invasion and the miseries of German occupation?
A I can only say that is again a historical question. I have already said according to my point of vi** England and France in fact forced them to give up their strictly neutral attitude. That was my impression.
Q Wasn't it because they stood in the way of your air bases and U-boat bases? actions, they helped England in the war against us. That was my subjective impress on. should have asked on Norway only one; and if I might go back to that, I want to ask you about your diary entry, 1809 P.S., page 145 in Document Book 7. I haven't get a reference to the German but it is about at that place. I will read it slowly :
"March 13th: Fuehrer does not yet give order for "Weser". He is still looking for an excuse" -- "justification", to use your word. And the next day, 14 March: Fuehrer has not yet decided what reason to give for "Weser" exercises.
If you had a good reason for breaching Norwegian neutrality why should t* Fuehrer be unable to find one?
absolutely essential to have some documentary proof. So far, then had only been very strong indications which approached proof, but there was no documentary proof.
Q Very good. I leave that part of the case, and I now go to Yogoslavia, and I have only two or three questions on Yugoslavia. book 7; page 112 in the German book. also received assurances from the Fuehrer. That is so, is it not or don't you know?
A Yes. Not only Yogoslavia, from Hitler, but also we from the Yogoslavian Government, which had concluded a treaty with us on the previous day.
Q You will find the document I am going to refer to. I has a piece of paper headed with the German word for "discussion" "Besprechung". Have you found if? It should be a piece of paper with the word "Besprechung".
A "Discussion on situation in Yugoslavia"; yes.
Q Dated 27 March 1941?
Q Now turn to page 2, I think it is:
"The Fuehrer is determined, without waiting for loyalty declarations from the now government, to make all preparations to destroy Yugoslavia militarily and as a national unit. No diploma tic inquiries will be made; no ultimata presented. Assurances which cannot be trusted will be taken note of. The attack will start as soon as the means and the troops suitable are ready. I is important that action will be taken as fast as possible."
Now I go to page 3, witness:
"Politically it is especially important that the new blow against Yugoslavia is carried out with unmerciful harshness, and military destruction is done in a lightning-like undertaking."
"The main task of the Air Force is to start as early as possible with the destruction of the Yugoslavian Air Force ground installation, and to destroy the capital, Belgrade, in attacks by air." even half an hour's warning, was he?
A I don't know what preparations for warning the Yugoslavian Government had taken, but at the moment of the putsch it immediately node military preparations and deployed along our border.
Q May I ask you this? Do you approve, as an honorable soldier, of attacking a city crowded with civilians without a declaration of war or even half an hour's warning?
A I an not of that opinion. I have already said that I, personally, and an hour later the Reich Foreign Minister, suggested an ultimatum.
Q When you lost your air superiority and people were abl* to hit back, you Germans made a great deal of fuss then about terror attacks, didn't you? "Putsch" government, which had annulled a treaty concluded with Germany. From that moment on it made preparations for war with Germany along the whole front.
Q Well, I am going to leave the Incident. Do you remember how you refer to it in the notes for your lecture? It appears on page 292 of Book 7, and at 304 of the German. You refer to it as "an interlude". Do you remember? The (German word is "Zwischenspiel", "interlude". Is that your idea of an interlude?
and not my speech; you do not know that. However, in this first draft, I cannot recall mentioning an interlude. killed in the first movement of that interlude in the bombing of Belgrade without warning? killed in Dresden, for example, when the war had already been won. Socialist Republics. Hitler deciced to attack the Soviet Republic in July of 1940, did he not?
Q But at any rate -- I don't want to waste time -- we know that on the 22nd of June, 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union contrary to her non-aggression pact. That is history, is it not?
A Yes. The attack on the 22nd of June, 1941, is an historical fact, because the politicians were of the opinion that the Soviet Union had not held to the pact. altogether. I want to put me last question to you, however. Don't you think that this record of broken pledges will dishonor the name of Germany for centuries to come? of Russian documents, delivers clear proof that Russia did not have the intention of strangling us politically or of attacking us. In that case, yes; otherwise, no. counts 3 and counts 4. The documents have been put to you so often, that I don't want to put them again.
You remember the "Barbarossa" order. That is G-50, in document book 7, page 187; 146 of the German book. That was issued by your office, was it not, Wehrmacht Fuehrungsstab, L? Fuehrungsstab.
to issue?
A I agree. I have already said that there was no soldier who would not have opposed this order; and they all did so. which is in document book 7, at page 190, page 150 in the German -- we know that from the same office, the WFS, L, there was issued an order that the previous order was to be destroyed, but its validity was not be effected; that is, destroyed below corps level. What was the object of the destruction of that order?
A Unfortunately, I cannot tell you: I do not have this order. I do not believe that I ever saw it.
Q Perhaps you would look at it, witness, C-51, Page 190, Book 7; 150, German Book. How, that comes from W.F.ST. -- that is, Wehrmacht Fuehrungs Stab -- Department "L"; and then "Q" for "Quartermaster", in brackets. That is your office, is it not?
Q That is your office?
