?
KEITEL: No, I found out only through the adjutant that a report had been given to the Fuehrer that shootings had followed the escape.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I want you to come to one other point, later on. You remember that my colleague, Mr. Eden, on behalf of the British Government, made a statement in the House of Commons later on, toward the end of June. Remember that?
KEITEL: Yes. I recall that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And is it correct, as General Westhoff said, that you had told your officers not to make contact with the Foreign Office or the Gestapo, to leave this matter alone and not try and find out anything about it? Is that right?
KEITEL: I told them that since the Wehrmacht was not concerned with the means of searching for and catching the escapees, nor concerned with what happened afterwards, the office for the prisoner-of-war matters could not give any information on this subject as it did not deal with the matter itself and did not know what had really happened. That is what I said.
9
8 April 46
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then the answer is, yes, that you did tell your office to leave the matter alone and not to get in touch with the Foreign Office or the police?
KEITEL: No, that is not quite right. The chief of the Amt Ausland was connected with the Foreign Office.. I only instructed that the officers should not give any information about this case or any matters connected with it, since they had not participated and knew only from hearsay what had happened.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought that my previous question-you just repeated the effect of my previous question; I won't argue with you. I will come to the next point. You had an officer on your staff named Admiral Burckner, didn't you?
KEITEL: Yes, he was chief of the Amt Ausland.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He was liaison between your office and the Foreign Office?
KEITEL: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, did you give him orders to prepare an answer to England, an answer to Mr. Eden's statement?
KEITEL: It is possible that I told him that, even though he could not receive any particulars from the offices of the Wehrmacht.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I don't want to read it again; I read the reply a day or two ago. But eventually the reply was drawn up, I think, by the Foreign Of lice in conjunction with Oberstleutnant Krafit of your office, wasn't it?
KEITEL: No, at that time...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Don't you remember Krafit...
KEITEL: I gave instructions that the answer. was to be dealt with by the RSHA but not by the prisoner-of-war department. I did not give any instructions to Lieutenant Colonel Krafit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But didn't he go to Berchtesgaden to assist the representative of the Foreign Office and Hitler in drawing up a reply?
KEITEL: I do not know. I did not speak with him nor did I see him.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You know that when they saw the reply, according to General Westhoff, all your officers touched their heads and said, "Mad." You have seen that statement, haven't you, "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." All your officers and you, yourself, knew the reply was an utter and confounded lie. Wasn't it a complete and utter lie? You all knew it.
10
8 April 46
KEITEL: They all knew it. I, too, learned of the reply; and it was clear to me that it was not based on the truth.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So that it comes to this, Defendant, doesn't it-that you will go as far as this: You were present at the meeting with Hitler and Himmler. That is what you say. At that meeting Hitler said that the prisoners who were caught by the police were to remain in the hands of the police. You had a strong probability that these prisoners would be shot and with that you used this incident as a deterrent to try and prevent other prisoners of war escaping. All that you admit, as I understand your answers this morning, don't you?
KEITEL: Yes, I do admit; but I have not been interrogated on this matter as to just what my position was with Hitler, and I have not testified as to that, and that I did not give this warning, but that this warning was an order of Hitler and was the cause for another severe collision between Hitler and me when the first report of shootings reached me. That is how it was.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I won't go through the details again.
One other point: When did you learn of the use of cremation and the sending of cremation urns to this camp?
KEITEL: This remained unknown to me and I do not recall ever having heard of it. The matter was afterwards purely a concern of the Luftwaffe, in which I was later involved, through my simple presence; I do not know whether I ever heard or saw anything about this.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But you will agree with me, Defendant, that anyone in the world who has had to deal with prisoner-of-war problems would be horrified at the thought of bodies of shot officers being cremated; it is simply asking for trouble, isn't it, from the protecting powers and everyone else, to put it at its lowest? You will agree with that; I am sure you have had a good deal more to do with prisoners of war than I. Don't you agree it would horrify anyone who has to deal with prisoners of war that bodies should be cremated-that the protecting powers at once would be put on suspicion?
KEITEL: I am entirely of the same opinion that it is horrible.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And if any service finds that its camps are receiving 50 urns of ashes of cremated bodies of escaped prisoners of war, that would be a most serious matter which would be taken to the highest ranks of any service, isn't that so?
KEITEL: Yes, even though I had nothing to do with the prisoner-of-war camps of the Luftwaffe apart from having inspectional powers.
11
8 April 46
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I won't ask you further about the Luftwaffe. Now I think we can deal quite shortly with the question of the lynching of Allied airmen.
[Documents were handed to the defendant and also to the Tribunal.]
Now, Defendant, I would like to remind you that there was a report of a conference on the 6th of June, Document 735-PS, which has been put in against the Defendant Ribbentrop; it is a report of General Warlimont, Exhibit GB-151, with regard to the criteria to be adopted for deciding what were terror-fliers. You must remember the document, because you yourself dealt on Friday with the note...
KEITEL: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: . . . against legal procedure, which you already dealt with.
KEITEL: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you said during your evidence-you remember you told us why you did not want legal procedure: Because it was a difficult problem for a court-martial to decide and also it meant a 3-month delay in reporting the death sentence to the protecting powers.
KEITEL: Yes, I did make those statements.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And then you said that you had a discussion with Goering, who said that lynching should be turned down. Do you remember saying that on Friday.
KEITEL: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE Now, that was not accurate, was it? Because I want to just show you what did happen. That document which you annotated was the 6th of June. And on the 14th of June...
KEITEL: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: . . . it is Document D-774, which will be Exhibit GB-307, initialed Warlimont-your office sent a draft letter to the Foreign Office for the attention of Hitter, sending on this formulation of what were terror-fliers. And if you look it over it says that it is necessary to formulate, unambiguously, the concept of the facts which are to constitute a criminal act. And then the draft letter, Document D-775, Exhibit GB-308, to the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, for the attention of Colonel Von Brauchitsch, which says that:
"On the basis of the preliminary talks and in agreement with the Reich Foreign Minister and the head of the Security Police
12
8 April 46
and SD"-the Defendant Kaltenbrunner-"the following facts are to be considered terroristic acts which are to be taken into consideration when publishing a case of lynch law or which justify the handing of enemy airmen from the Air Force Reception Camp of Oberursel to the SD for special treatment."
And then you set out what was agreed and you say:
"Please obtain the consent of the Reich Marshal to this formulation of the facts and, if necessary, give the Commandant of the Air Force Reception Camp of Oberursel verbal instructions to act accordingly.
"It is further requested that you obtain the Reich Marshal's consent also to the procedure intended for the handling of public announcements."
And then if you look at Document D-776, Exhibit GB-309, that is a letter from you to the Foreign Office, a draft letter for the attention of Ritter, dated the 15th of June, to the same effect. You ask him to confirm by the 18th. And then Document D-777, Exhibit GB-310, is a similar draft letter to Goering, marked for the attention of Colonel Von Brauchitsch and asking him to reply by the 18th. Then Document D-778, Exhibit GB-311, records a telephone call from Hitter saying that the Foreign Office will have to delay a couple of days in giving their view. Document D-779, Exhibit GB-312, gives the first note from the Defendant Goering. It says on 19 June:
"The Reich Marshal has made the following notes with regard to the above letter:
"The population's reaction is, in any case, not in our hands; but, if possible, the population must be prevented from acting against other enemy fliers"-I ask you to note the word "other," that is, enemy fliers that do not come within the category of enemy terror-fliers-"to whom the above state of affairs does not apply. In my opinion, a state of affairs as above can also"-and I ask you to note the word "also" -"at any time be tried by a court, as it is here a question of murders which the enemy has forbidden his fliers to commit." Then, in Document D-780, Exhibit GB-313, there is another copy of the memorandum from the Foreign Office which I read in some detail when I was presenting the case against the Defendant Ribbentrop; and it is interspersed with comments of your officer, General Warlimont, in general agreement with the memorandum. I do not want to go through that again.
Then, in Document D-781, Exhibit GB-314, your office wanted to get quite clear what the Defendant Goering meant, so you write to him again for the attention of Von Brauchitsch:
13
8 April 46
"It is unfortunately not possible to gather from your letter whether the Reich Marshal has concurred with the facts communicated to him, which in the publication of a case of lynch law are to be regarded as terroristic actions, and whether he is prepared to give the Commandant of the Air Force Reception Camp of Oberursel the verbal instructions to this effect. "It is again requested that the Reich Marshal be induced to give his consent and that this office be notified if possible, by the 27 instant."
Then, just passing along, Document D-782, Exhibit GB-315-it says that the Foreign Minister will reply in a day or two; and in Document D-783 of the 26th, that will be Exhibit GB-316, comes the answer, a telephone memorandum, a telephone call, adjutant's office of the Reich Marshal, Captain Brauner:
"The Reich Marshal agrees with the formulation of the concept of terror-fliers as stated and with the proposed procedure. He asks for information this very day about measures taken."
So it is not right, is it, Defendant, that Defendant Goering disagreed with the procedure? Here is a call from his adjutant's office -and it is noted by your office-saying that he agrees with the formulation of the concept and with the proposed procedure. This must be right, must it not?
KEITEL: Yes. I had never seen this document; but I understand, under the applied measures, transfer to the Oberursel camp for Air Force prisoners of war, not lynch law. Perhaps I may add something about the discussion I had with the Reich Marshal...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is quite clear. I am not going through the correspondence again. I pointed it out as we went along. Your letters are saying both lynching and the measures to be taken for the publication of lynching and the other procedure of segregating these people in the hands of the SD, pending confirmation of suspicion of terror-fliers. It is quite clear. I have taken you through nearly 10 letters in which it is stated implicitly that it is put to the Reich Marshal on both these points, publication of lynching and segregation from other prisoners of war. He is saying, "I agree with the proposed procedure."
KEITEL: May I add something?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, do.
KEITEL: I recall very distinctly my discussion with Reich Marshal Goering at the Berghof. We waited for Hitler who was to give a speech to the generals. This must have been at about the same time. In this discussion two points were mentioned. Point one was the conception of the desired or how should I say of the planned
14
- 8 April 46
or the conceived lynch law. The second question was that my influence with Hitler had not been strong enough to definitely settle this matter. These two points I talked over with Goering that day. We established that the entire method discussed here should be the prerequisite for the free use of lynch law, that we agreed that as soldiers we rejected it; and secondly, I asked him most urgently to use his influence with Hiker so that he might desist from such measures. This discussion took place at the Berghof in the anteroom of the hall where Hitler addressed the generals. I remember this very distinctly.
I just looked over the correspondence which was exchanged all along. I only recognize certain fragments. They deal with the deliberations on a measure desired by Hitler which, thank goodness, never was adopted, as corresponding orders were not issued.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would you look at the next document, Document D-784, Exhibit GB-317. That is a note from General Warlimont to you. Paragraph 1 says that the Foreign Office has agreed; Ambassador Ritter telephoned on the 29th that the Reich Foreign Minister has agreed to this draft. Paragraph 2 says:
"The Reich Marshal is in agreement with the formulation of the concept of 'terror-flier' as proposed by the OKW and with the method suggested."
That is sent to you, and on it there is a penciled note, initialed by Warlimont:
"We must act at last. What else is necessary for this?"
Didn't you act on it?
KEITEL: No.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then, why...
KEITEL: As a matter of fact...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then why, if you did not act on it, were you asking the Luftwaffe, 4 days later if they had given instructions to the camp at Oberursel? Look at Document D-785, Exhibit GB-318.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, it appears to be initialed by the defendant-D-784.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My copy is initialed "W", Warlimont.
THE PRESIDENT: D-784, on the copy I have, is initialed "K" at the top, alongside Warlimont's note.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh, yes. I am sorry, My Lord. The fault is entirely mine. My Lord is quite right.
15
8 April 46
[Turning to the defendant.] So, before I pass from D-784, that was submitted to you and initialed by you?
KEITEL: No, I only put my "K" on Document D-784 to show that I saw it. I wrote nothing on it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But the document was submitted to you, and so you did see that document? You knew that both the Foreign Office and Goering were agreeing to this procedure being adopted?
KEITEL: I read it. I wrote "K" on it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And 4 days later, in D-785, your department is asking Goering through Von Brauchitsch as to whether they have been carried out:
"Please report whether instructions have been given to the Commandant of the Air Force Reception Camp of Oberursel in the sense of the statements of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, Operational Staff, of 15 June, or when it is intended to do so."
KEITEL: I have not seen this document before, but it seems to me to confirm the accuracy of my viewpoint, that in these inquiries to the Reich Marshal the transfer to Oberursel was the only point in question and not whether he wanted lynch law, approved it, or whether he considered it as right. That seems to be quite obvious from this question. I do not know anything about the question itself.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Please look at Document D-786, Exhibit GB-319. You were going beyond that the next day. This is the 5th of July. It is actually a report of the meeting on 4th July. It says that Hitler decreed the following:
"According to press reports, the Anglo-Americans intend in the future to attack from the air small places, too, which are of no importance militarily or to the war economy, as a retaliatory measure against the 'V-1'. Should this news prove true, the Fuehrer wishes it to be made known through the radio and the press that any enemy airman who takes part in such an attack and is shot down will not be entitled to be treated as a prisoner of war, but, as soon as he falls into German hands, will be treated as a murderer and killed. This measure is to apply to all attacks on small places which are not military targets, communications centers, armament targets, and the like, and therefore, are not of importance to the conduct of war.
"At the moment nothing is to be ordered; the only thing to be done is to discuss such a measure with the Wi. Ru and the Foreign Office."
16
8 April 46
So that, far from modifying the matter, you were increasing the severity of the measures to be taken, that is to say, Hitler is increasing the severity of the measures to be taken.
KEITEL: I do not remember this; but if that note was made at that time, something like that must have been mentioned by him in this conference, but I do not remember the incident.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I only want to put this point to you. You have said twice, on Friday and again today, that no order of the Wehrmacht had been issued. It would not need an order of the Wehrmacht to encourage the population to lynch fliers who had crashed. All that would be required to produce that result would be to hold off the police from arresting people who murdered them, would it not? You would not need an order of the Wehrmacht to encourage your population to murder fliers who had crashed, would you?
KEITEL: No, there was only the Wehrmacht which exclusively had the right to take a shot-down or landed airman into custody, and protect him against lynching of the population, and prevent anything like that from happening.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You will agree with me that once an American or British airman was handed over to the SD, his chance of survival would not be-what-one in a million? He would be killed, would he not?
KEITEL: I did not know it then; I only heard it here. I did not know it at the time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You will agree that that was in fact what happened; when an airman was handed over to the SD, he would be killed, would he not? That is what would happen?
KEITEL: I did not know that it was so, but in this...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not saying what you believe. Now we know what. would happen?
KEITEL: No.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You have told us several times that you did not know anything about the SD. In fact, at one time, you were a sort of a court of appeal from the SD in France, were you not? You confirmed the killings by the SD in France, did you not?
KEITEL: I do not recall that I should have made any regulation.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: French Exhibit, Document Number RF-1244. I am afraid that I do not have a German copy, but this is what it says:
17
8 April 46
"Paris, 6 August 1942.
"In the criminal proceedings against the French citizens:
"(1) Jean Marechal, born on 15 October 1912.
"(2) Emmanuel Thepault, born on 4 June 1916.
"Field Marshal Keitel, acting within the powers given to him on 26 and 27 June 1942 by the Fuehrer in his office as Commander-in-Chief of the Army, has refused to pardon these two men condemned to death and has ordered that the sentences should be executed within the scope of the general punishments."
They were condemned by the Tribunal de la Feldcommandantur at Evreux, and this was sent to the Commandant de la Police de Surete et du SD-sent to the Commandant of the Police of the Surete and of the SD. Does that not show that you were dealing with a confirmation of sentences of death and passing on your confirmation to the SD?
KEITEL: This entire incident is an enigma to me. It happened in several cases that the Fuehrer, to whom I submitted all decisions which, as Supreme Commander, he had to ratify-that I may have put the signature, "By order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Keitel." By order-that might have been possible, otherwise I know nothing about it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, it does not look like that. Let me remind you of the words, "Marechal Keitel, dans le cadre des pouvoirs qui lui ont ete donnes les 26 et 27 Juin 1942." That date. It is acting within the powers given to you by the Fuehrer. Had you not been given the powers?
KEITEL: No, I did not have any such powers in that case. That is a mistake. However, I may have put a signature, "By order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Keitel, Field Marshal."
THE PRESIDENT: Are you passing from that?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I was going to pass on.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, isn't Document D-775 relevant to that? The last line of the first paragraph
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE My Lord, I am very grateful to you.
THE PRESIDENT: D-775. As I understand it, the defendant was saying that he did not know what would necessarily happen to these prisoners if they were handed over to the SD. Those are the last words of the first paragraph
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Very good, My Lord.
18
8 April 46
Turning to the defendant.7 The words are, ". . . the handing over of airmen from the Air Force Reception Camp at Oberursel to the SD for special treatment."
We know, Defendant, that "special treatment" means death. Didn't you know, in 1944, what "special treatment" meant?
K^EITEL: Yes, I know what "special treatment" meant. I do know that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, there is just one other point in the document which my friend General Rudenko put to you-on Saturday, I think it was, or Friday evening-Document EC-338. You remember General Rudenko put this. This document is the report of Admiral Canaris about treatment of prisoners of war, dealing with the position of the Soviet Union as not being signatory to the Convention. You remember the point that Admiral Canaris put to you, that although they were not signatories, since the 18th century there had been established a practice that war captivity was neither revenge nor punishment, but solely protective custody. Do you remember the document? It was a report from Canaris to you as of the 15th of September 1941, putting out the position of prisoners of war of a country that had not signed the Convention. You remember, you said you agreed with it but that you had to put on this statement that it was nonsense from the point of view of the present situation because it arose from a military concept of chivalrous warfare, that this was the destruction of an ideology. You said that you had to put that on, on Hitler's instructions. Do you remember?
KEITEL: I had submitted to him the procedure and I asked that he read this, and upon that, I wrote out this note.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. Now, there is a Paragraph 3-act which I want you to have in mind at the moment on the point I am dealing with now:
"The screening of the civilians and politically undesirable prisoners of war, as well as the decision over their fate, is effected by the action detachments of the Security Police . . ." Sicherheitspolizei-that is underlined in purple, that is, it is your underlining, and opposite it is your pencilled note, "very efficient." That is, "action detachments of the Security Police, very efficient." Then it goes on, ". . . and the SD." Then Admiral Canaris says, ". . . along principles which are unknown to the Wehrmacht authorities." And you have put opposite "unknown to the Wehrmacht authorities": "not at all." Do you remember doing that?
KEITEL: I cannot recall it at the present moment. I must have made this remark in reference to the fact that this was unknown to the Wehrmacht. I think that is right.
19
8 April 46
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You see, it is perfectly clear. Admiral Canaris says it is unknown to the Wehrmacht authorities, and you put opposite to that, in your penciled notation, "not at all." You could not have gotten that from Hitler; that must have been your own point, was it not, if you put in, in pencil, "not at all"? You must have thought that they were known to the Wehrmacht.
KEITEL: Not at all.
[The defendant read the document.]
I cannot clarify this statement. I put these remarks down in a hurry. I cannot identify or define them, neither can I give any clear explanation, because I do not know. However, I have the recollection that I wanted to make, or did make, a note to the effect that it remained unknown to the Wehrmacht and that is correct.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE Now, I just want to take you quite shortly on the last of my points, and then ask you one question about it. You have said to the Tribunal, I should think probably at least 25 times, that you were not interested in politics, that
you simply took your orders as to military preparations. I just want to ask you a little about that.
First of all, let us take the Austrian problem. I only want to put one document to you there. You remember Defendant General Jodl's account in his diary about the pretended military movements which, according to Defendant Jodl gather that you said that General Lahousen took a different view had an immediate effect in Austria? Do you remember that? You must remember that.
KEITEL: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you suggested, did you not, these false military movements?
KEITEL: No, I neither devised nor suggested them; but it was an instruction of the Fuehrer as he dismissed me that evening. I would not have thought of that myself.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You have the document books that I gave you. Just look at that. It is 113 of the German document book.
It is 131 of Your Lordship's document book, the larger document book.
Now, this is your document of the 13th, Defendant.
KEITEL: Yes, I recall.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And it says, if you look at Paragraph 1, to take no real preparatory measures in the Army or Luftwaffe, no troop movements or redeployments, to spread false but quite credible news which may lead to the conclusion of military
20
8 April 46
preparations against Austria. And it is through people in Austria and your customs personnel and through agents that you sent out the news, and by a make-believe wireless exchange and through maneuvers.
Now, you put that up to Hitler, and on the 14th Captain Eberhard gives the information by phone that the Fuehrer has given his approval on all points. You were putting up what the false news and the false preparations were to be in order to get a political effect in Austria, were you not?
KEITEL: I made the proposal on the basis and instigation of instructions which had been given to me on my return to Berlin.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, I only want to deal quite shortly with this, and I think I can, but I want to show the same point with regard to Czechoslovakia.
Before you became Chief of the OKW you had been under Von Blomberg at the Ministry of War. Had you seen Von Blomberg's plan for the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the directive dated 24 June 1937?
KEITEL: Yes, I knew that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You have?
KEITEL: Yes. It was no directive for an invasion; it was the annual preparatory work for mobilization. That is what it was and what I know.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, Paragraph 2 reads:
"The task of the German Wehrmacht is to prepare in such a way that the bulk of the whole strength can break into Czechoslovakia quickly, by surprise, with the greatest force."
I should have thought that was a preparation for an invasion. All I want, at the moment, is to know this: You knew of that plan, Defendant, did you not?
KEITEL: I believe, yes, that I read it at that time, but of course I do not remember the details any more.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you told this Tribunal that the first that you heard of the Fuehrer's plans against Czechoslovakia in 1938 was the interview with the Fuehrer that you had on 21 April 1938. It is very easy to forget something, and I am not putting it to you that you are lying, Defendant, on this point. But that is not accurate, is it? You had correspondence with the Defendant Von Ribbentrop as early as the 4th of March, 6 weeks before, on this point, had you not, about the liaisoning with the Hungarian High Command? Isn't that correct?
KEITEL: I cannot remember that; I have no idea.
21
8 April 46
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just look at it. You see my point? You are stating that you were not dealing with politics, but if you will look at this document that I Till give you in a moment it is 2786-PSyou will see that it is apparently a letter from the Defendant Von Ribbentrop to you:
"Most Honored General: Enclosed I forward to you the minutes of a conference with the local Hungarian Ambassador for your confidential cognizance. As you can judge from it, Mr. SztoJay suggested that possible war aims against Czechoslovakia be discussed between the German and Hungarian Armies. I have many doubts about such negotiations. In case we should discuss with Hungary possible war aims against Czechoslovakia, danger exists that other parties as well would be informed about this.
"I would greatly appreciate it if you would notify me briefly whether any commitments were made here in any respect."
And the Foreign Ministry encloses the minutes of his conversation with the ambassador.
KEITEL: I remember this incident only so far as an invitation by General Von Ratz was concerned. I did not know at all just what was to be discussed. Von Blomberg had been invited by Von Ratz also, and in my ignorance I questioned Hitler whether I should make such a visit. Hitler agreed and told me that he considered it appropriate. However, an operational General Staff meeting did not take place, it was just a hunting visit with General Ritter von Ratz.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will recess now.
[A recess was taken.]
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to ask you very few questions on this part of the case, Defendant. Do you remember you told the Tribunal that on the 21st of April, when you saw Hitler, that he had either read to you or handed you a copy of the minutes which appear there, taken by Schmundt, about the basis of the "Fall Grun" against Czechoslovakia?
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, isn't this really a matter of argument rather than a matter for cross-examination? The witness says that insofar as the part he took in all these matters, it was military. The case of the Prosecution is that the part he took was political.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, if I may say so, it is a very fair comment and received with greatest respect. The difficulty is, when a witness has said several times "it is political"
22
8 April 46
mean, "it is only military". I wanted to bring out the points that show it is political and I don't want to cross anything which the Tribunal had in mind.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the Tribunal have all the documents before them upon which they can judge, really, unless you have new documents.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, there are not; and, My Lord, I will of course, accede at once to what the Tribunal says. My Lord, I should like to point out one document.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I think the Tribunal does feel that the crossexamination is apt to get a little bit too long and sometimes too detailed.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship please, I am sorry if that has been done, but, My Lord, the witness was in examinationinchief, I think, 2 full days and in examination by the other defense counsel for half a day, and so far the Prosecution have only spent just 4 hours. So I hope Your Lordship won't hold it too much against us. My Lord, the only document which I should like to-I shall not pursue the point in view of what Your Lordship has said-it is Page 31 of the document book. I only wanted you to have this in mind, because Your Lordship will remember that the witness said that the state of German preparations was such that he himself and the other generals did not think that a campaign against Czechoslovakia would succeed. Your Lordship will see that on that day General Halder, then Chief of Staff, said that the operation will definitely succeed and almost will be reached in the second day. My Lord, I only want to pass on that and I think it is only fair that the Tribunal should have that point in mind. I don't think it has been referred to before. I will leave that point, as Your Lordship has indicated, and I will leave the other points on this part of the case, which I intended to do. I only want to deal with a different point entirely and then I shall finish.
[Turning to the defendant] Defendant, the document which I have now passed to you is a document which gives the account of a conference between Hitler and yourself on the 20th of October 1939 with regard to the future shape of Polish relations, and I want you to look at Paragraph 3, the second subparagraph. I want to put one interview to you that arose out of that. That paragraph says:
"The Polish intelligentsia must be prevented from forming a ruling class. The standard of living in the country is to remain low. We want only to draw labor forces from there."
Now, do you remember General Lahousen giving evidence? He said that Admiral Canaris had protested vehemently to you against, first of all, the projected shooting and extermination measures that
23
8 April 46
were being directed particularly against the Polish intelligentsia, nobility, and clergy, as well as elements that could be regarded as embodiments of the national resistance movement. According to General Lahousen, Canaris said:
"Some day the world will make the Armed Forces, under whose eyes these events have occurred, also responsible for these events."
Do you remember Admiral Canaris saying that to you or words to that effect?
KEITEL: I know only what General Lahousen testified here in court. I do not know anything about what Admiral Canaris said.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did Lahousen never give you any warning of any kind as to the fact that the Armed Forces might be held responsible for these actions that were being taken in Poland?
KEITEL: No. It was also my opinion that the Armed Forces would be made responsible, if such actions were taken without their approval and without their authorization. That was also the reason for the conference.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And that was a point that did worry you very much; didn't it?
KEITEL: Yes, I was extremely worried and I had very serious discussions about it, but not at that particular time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE;: And wouldn't it be fair to put it this way, that if you had known at the time all that you know now, you would have refused, even with all that you have told us, you would have refused to have anything to do with actions that produced concentration camps, mass murder, and misery to millions of people, or do you say that you still, knowing all that you know now, would have gone on with these actions?
KEITEL: No; I am convinced that if the German Armed Forces and their generals had known it, then they would have fought against these things.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Thank you.
Mt. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): If Your Honors please, I have just one question.
[Turning to the defendant.] A few days ago, on the morning of the 3rd of April, when you were on direct examination, we understood you to say that you had the feeling that you must accept responsibility for orders issued in your name, orders which you passed on, which were issued by Hitler; and on Friday afternoon, when Sir David was examining you, we understood you to say that
24
8 April 46
as an old professional soldier you, of course, understood the traditions and indeed the principles of that profession that oblige a soldier not to carry out any order which he recognizes to be criminal in character. Is that understanding on our part correct?
KEITEL: Yes, I understood that.
MR. DODD: So that it is fair to say to you that under the obligations of your oath as a professional soldier, you did acknowledge carrying out criminal orders?
KEITEL: One can hardly put it that way. What should be said is that the type of government we had at the time and the authority of the head of state permitted such legislative power that the executive organs were not conscious of Carrying out illegal orders. Of course, I was also aware of the fact that deeds were committed which were incompatible with right and justice.
MR. DODD: I understand you to say you did, with knowledge, carry out and pass on criminal or illegal orders. Is that a fair statement?
KEITEL: I did not have any inner conviction of becoming criminal in doing so, since after all it was the head of the state who, as far as we were concerned, held all the legislative power. Consequently I did not consider that I was acting criminally.
MR. DODD: Well, I do not want to devote any more time to you except to say this, to suggest to you that I think your answer is not responsive.
You told us that some of these orders were violations of the existing international law. An order issued in that form and on that basis is a criminal order, is an illegal order, is it not?
KEITEL: Yes, that is correct.
MR. DODD: Well, when you carried them out, you were carrying out criminal orders in violation of one of the basic principles of your professional soldier's code, no matter by whom they were issued.
KEITEL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, do you wish to reexamine?
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I do not propose to put any further questions to the defendant regarding the actual facts involved in the case. It appears to me that after his frank statements, the objective facts have been clarified as much as is possible in this Trial.
Regarding the facts subjectively seen, it is necessary according to my conception, particularly with reference to the last question which has been asked by the American prosecutor, that certain supplementary statements be obtained.
25
8 April 46
[Turning to the defendant] Once more, therefore, I am having the Canaris document shown to you, USSR356, from which General Rudenko has presented to you your handwritten note and also the documents submitted by the British Prosecutor, D762, 764, 766, 765, and 770.
According to statements made during the crossexamination your explanation regarding responsibilities appears to require a supplementary clarification. You have said that you passed on Hitler's orders in cognizance of their contents. And now I come back to Mr.Dodd's question and in light of the judgment to be passed on you, I must ask you, for it is of the greatest importance, how was it possible and how do you want to explain that these ruthless orders, in violation of the law of war, could be carried out by you or how, as it says in the note on the Canaris document, you could support them? You did have objections. You told us so. This is a matter that can be explained only by you, by yourself, since it is a personal affair and cannot be clarified with the help of documents, as such. A number of times you have told me, and now again you have emphasized it, that you desired to help us find a thorough and truthful explanation for everything.
Thus, I am asking you how was it possible and how do you explain that those orders and instructions were carried out and passed on by you and how is it that no effective resistance was met with?
KEITEL: About this clearing up, I realize that many orders and also notes which I wrote on documents that have been found and orders which I passed on, must seem incomprehensible to third parties, to outsiders, and particularly to foreigners.
To find an explanation for this, I must say that you had to know the Fuehrer, that you have to know in what atmosphere I worked in, day and night, for years; you must not fail to consider just what the circumstances were, under which these events occurred. I have often testified here that I wanted to give expression to my scruples and objections, and that I did so. The Fuehrer would then advance arguments which to him appeared decisive and he did so in his own, I must say, forceful and convincing way, stating the military and political necessities and making felt his concern for the welfare of his soldiers and their safety, as well as his concern about the future of our people. I must state that, because of that, but also because of the everincreasing emergency, militarily speaking, in which we found ourselves, I convinced myself and often allowed myself to become convinced of the necessity and the rightness of such measures. So I would transmit the orders that were given, and promulgate them without letting myself be deterred by any possible effects they might have.
26
8 April 46
Perhaps this may be considered as weakness and perhaps I shall be accused of the same guilt. But at any rate, what I have told is the truth. During the examination by Sir David I myself admitted and acknowledged that I often had serious conflicts of conscience and that I often found myself in a position where I myself in some way or another was able to draw the consequences of these matters. But never did it enter my mind to revolt against the head of the state and the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces or refuse him obedience. As far as I am concerned, and as a soldier, loyalty is sacred to me. I may be accused of having made mistakes, and also of having shown weakness towards the Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, but never can it be said that I was cowardly, dishonorable, or faithless.
This is what I had to say.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I have reached the end of my examination. I should like to ask you, if I may, only that the documents which have been offered to the Tribunal in the course of this examination, bearing the Numbers 1 and 2 in Document Book 2, named Documents Keitel8 and Keitel9, be admitted in evidence without the necessity of my reading any parts thereof. The Prosecution know the documents and they are agreeable.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, there is one question I should like to ask you. Are you suggesting that you ever put your protest or objections to the orders of Hitler in writing?
KEITEL: Once I handed him a protest in writing, yes. That I know for certain. In the other cases, and as far as I can recollect, the matters were discussed verbally.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you keep a copy of that protest?
KEITEL: I have nothing left, Mr. President, not a single piece of paper.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you keep a copy of the protest? I did not ask you whether you had a copy; I asked you whether you kept a copy. Did you make a copy?
KEITEL: I had a draft as well as the handwritten document which I also had given to him through the chief adjutant. I think I had the draft in my personal files, but now I no longer have it and I do not know where these files have gone. They could possibly have been in the hands of the chief of the Armed Forces central office, who dealt with personal matters in my office, or later on they may have got into the hands of the chief adjutant of the Fuehrer, General Schmundt, I do not know. There, I think, the original of that document I sent at that time ought to be available.
THE PRESIDENT: And what was the occasion of the protest?
27
8 April 46
KEITEL: It was made in connection with another crisis in our relationship during which he had expressed his distrust, and in connection with the current controversies on basic matters of the conduct of the war.
THE PRESIDENT: But when?
KEITEL: I believe it was in 1940-1939-1940, in the winter of 1939-40.
THE PRESIDENT: And you cannot say more about it than that it was made on basic matters?
KEITEL: I clearly asked for permission to resign on account of the accusations made against me and for the reasons which I was quoting.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all. The defendant can return to his seat.
[The defendant left the stand.]
DR. NELTE: May I ask permission to submit the two documents to the Tribunal? I mentioned them before.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. Are you going to call in any more witnesses?
DR. NELTE: I had asked the Tribunal to call to the stand the witness Dr. Lammers.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. NELTE: Witness Dr. Lammers, please.
[The witness Lammers took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your name in full.
HANS HEINRICH LAMMERS (Witness): Hans Heinrich Lammers.
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 in German.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down if you wish.
DR. NELTE: Witness, I principally wished to question you on the OKW, its competencies, and the position held by the Defendant Field Marshal Keitel as Chief of the OKW. We have talked about the matter during our discussions, but since this will have been sufficiently clarified after the statements made by Goering and the defendant and statements yet to be made by other witnesses, and also to save time, I do not propose to ask you in general or in detail on this subject. But I would like you, as the Chief of the Reich Chancellery, to answer questions which others may not know as well
28
8 April 46
as you do-you, who had participated in some way or other when certain decrees, and particularly that of the 4 February 1938, were drafted. May I ask you, therefore, to tell me, first of all, what brought about the big reshuffle of 4 February 1938?
LAMMERS: The Fuehrer informed me that the Minister of War, Von Blomberg, was going to leave his position and that on that occasion he wanted to make certain other changes of personnel in the
German Government and that in particular the Foreign Minister
Von Neurath was going to retire and that here, too, a change would take place and that, furthermore, in the High Command of the Army, certain changes were about to be made. Subsequently, the Fuehrer gave me the order to draft a decree regarding the leadership of the Wehrmacht. I was to participate in this in collaboration with the Wehrmacht Department of the War Ministry. As a guiding principle the Fuehrer gave me the following instructions:
"In the future I no longer want to have a Reich Minister for War; and in the future I no longer want a Commanderin-Chief of the Wehrmacht who stands between me as the Supreme Commander, and the CommandersinChief of the branches of the Wehrmacht."
Accordingly, the decree was drafted, in which, to start with, the High Command of the Armed Forces became a military staff which was to be under the direct orders of the Fuehrer. The Fuehrer desired that there should be no independent authority here, which would stand between him and the CommandersinChief of the branches of the Wehrmacht. Consequently, the thenappointed Chief of the OKW, General of Artillery Keitel, had no direct power of command over the branches of the Wehrmacht. Such power of command was out of the question if only for reasons of authority.
THE PRESIDENT: Has this not been really covered by the Defendant Keitel himself? No question in crossexamination has been put to him to challenge any of his statements upon the organization of the OKW; therefore, it seems to the Tribunal it is not necessary at all.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I already told that to the witness in my introductory words, I asked the witness only to tell me what brought about the reshuffle of 4 February 1938 and therefore he had to talk a little about the decree of 4 February 1938. I shall try and make Dr. Lammers' examination as short as possible. I believe also that the circumstances surrounding the Chief of the OKW have been fully clarified, but it is, after all, a fundamental question. If a man of the standing of Dr. Lammers can confirm it, it would probably increase the value of the evidence.
29
8 April 46
THE PRESIDENT: If the Prosecution had put any questions in crossexamination suggesting that there was any inaccuracy in the evidence which the Defendant Keitel had given upon the subject, then, of course, it would be open to you and it would be necessary for you to call other evidence upon it; but, when the subject is not challenged in any shape or form, it is not necessary to confirm it.
DR.NELTE: In that case, Mr. President, I need not ask the witness any questions at all since the subject on which I was going to examine him was the position of the Defendant Keitel as Chief' of the OKW, his position as a Minister, his functions as a socalled chairman of the Reich Defense Council, and his functions as a member of the Three Man College. In all these cases, no questions have been raised by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, the Prosecution did raise the question as to whether the Defendant Keitel took part in any political action and upon that you may question him.
DR. NELTE: Thank you very much.
[Turning to the witness.] Dr. Lammers, what can you say from your personal knowledge, about the question as to whether the Defendant, Field Marshal Keitel, had to occupy himself with political matters on the strength of his position as Chief of the OKW, or did occupy himself with them?
LAMMERS: As Chief of the OKW, he had, in reality, nothing at all to do with political matters. The way I understand your question is that you want me to say whether Herr Keitel, in his capacity as Minister of War, did concern himself with political matters. I do not quite understand your question.
DR. NELTE: This has nothing to do with his position as the Chief of the OKW or Chief of Staff, nor has it anything to do with his functions in the Ministry of War. What I want you to testify to is- do you know whether the Defendant Keitel, during the time when he had held the position of Chief of the OKW, dealt with political questions, that is to say, primarily with foreign political questions?
LAMMERS: I cannot make any statement regarding the great political issues, particularly foreign political affairs, as far as Herr Keitel is concerned, since I, myself, had nothing to do with these questions.
DR.NELTE: All right, then. In that case I want to ask you a concrete question: You know that Field Marshal Keitel was present at receptions when President Hacha came, when there were meetings with other statesmen. In some cases you were probably also present. Can you say whether during such receptions, it was the function of Field Marshal Keitel to take part in the political discussions or not?
30
8 April 46
LAMMERS: As far as I know, Herr Keitel often took part in such discussions with foreign statesmen. I, myself, as a rule did not take part. You have mentioned President Hacha. It was an exception that I was there, for matters regarding the Protectorate were no' regarded as foreign political matters by us. I hardly ever was present at foreign political discussions with competent men from abroad, at discussions of a political nature, and I cannot say, therefore, to what extent Herr Keitel did participate during such conferences. I assume though that he was frequently present during 'such conferences.
DR.. NELTE: In other words, you cannot answer that question on the strength of your knowledge. In that case, I am asking you: In accordance with the wishes of Hitler, the author of the decree of 4 February 1938, with whom you have discussed its purposes, should the man who was to take over the position of Chief of the OKW have any political functions?
LAMMERS: In my opinion he was not to have any political functions as Chief of OKW, for he was immediately subordinate to the Fuehrer.
DR. NELTE: Did it ever, at any time, become known to you, or did you ever get the impression that Field Marshal Keitel was a political general, in the sense that it was customary to call him a political general?
LAMMERS: I never had that impression.
DR.NELTE: Mr. President, I have no further questions to ask the witness since everything else he was to make statements on has already been clarified.
train; PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal thinks that you may have misunderstood what I said to you about whether you should ask any questions about the Defendant Keitel as a member of the Reich Defense Council. If this witness can give any evidence upon that point, you may question him upon it.
DR. NELTE: Witness, in the Reich Defense Law of 1938, you, as Chief of the Reich Chancellery, were appointed a permanent member of the Reich Defense Council. Do you know if this Reich Defense Law, including the Reich Defense Council, ever became effective?
LAMMERS: The Reich Defense Law was made but was never promulgated as such Therefore in my opinion, it has never become a law. The contents of the Reich Defense Law were partially applied as, so to speak, secret instructions of the Fuehrer. The Reich Defense Law provided for a Reich Defense Council. That Reich Defense Council, as such, as far as I know, never convened. I, at any rate, have never received an invitation to attend a meeting, and, in my
31
8 April 46
recollection, I have never taken part in any meeting of this Reich Defense Council.
Two meetings, however, were supposed to have taken place, as I have heard, which have been called meetings of the Reich Defense Council. But I believe that these meetings, because of the large number of people attending them-I think there were 60 or 80- were meetings called by the Delegate for the Four Year Plan in this capacity. I do remember having partaken in such meetings. Apart from that, after the Reich Defense Law had been formulated, I heard so little of it during the subsequent years that I myself did not remember that I had been appointed a permanent member of this Reich Defense Council. At any rate, in such meetings, if they were meetings of the Reich Defense Council, in which I had partaken, no matters directly concerned with the defense of the Reich were discussed.
DR. NELTE: Do you know anything about the tasks which the Reich Defense Council were supposed to have?
LAMMERS: I know no more about their tasks than was contained in the law, which was not published; and as far as I can recall, these were only general descriptions, very general, of the tasks to be performed, all pertaining to the defense of the Reich.
DR. NELTE: It has been stated by the Prosecution here that the Reich Defense Council was an instrument for the planning of aggressive war. At any rate, an instrument for aggressions and for rearmament. Is there anything you know as to whether the Reich Defense Council was directly or indirectly involved in undertaking or carrying out such tasks?
LAMMERS: Nothing at all is known to He about that.
DR. NELTE: I should like to put now a few questions to you regarding the Secret Cabinet Council of which, according to the law, you were supposed to be a member. Defendant Keitel was to have been a member of the Secret Cabinet Council, and it does, in fact, say so in that law. What can you tell us about that law?
LAMMERS: When Von Neurath resigned as Foreign Minister, the Fuehrer wanted to give Von Neurath as much prominence as possible in the eyes of the world, and he ordered me to draw up a decree regarding a Secret Cabinet Council of which Herr Von Neurath was to be President, with the title President of the Secret Cabinet Council. Other members were, as far as I can recall, the Reich Foreign Minister; the Deputy of the Fuehrer, Reich Minister Hess; Field Marshal Keitel; and I, myself. I think that is all.
But I gathered from statements made by the Fuehrer that the creation of this council was purely a formal matter which was to
32
8 April 46
procure a special position for Herr Von Neurath in the eyes of the public. I was convinced that the Fuehrer would never call a meeting of the Secret Cabinet Council. In fact, the Secret Cabinet Council has never actually met, not even for a constitutional meeting. It never received any task from the Fuehrer through me; it merely existed on paper.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, if it was a secret, how could it affect the public?
LAMMERS: Through the promotion of the Reich Minister Von Neurath it was to be shown to the public that there were no fundamental differences of opinion between the Fuehrer and the Reich Foreign Minister Von Neurath justifying his resignation. It was to be demonstrated that all was well between the Fuehrer and Von Neurath; that in fact, because of his valuable knowledge of foreign political matters, Herr Von Neurath had been given, so to say, a higher position in the foreign political field by being appointed President of the Secret Cabinet Council.
DR. NELTE: This, in other words, was a sort of camouflage for his resignation?
LAMMERS: Yes.
DR. NELTE: I have another question. Field Marshal Keitel, as Chief of the OKW, has been accused of having countersigned certain laws, and I am now asking you what was the significance of the fact that the Chief of the OKW countersigned the laws?
LAMMERS: Since he was exercising the authority of the Minister for War, he was obliged to countersign these laws. He assumed the responsibility, visavis the Fuehrer, that the Armed Forces, and everything connected with the former Ministry of War were given proper consideration.
Keitel could only exercise his war ministerial authority by mandate of the Fuehrer, as specified in the decree, and as a result he was obliged to ask the Fuehrer whether he could countersign or not. His authority as Minister for War was limited, in comparison, with that of any other minister who simply applied his signature as an ordinary minister, whereas Field Marshal Keitel could only exercise his war ministerial authority by mandate of the Fuehrer.
DR. NELTE: In other words, if I understand you correctly, you want to say that Field Marshal Keitel was not a Minister?
LAMMERS: He was not a Minister as becomes clear from the decree which expressly states that he only had the rank of a Minister.
DR. NELTE: Do you mean, in other words, that if he had been a Minister that you would not have had to give him full ranking of
33
8 April 46
a Minister? But then, he was also a member of the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich. Did not that make him a minister?
LAMMERS: Nothing was altered in his position in the Reich Government through that membership.
DR. NELTE: You mean no, don't you?
LAMMERS: Yes, I mean no.
DR. NELTE: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn until 1400.
[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
34
8 April 46
Afternoon Session
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any of the other defendants' counsel who wish to ask questions of this witness?
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendants Hess and Frank): Witness, can you recall what Hitler said in the Cabinet meeting, regarding his political aims and the program of the new Government?
LAMMERS: Hitler delivered a very long speech, in the course of which the individual ministers also had a chance to speak. One of the details I remember particularly is that the Fuehrer talked, first of all, about the removal of unemployment, something which would definitely have to be achieved. Secondly, he spoke about the fact that an economic revival of Germany would have to be provided for. And thirdly, he talked in detail about the fact that a revision of the Versailles Treaty would have to be effected, and that we would have to try to put an end to the defamation of Germany which was contained in the Versailles Treaty, and that one would have to strive to achieve equality of rights for the German Reich within the circle of nations.
All these statements of Hitler's were then written down in a special Government declaration. I also recollect that in that Government declaration the protection of positive Christianity was mentioned in particular. I cannot recall the special details. But these, I am convinced, are the main points concerned.
Nothing was discussed which would have required special secrecy. And what was discussed was, in the main, contained in the Government declaration which was published in the press.
DR. SEIDL: Did Hitler say anything at all, during this Cabinet meeting, about the fact that he was going to alter the system of government and that he wanted to govern dictatorially?
LAMMERS: Herr Hitler expressed his opinion to the effect that the present parliamentary system, prevailing up to that time in Germany, had been a failure.
THE PRESIDENT: You are speaking about a meeting. What was the date of the meeting you are referring to?
LAMMERS: It was the first Cabinet meeting which the Defense Counsel inquired about. It took place on 30 January 1933, on the day after the seizure of power. The Fuehrer stated that the present governmental system had been a failure. Furthermore he said that the result of that failure had been that the Reich President was obliged, in a state of emergency, according to Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, to govern by means of emergency decrees, and that the only possibility was to create a stable Reich Government,
35
8 April 46
a government which would be in power for many years. And further, how one could create such a government would be something which would have to be agreed upon first with the Reich President and the Reichstag.
DR. SEIDL: Witness, did Hitler say, during this Cabinet meeting, that he wanted to concede to the NSDAP a specially favored position of power?
LAMMERS: He said that the NSDAP, as the strongest party, would naturally have to have due influence in the German Government. He said nothing to the effect that he wanted to put an end to the other parties that still existed and were still represented in the Cabinet, the German Nationalists and the Stahlhelm group.
DR. SEIDL: Witness, did Hitler explain his foreign political aims during this first meeting and did he say, in particular, that Germany would definitely have to be freed from the shackles of the Versailles Treaty and would again have to take the place befitting her in the community of nations?
LAMMERS: I answered that question already in the affirmative before. Those were the foreign political aims, the complete revision of the Versailles Treaty.
DR.SEIDL: Did Hitler also mention at the time that for the achievement of these foreign political aims one would have to run the risk of another war, possibly even of a preventive war?
LAMMERS: As far as I know and as far as I remember, no mention was made of war, certainly not of a preventive war or an aggressive war.
DR. SEIDL: Witness, did Himmler, in the period following, in Cabinet sessions or during any other meetings of all or numerous ministers, present a comprehensive plan for the achievement of his foreign political aims?
LAMMERS: No, I knew of no comprehensive plan except the general points I have mentioned. Neither during that meeting nor during later meetings did Hitler elaborate a general plan. In my opinion, he never did discuss and describe in detail any comprehensive plans of a longterm character at all.
DR. SEIDL: Witness, what caused Himmler a) to appoint Hess Deputy to the Fuehrer of the NSDAP and b) to make him a Reich minister?
LAMMERS: He appointed Hess Deputy to the Fuehrer, I believe, because he, as Chancellor of the Reich, no longer wanted to attend to the business of the Party and had to have a responsible man for the technical leadership of the Party.
36
8 April 46
He appointed Hess Reich Minister in order to create a link between Party and State; to have a man in the Cabinet who was in a position to represent the wishes and views of the Party in the Cabinet. Perhaps he was thereby hoping to create a united front between Party and State, something which became a law later on.
DR.SEIDL: Witness, were the leading generals, a) before and b) after seizure of power, in contact with the Reich directorate and the Political Leadership Corps of the Party?
LAMMERS: Before the seizure of power, as far as I know, contact between the Party and the generals did not exist as such. There could only have been cases of personal contact between individual members of the Party and individual generals.
After the seizure of power I had the opportunity of being present when the Fuehrer, at the beginning of February 1933, had the highranking generals, the commandersinchief, introduced to him, and I had the impression that the Fuehrer did not know most of these men, for they were all introduced to him-I stood nearby-and it was my impression that he had known only a few of these men previously.
After the seizure of power, of course, the relations between the Party leaders and the highranking generals became closer-after the Party had gained a strong position in the State. But what I would like to say is that relations, general relations, between the Party, that is to say between the Reich directorate of the Party and the Political Leadership Corps of the Party on the one side, and the highranking generals and perhaps also the generals with lower rank, on the other side-that these relations never went beyond the purely formal, beyond socalled social relations which were based on duty requirements at chance meetings, on festive occasions and public demonstrations, et cetera. I feel that the general relations between the Reich Directorate and the Political Leadership Corps of the Party on the one side, and the generals on the other, were in no instance any closer than that.
DR. SEIDL: Witness, did the character of these relations change after Hitler became the Head of the State and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces?
LAMMERS: As far as the highranking generals are concerned, I am of the opinion that in principle nothing changed, for the highranking generals regarded the Fuehrer not as the leader of the Party but as the Head of the State, and they considered him the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. Consequently, they did not believe that they had to establish any particularly close relations with the Party.
37
8 April 46
DR. SEIDL: Witness, did joint meetings and conferences take place for the discussion of political aims between the Reich Government, the Reich Directorate of the Party, and the highranking generals?
LAMMERS: Such joint meetings or conferences are out of the question. They never took place. That would also have been impossible because of the large number of people involved.
DR.SEIDL: Witness, were members of the Reich Government, the Reich Directorate of the Party and the highranking generals in a position to present their views to Hitler with regard to important questions involving the welfare of the nation, particularly on questions which concerned war or peace?
LAMMERS: Jointly, these three groups, if I may say so, naturally could not voice an opinion at all, for they connection with each other in any way. But neither could any of these groups-the Reich Directorate of the Party, the Reich Government, and the generals-voice its opinion, in the first place because they were not informed at all about the Fuehrer's political and economic aims. What attitude could they take? They were simply taken by surprise by the actual execution, by the accomplished facts, and any subsequent voicing of an opinion would have meant a stab in the back" of the Fuehrer's policy.
DR. SEIDL: Witness, then a general political plan on Hitler's part -in which these most important groups were active participants- did not exist at all, and therefore there could be no talk of a conspiracy?
LAMMERS: I know of no such general plan, but I can assure you of one thing, that the large majority, the large majority of ministers never knew anything of any such general plan. Just how far the Fuehrer informed individual persons of such plan, I do not know. I was not present on such occasions. The Fuehrer may have discussed some sort of plans with one person or another, perhaps with a member of the Party of the Reich Directorate or the generals; but just what was discussed on such occasions I do not know. And of course I cannot say whether in such cases these gentlemen agreed or disagreed with the Fuehrer. I also do not know whether shortly before the execution of any largescale political plans, such as for instance the march into Czechoslovakia or something like that, whether, shortly before, they could still advise the Fuehrer as to whether they agreed or were opposed, or whether they merely received an order which they had to execute.
DR. SEIDL: Witness, if I understand you correctly, then you obviously want to say that all decisions of any magnitude were made by Hitler alone?
38
8 April 46
LAMMERS: The largescale political decisions were certainly made by him alone, at most with some few persons being consulted and participating, but never with the Reich Government participating, for the Reich Government-if I may go into detail about this -it was when we left the League of Nations that Hitler for the last time informed the Reich Government before taking an action. Then followed as a large, important action, the march into the Rhineland.
The Cabinet was informed that we were going to withdraw from the League of Nations; it was still informed beforehand.
No one was informed of the march into the Rhineland; the Fuehrer informed the Reich Cabinet only after the march had taken place. On the occasions of the march into Austria, the march into the Sudetenland, the march into Prague, the outbreak of the Polish war, the beginning of the other campaigns against Norway, France, Russia, and so forth, the Reich Government were consulted by the Fuehrer neither beforehand, nor were they informed subsequently; and consequently there were certain illfeelings among all the ministers because they were in no instance informed in advance of these largescale plans which had certain implications for the nonmilitary departments as well, and because the Reich Government did not learn until later of the accomplished facts.
Thus, to this extent I can say that all these decisions were made by the Fuehrer alone; and to what extent he consulted persons individually I do not know. However, on the whole, the large majority of the ministers were not informed of all these actions; they just had general information such as any newspaper reader and any radio listener has; or they, as I for instance, sometimes heard of such a matter a few hours before, when it was made known to the press. There was no questioning of the Fuehrer or any information from him beforehand.
DR. SEIDL: Please tell me now just how it actually came about, that the entire governmental power was thus transferred to the Fuehrer?
BUMMERS: That transfer was accomplished, I might say, by way of a gradually developing state customary law.
DR.SEIDL: Slowly, please.
LAMMERS: First of all, the Fuehrer and the Reich Government had been given, by the wellknown Enabling Act of the Reichstag, the power to alter the Constitution. The Reich Government made use of this power in their actual legislation and, of course, use was also made of it by way of passive endurance and by creating a state customary law as was actually recognized in all countries. Thus in the course of the first years, and also during the later years, it came
39
8 April 46
about quite naturally by way of a state customary law, that the Fuehrer acted more independently than would actually have been possible according to the Weimar Constitution. From the beginning important political questions were all removed by the Fuehrer from the jurisdiction of the Cabinet.
Even in 1933 and 1934, when Hindenburg was still alive, the Fuehrer did not wish general political questions to be raised in the Cabinet by any minister. I repeatedly had to have various ministers informed that they were to refrain from bringing up questions which did not directly affect their department for discussion in the Cabinet.
For instance, I had to pass on such information to those gentlemen who wanted to discuss church policy. I had been forbidden to put any general political questions on the agenda of a Cabinet meeting. If, in spite of that, a minister raised a political question during a meeting of the Cabinet, then the Fuehrer generally interposed and silenced the minister concerned, or referred him to a private discussion. Things developed in this way in the course of time.
After Von Hindenburg's death, when the Fuehrer became the Head of State, such debates in the Cabinet were stopped altogether. Nothing of this sort could be debated any more. The ministers were not allowed to feel that they were political ministers. I had to inform various gentlemen repeatedly, by order of the Fuehrer, that they were requested to refrain from voicing their opinions in regard to such questions during Cabinet meetings.
Then came the time, which I have already described, during which the largescale actions took place and there were no more Cabinet meetings. In this connection the Fuehrer acted alone, and all declarations which were made on behalf of the Reich Government were made by him alone, acting on his own and without previous consultation with the Cabinet. I must admit that the Cabinet very often complained about that but could not prevail against the Fuehrer.
Thus gradually the governmental power-if I interpret "Regierung" according to the conception of "government" laid down in AngloSaxon law-then after 1936 there was no longer any complete Reich Government at all consisting of the Reich Chancellor and the Reich Ministers, that is, a collective, unified body. The Fuehrer was the Reich Government, and this power had slipped into his hands-and one will naturally say that it should not have slipped into his hands. All I can say to this, is that it may have been wrong, it may have been stupid, but it was not a crime. It was a political development such as has happened repeatedly in history. I might recall the fact that in ancient Rome, where the senate had the power and that there...
40
8 April 46
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal really does not want to hear a history of ancient Rome.
LAMMERS: Very well.
DR. SEIDL: Witness, you have described the development of the transfer of governmental powers into Hitler's hands. . .
LAMMERS: Yes, but not completely.
DR. SEIDL: In that case, please continue with your account. But all descriptions...
THE PRESIDENT: We have had quite enough. We quite understand that he is saying that Hitler took over all powers and would not listen to any debate at all. It is perfectly clear that he said so.
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
Witness, will you please tell me one more thing about the last question in this connection? Please tell me whether you as Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery considered legal the development you have just described.
LAMMERS: I regarded this development, in the first place, from the point of view of constitutional law. I have discussed these questions repeatedly with Hitler, and I consider this development perfectly legal and, if it is desired, I can explain my reasons in detail.
In particular, I considered this development legal in view of the wellknown Enabling Act and later laws which gave the Reich Government plenipotentiary powers and because of which the Reich Government, in turn, were in a position to delegate some of these powers to the Fuehrer and to transfer this power. In that manner that which the Reich Government, as soon...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal is not really interested in whether or not it was legal. What the Tribunal is interested in is whether crimes against other nations were committed. We certainly do not want to hear this in such great detail.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, but the main point of the Indictment is Count One of the Indictment; and that is concerned with the Conspiracy charged by the Indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: The main point in the Indictment is not whether it was in accordance with German law that Hitler should take over the powers of his Government. There was no such point made in the Indictment.
DR. SEIDL: Witness, I now turn to some questions which concern the Defendant Dr. Frank. Since when have you known Dr. Frank? What were his activities up to the outbreak of the war?
LAMMERS: I became acquainted with Herr Frank in the course of the year 1932. If I understand you rightly, you want to hear about his activities only from the outbreak of the
war?
41
8 April 46
DR. SEIDL: Up to the outbreak of the war.
LAMMERS: He was Chief of the Legal Division of the Party, then Chief of the National Socialist Lawyers' Association (Juristenbund) which later on became the socalled Lawyers' League (Rechtswahrerbund). Then he became a member of the Reichstag, and at the time of the seizure of power in 1933, he became Minister of Justice in Bavaria. At the same time he became Reich Commissioner for Legal Reforms.
Later on-and I do not remember the exact year-he became Reich Minister without Portfolio; and he was the President of the Academy of German Law. He finally became Governor General.
THE PRESIDENT: We have had the Defendant Frank's posts proved to Us already, I should think, probably more than once. We do not require them from Dr. Lammers.
DR. SEIDL: I can put another question to the witness.
Witness, what was the relationship between Frank and Hitler?
LAMMERS: The relationship between the two was, at the beginning, I should like to say, good and proper, but not particularly close. At any rate, during the whole time he did not belong to those who could be called the closest advisers of the Fuehrer.
DR. SEIDL: What was Frank's attitude towards the "Police State" and the question of concentration camps?
LAMMERS: Frank repeatedly made speeches in public in which he stood up for the constitutional state, for right and law, by attacking the "Police State" and in which-although not in very strong terms-he always took a stand against internment in concentration camps, because such internment was without a legal basis. These speeches made by Frank were frequently the cause of severe disapproval on the part of Hitler, so that in the end the Fuehrer instructed me to forbid his making speeches and he was forbidden to publish the printed version of these speeches. Finally, Frank's activity in standing up for the constitutional state resulted in his being removed from his office as the Reich Chief of the Legal Division of the Party.
DR. SEIDL: Was he not dismissed from his position as President of the Academy of German Law for these reasons?
LAMMERS: Yes, that happened at the same time-and also from his position as Chief of the Lawyers' League.
DR. SEIDL: Another question: Did Dr. Frank as Governor General have considerable power, or was it not rather the case that his power in many respects was greatly infringed upon?
LAMMERS: One can certainly say that in many respects his power was infringed upon.
42
8 April 46
There are a number of reasons-first of all, as is selfevident, the Armed Forces. But they bothered him least of all, for in the occupied territories, the Reich commissioners were never members of the High Command of the Armed Forces. That was always separate.
Then Goering, as Delegate for the Four Year Plan, had comprehensive powers to issue orders to both the Party and the State in all occupied territories, therefore also in the Government General, and thus could give orders to the Governor General and could, when it was necessary in the interests of the whole, countermand and annul the latter's decrees.
Thirdly, Frank's powers as Governor General were considerably limited through the police, since Himmler as Chief of the German Police had direct police powers which he was, to be sure, to cooperate with those of the Governor General but which he did not always do. The Governor General suffered a further loss of power through the fact that Himmler was Reich Commissioner for the Preservation of German Nationality and as such could undertake resettlements and did do so without consulting Governor General Frank in any way.
Then, there were certain infringements in favor of the Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor, but in my opinion the infringement of power in this field was very slight, for Gauleiter Sauckel always, where possible,
came to an agreement with the local of flees beforehand.
Finally there were powers reserved for Reich Minister Speer in the field of armament and technology. There were still other powers reserved for the postal service, the railroads, et cetera. But in the main, these are the gaps, as you call them, Dr. Seidl, in Frank's power.
DR. SEIDL: What, according to your observations, was Frank's basic attitude towards the Polish and Ukrainian peoples, and what was the policy he tried to carry through?
LAMMERS: In my opinion Frank always tried to pursue a policy of moderation and to create an atmosphere of friendship towards Germany in Poland. To be sure, he very often was unable to achieve his aim, especially because of the fact that the powers of the police and Himmler's powers were too great in the field of resettlement, so that his measures and his intentions suffered setbacks. He found it difficult to achieve his aims.
DR. SEIDL: Did Dr. Frank occupy himself with Germanization aims or did he rather, whenever he could, oppose the! policy of resettlement pursued by Himmler as Reich Commissioner for the Preservation of German Nationality?
43
8 April 46
LAMMERS: I should not have thought that Frank would be so foolish as to have germanizing intentions or to want to make Germans of Poles. He probably tried to win the people of German origin in Poland for the cause of Germanism. He had many difficulties with regard to the resettlements, since he was not consulted beforehand and since, by way of resettlement, people were simply shoved into the Government General. In that respect he and I agreed entirely. I have repeatedly told the Fuehrer that these mass resettlements could not take place, all at once, without the agreement of the Governor General, and that the Governor General could not govern if he did not know about these resettlement measures in advance and if he could not even exert an influence in connection with these measures.
DR. SEIDL: Witness, you stated earlier that the entire Security Police and the SO in the Government General were directly under Himmler or the Higher SS and Police Chief. Did Governor General Frank not try to protest against the policy of force employed by these two men and to relieve the situation?
LAMMERS: On this point he addressed repeated complaints to me, so that I might take them to the Fuehrer, which, however, I could do only in part. In one point, however, we did want to help him. In the Government General there had been established a Secretariat of State for the security system. This was under Kruger, then Higher SS and Police Chief. This, however, functioned for only 4 to 6 weeks and then differences of opinion in this field broke out once more. The State Secretary for Security, Kruger, stated, "I receive my orders from Himmler." If the Governor General complained about that, then Himmler said, "These are all unimportant matters. I certainly must be able to rule on them directly." The Governor General said, "But for me they are not unimportant; even those things are important to me."
The channels of command and the cooperation with the Governor General were not being observed, and it is therefore perfectly understandable that Herr Frank had a very difficult position with respect to the police system.
DR. SEIDL: Is it correct that the Governor General repeatedly, both orally and in writing, declared his intention of resigning and the reasons for it?
LAMMERS: He repeatedly offered his resignation, because of these sharp conflicts which he had, with Himmler in particular, and because Hitler usually decided that he was in the wrong and Himmler in the right. Many statements of his intention or desire to resign were brought to me, some of which I was not even allowed to submit to the Fuehrer. But I informed the Fuehrer of the Governor
44
8 April 46
General's intentions of resigning and the Fuehrer several times refused Frank's offer to resign.
DR.SEIDL: Do you know that ReichsFuehrer SS Himmler was working towards having Frank removed?
LAMMERS: ReichsFuehrer Himmler personally was indubitably an opponent of Frank's. There is cause for me to assume from various disapproving statements made by Himmler with regard to Frank that Himmler would have liked it very much if Frank had been removed from his position; and Reichsleiter Bormann who also was not very well disposed to Frank's personality, would have liked it also.
DR.SEIDL: Who in the Government General had jurisdiction over the concentration camps and was the competent official as far as their establishment and administration were concerned?
LAMMERS: The concentration camps were under Himmler, and organs and departments under Himmler's control were responsible for the administration and organization. There was an economic department, I believe, attached to the SS, which was responsible for administration; but concentration camps as such were under Himmler's jurisdiction.
DR. SEIDL: Who was responsible for all questions connected with the socalled Jewish policy in the Government General?
LAMMERS: In occupied territories the Jewish policy, I might say, in its larger implications was handled by Himmler, who directed it. But, of course, the Governor General was also concerned with matters in the field of Jewish policy or with measures against the Jews, for instance, the combating of spotted fever, and, I think, the marking by means of a visible sign. All personal measures were proposed to the Governor General by the Police. But the main policy in Jewish questions, as I learned afterwards, was handled entirely alone by Himmler, who had been given these powers by the Fuehrer.
DR.SEIDL: Is it true that the Governor General, as early as 1940, continuously raised complaints regarding the activities of the Higher SS and Police Chief Kruger?
LAMMERS: I can confirm that. That happened several times. In particular these complaints were made because the SS and Police courts were assuming powers in the Government General which they did not actually have. Consequently, they deprived the Governor General, the only authority competent in this respect, of the administration of justice. There were also shootings of hostages. He repeatedly complained about that. I want to state that all complaints were addressed to me-there were no complaints to me but they were merely always directed to me-so that I could submit them to the Fuehrer.
45
8 April 46
DR. SEIDL: Is it correct that the Governor General continuously made objections about the extensive claim made by the Retiith on the Government General, particularly in reference to grain deliveries?
LAMMERS: He had often raised objections but the demands which were put to him were even increased. He did, for the most part, fulfill them, which must have been extremely hard for him.
DR. SEIDL: Do you know that the Governor General protested against the removal of art treasures by Himmler's organization?
LAMMERS: Yes; I have only a very faint recollection of that. It is possible that he also complained about the removal of art treasures, but I cannot remember any details in that connection.
DR. SEIDL: And now the last question. Is it true that the Governor General, in many documents, from as early as 1940 on, made proposals to the Fuehrer regarding the improvement of living con
ditions of the population in the Government General and that the Fuehrer only very much later acknowledged that the high policy which had been advocated by Frank from the very beginning was correct?
LAMMERS: Herr Frank had often objected to a policy of exploitation and pronounced himself in favor of a policy of reconstruction, in cultural matters as well. He had suggested, for instance, that Polish advisory committees be assigned to the authorities under the Governor General and to the district chiefs, and so forth; that was refused. He spoke in favor of the creation of high schools, theological seminaries, and similar cultural aims, all of which were rejected.
On one occasion he had submitted a long memorandum. This referred to a Polish organization which called itself "The Plough and the Sword." It had offered to cooperate with the Germans, and Frank submitted detailed proposals in a long memorandum, saying that these Poles could be won over to cooperate only if they were met on proper terms. All these suggestions, coming from Frank, were turned down by Hitler. It is not correct for you to say, Dr. Seidl, that it was not until the last moment that the Fuehrer agreed to these suggestions; all I can say is that they were all turned down without exception.
DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions.
DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): By a decree of 17 July 1941 the Defendant Rosenberg was appointed Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories. Would you please tell the Tribunal very briefly by means of what decrees his authority in the East was limited?
LAMMERS: I can do that very briefly by repeating what I said before. The same limitations which applied to the Governor General
46
8 April 46
also apply to him-these limitations which I have just listed; but I have to add one thing more to that.
The position of Reich Minister Rosenberg was made particularly difficult through the fact that the difference of opinion which existed between him and Minister Goebbels in the field of propaganda was especially detrimental for him. For in the Fuehrer's opinion Rosenberg was to decide on the Eastern policy and Goebbels was to decide on the propaganda, and these two things could not always be coordinated. There were strong differences of opinion between Rosenberg and Goebbels which could be settled only after lengthy negotiations. But the practical success was always slight, because the difference of opinion, which had scarcely been settled, arose again without delay in the next few weeks. There was also another limitation which is different from the case of the Government General, that is, that Rosenberg had two Reich commissioners for the Occupied Eastern Territories, Reich Commissioner Lohse and Reich Commissioner Koch.
DR. THOMA: I am coming to that later.
Can you remember that before the 17 July 1941 decree there had been a conference with the Fuehrer, on the day before, on 16 July 1941, during which, right from the beginning, Rosenberg complained that his ministry was to have no police powers and that all police powers were to be transferred to Himmler?
LAMMERS: Herr Rosenberg was, of course, not quite in agreement with the vesting of police powers in Himmler. He did object to that but without success. Police matters in other occupied territories had been ruled upon in the same way as in this case. The Fuehrer would not depart from his views.
DR. THOMA: In the general instructions to the Reich commissioners there is a passage where it says that the Higher SS and Police Chief is directly subordinate to the Reich commissioner himself. Did this mean that the Police Chief could also give orders to the Reich commissioner in technical matters?
LAMMERS: Normally, no; Himmler had reserved technical instructions for himself. The SS and Police Chief was instructed to get in touch with the Reich commissioner and, of course, to take into consideration the latter's political instructions, but not the technical ones.
DR. THOMA: Not the technical ones? Please tell the Tribunal, but also quite briefly, what Rosenberg's political concepts were, from the beginning until the end, with reference to the treatment of the Eastern peoples.
LAMMERS: In my opinion he always wanted to pursue a moderate policy. Beyond a doubt he was opposed to a policy of
47
8 April 46
extermination and a policy of deportation, as was often preached. He made efforts to create order in the field of agriculture by means of his agrarian policy, likewise to create order in the field of education, church matters, universities, schools, and so forth. But he had little success, since one of the two Reich commissioners, namely Koch, in the Ukraine, opposed Rosenberg's measures, or rather simply disregarded Rosenberg's orders in respect to these matters.
DR. THOMA: I am thinking about the large political conceptions. Did he ever mention to you that he had the idea of leading the Eastern peoples to a certain autonomy and of allowing them such an autonomy?
LAMMERS: Yes, I can answer that in the affirmative.
DR. THOMA: Did he also mention to you that he intended that sovereign right should be extended to the Occupied Eastern Territories?
LAMMERS: Whether he said it in just that form, that I cannot recollect. At any rate he was in favor of establishing a certain independence for the Eastern peoples.
DR. THOMA: That is to say autonomy was it for this reason that he was so deeply interested in tending to the cultural life of these Eastern peoples?
LAMMERS: Yes. He was particularly interested in that. I know that because he also took an interest in the school system, the church, and the universities.
DR. THOMA: Was that possibly the cause of the conflict which he especially had with Reich Commissioner Koch?
LAMMERS: That and many other things. Koch was above all a strong opponent of the agrarian policy. That agrarian policy which Rosenberg considered especially favorable in the interest of his aims was sabotaged by Koch.
DR. THOMA: Can you mention any other fields in which Koch made difficulties for the Minister for the Eastern Territories?
LAMMERS: I cannot at the moment recollect any.
DR. THOMA: Do you know that there was a final row between the two when you were given the order, in collaboration with Bormann, to conduct negotiations between the two, and that Rosenberg refused and demanded that the matter be brought before the Fuehrer?
LAMMERS: The differences of opinion between Rosenberg and Koch were very numerous. They filled volumes and volumes of records. The Fuehrer had given the order that Bormann and I should investigate these matters. Many weeks of investigation ensued; and after the investigation I must say there was never a decision made
48
8 April 46
by the Fuehrer. The Fuehrer always postponed making a decision on these matters. On one occasion-perhaps that is the case which you, Dr. Thoma, are thinking of-the differences of opinion were again particularly sharp.
The Fuehrer then sent for Rosenberg and Koch, and instead of settling these differences of opinion, again no agreement was reached. Instead of a real decision, the compromise was made that these two gentlemen should meet once every month and cooperate. That was naturally, in the first place, an unbearable situation for Rosenberg, that he, as the minister in charge, should in every instance have to come to an agreement with the Reich commissioner subordinate to him; in the second place, it could hardly be carried out in practice. Firstly, the two gentlemen met no more than once or twice at most, and then when they did meet no agreement could be reached, and in the long run the Fuehrer thought that Koch was in the right.
DR. THOMA: How could it be seen that Koch was considered right?
LAMMERS: Because the Fuehrer reached no decision in regard to the complaints made by Rosenberg which, in my opinion, were justified. Thus the things accomplished by Koch remained.
DR. THOMA: Defendant Rosenberg says that the result was that Hitler gave him the order to confine himself in the administration of the Eastern territories to the most basic lines. Is that right?
LAMMERS: That was approximately the Fuehrer's order. Both had agreed to come to a mutual understanding on the matter about which the Fuehrer had misgivings.
DR. THOMA: What form did Rosenberg's relationship to the Fuehrer take and when was Rosenberg's last report to the Fuehrer?
LAMMERS: As far as I know, Rosenberg visited the Fuehrer at the end of 1943 for the last time; and even before that he had always had considerable difficulties in getting to see the Fuehrer. He was not very often successful.
DR. THOMA: Did this tense situation have the result that Rosenberg offered his resignation in the autumn of 1940?
LAMMERS: Yes, it was not actually an application for resignation, since the Fuehrer had prohibited such applications, but he did say that if he could no longer conduct affairs to the Fuehrer's satisfaction, he would like to be removed from office, thus, in the end, it amounted to an application for resignation.
DR. THOMA: Can you tell the Tribunal to what extent Rosenberg had influence and popularity among the population in the Occupied Eastern Territories? Is it correct, particularly, that a number of church leaders in the Occupied Eastern Territories sent telegrams
49
8 April 46
of thanks to him because of his tolerant attitude and because he allowed them to practice their religion freely?
LAMMERS: I know of that only superficially, from personal statements made to me by Rosenberg. He may have once told me something like that.
DR. THOMA: I have another question. It has repeatedly come to light during this Trial that Hitler's military entourage considered him a military genius. What was the situation in the administrative sphere? Hitler was above all the supreme legislator, the supreme chief of Government and Head of State. Did his administrative entourage encourage him in the belief that all his decisions were correct and that he was doing something extraordinary, or who did strengthen him in this belief?
LAMMERS: In this sphere, too, the Fuehrer had an extraordinarily quick power of perception and almost always a correct evaluation of affairs. He was in a position to make frequent use of the largescale policy which he alone had to determine for legislation and administration. It was then the task of the gentlemen who were to carry this out; above all, the ministers-I, too, to a certain extent-to shape into an appropriate form those suggestions and basic thoughts which he had formulated. If any objections did arise in this connection, the Fuehrer was for the most part willing to listen to them, as long as they did not touch the principle of the matter; he was thus ready to listen to questions of severity, mitigation, or greater stringency, if necessary, or to questions of formulation and construction, but not if a basic tendency was being attacked. Then one had great difficulties with him.
DR. THOMA: And as far as individual problems were concerned) did he personally make the pertinent decisions about everything, or was he hampered in any way by his purpose, by certain aims which he had in mind?
LAMMERS: Very little was reported to him. Normally, in the last years I made official reports every 6 or 8 weeks; in other words six or eight times a year or perhaps, at the most, 10 times. On these occasions, problems could not be discussed. Generally speaking, the Fuehrer left the administration to his ministers...
THE PRESIDENT: We have heard it over and over again about Hitler.
DR. THOMA: I have only one more question. Did you know anything regarding the fact that Hitler had decided to solve the Jewish question by the final solution, that is, by the annihilation of the Jews?
LAMMERS: Yes, I know a great deal about that. The final solution of the Jewish question became known to me for the first time
50
8 April 46
in 1942. That is when I heard that the Fuehrer supposedly, through Goering, had given an order to the SS Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich to achieve a solution of the Jewish question. I did not know the exact contents of that order and consequently, since this did not come within my jurisdiction, at the beginning I took a negative attitude, but then as I wanted to know something I, of course, had to contact Himmler. I asked him what was really meant by the idea of the final solution of the Jewish question. Himmler replied that he had received the order from the Fuehrer to bring about the final solution of the Jewish problem-or rather Heydrich and his successor had that order-and that the main point of the order was that the Jews were to be evacuated from Germany. With that statement I was satisfied for the time and waited for fur her developments, since I assumed that I would now in some way-I really had no jurisdiction here-I would obtain some information from Heydrich or his successor, Kaltenbrunner.
Since nothing did come I wanted to inform myself about this, and back in 1942 I announced a report to the Fuehrer, whereupon the Fuehrer told me that it was true that he had given Himmler the order for evacuation but that he did not want any further discussion about this Jewish question during the war. In the meantime or shortly afterwards-this was already at the beginning of 1943-the RSHA sent out invitations to attend a meeting on the subject, "Final Solution of the Jewish Question." I had previously sent out an order to my officials that I was not defining my attitude to this matter, since I wanted to present it to the Fuehrer. I merely ordered that if invitations to a meeting were sent out, one of my officials should attend as a socalled "listening post."
A meeting actually did take place afterwards to discuss this question, but without results. Minutes were taken and the various departments were supposed to express their attitude. When I received these minutes I found that they contained nothing vital. For a second time I forbade taking a definite attitude. I myself refused to take a stand and I remember it very well indeed, because I received a letter which, first of all, was signed by some unimportant man who, as far as I was concerned, had no right to sign. He asked me why I had not yet taken a stand. Secondly, the tone of the inquiry was very unfriendly; he said that everybody had expressed an opinion except me. I ordered that the reply be made that I refused to define my views since I wished to discuss the matter with the Fuehrer first.
In the meantime I once more turned to Herr Himmler. He was of the opinion that it was necessary to discuss this question since a number of problems would have to be solved, particularly since the intention of achieving a final solution of the Jewish question would probably extend to persons of mixed blood, first grade, and
51
8 April 46
would also extend to the socalled "privileged" marriages, that is to say, marriages where only one party was Aryan whereas the other party was Jewish. The Fuehrer stated once more that he did not wish to have a repo