A Yes, But I do not know this order; and aside from here in Nuernberg I never saw it before. I do not know what it is about, what order is being rescrinded. I have already said that these questions of court-martial were under the jurisdiction of Field Marshal Keitel; and my quartermaster section issues the order without my having any part in it. I do not know.
Q And you cannot suggest any reason why it had to be destroyed?
A No; I cannot give you any information about that.
MR. ROBERTS: Now, then, I went C-52, which has not yet been put in. Your Lordships will find it on Page 191 of Book 8. I offer it as GB 485, and it is in the German book on Page 153. BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q How, this is another Keitel order. It comes from "Wehrmacht Fuehrungs Stab", "L"; then, in brackets, "1 Op". Is that your department?
Q Do you remember that order?
Q I think you took part in drafting it; did you not?
Q Yes, Will you look at Paragraphs 6 and 7? Paragraph 3 says:
"In view of the vast size of the occupied areas in the East, the forces available for establishing security in these areas will be sufficient only if all resistance is punished not by legal prosecution of the guilty, but by the spreading of such terror by the occupying forces as is alone appropriate to eradicate every inclination to resist, amongst the population.
"The respective Commanders, with the troops available to them are to be hold responsible for maintaining peace within their areas.
The forces, but by applying suitable dracenian measures."
That is a terrible order, isn't it?
A No, it is not terrible. It is established by international law that the inhabitants of an occupied territory must follow the orders and regulation of the occupying power, and an uprising of resistance against the army who occupies this country is forbidden. It is partisan warfare, and there are no means set by international law for combatting partisans. The principle is "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," And this is not a German principle.
Q Is it not the "tooth" and the "eye" of the innocent?
A It is not a question ofinnocence. It is said expressly, "to eradicate every inclination to resist". It concerns only those who resist, the partisans.
Q I will not argue about it, witness. I gather you approve of the order. a resistance movement of great extent and of unscrupulous methods, which is against international law. We had approved of this.
Q Very well. Now I want to come to something quite different. I want to come to the "Commando Order", and I desire to put in two documents which have not yet been put in, to trace the history of the making of this order, because I suggest it was drawn up in your office under your jurisdiction.
MR. ROBERTS: Will you give the witness, please, 1266-PS, which I offer, My Lord, as GB 486. BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Now, this is the first document, dated the 8th of October. That is a memorandum from the "Q" Branch of the Wehrmacht Fuehrungs Stab; that is right, is it not? you seize in Dieppe.
MR. ROBERTS: First it deals with the "tieing up order", My Lord, which is not important. Secondly, it has an announcement of the 7th of October, 1942, which reads as follows:
"All terror and sabotage detachments of the British and their be ruthlessly slain in battle wherever they make their appearance."
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Of course, that order does not mean very much, does it? It assumes that the enemy are not behaving like soldiers, but like bandits, and says they may be slain in battle.
But then the second paragraph says: "The Deputy Chief of the Operational Staff . . ." -- that was Warliment, was it not, witness?
Q He says, "the following task" is given to Department "* "1) Drafting in order form."
Look at Number 2:
"Like the Barbarossa order issued at the time this order thought and care.
Distribution down to Armies only, from there forward only orally.
To be destroyed after having been taken cognizance of".Intelligence?
The "Barbarossa Order" is not a clear term.
Q "The following must be borne in mind regarding the contents of the order.
"In cases where captives are temporarily taken into custody for our own purposes, the persons concerned are to be hand over to the SD, by Counter-intelligence, after a thorough examination in which the SD is also to take part.
"Not to be lodged in prisoner-of-war camps under any circumstances."
"This order is to take effect retrospectively with regard to the people from Norway". blown up a power station in Norway; is not that so?
A That is possible, but I do not know. I never say this The next document I will not read.
It is from somebody caled "Dr. Huelle", whom I do not know, and I do not think it adds anything to it.
Then the next document -- third in Your Lordship's document book -- is dated the 9th of October, and is signed "Warliment". It is dated the 9th of October, witness?
Q Signed by Warliment? that we know, and then says:
"The Fuehrer wishes that an order be issued laying down the "At the instance of the Operational Staff of the Wehrmacht, "You are requested to cooperate in a thorough examination,-"We refer to the discussion between the Chief of the Foreign Operational Staff of the Wehrmacht."
department:
"Members of terror and sabotage detachments of the British able way of fighting will be treated as bandits:
"They are to be exterminated mercilessly in battle or in flight.
Should military considerations demand that they "Keeping them in custody in a prisoner of War camp is for "This order may be distributed only down to armies.
From there forwards it must be made known only verbally.
This of". the head of the legal department about this order?
A No, I don't remember that.
Q Well, will you look at the next document; it is dated the 14th of October. It is a memorandum. Now you notice the heading, the original heading was "Revenge actions - prisoners of war." Somebody struck that out and put instead: "Combatting of enemy sabotage detachments," "Memorandum. (telephone discussion with the head of the Wehrmacht Legal Department). The head of the Wehrmacht Legal Department has in the meanwhile spoken with the chief of the Operational Staff of the Armed Forces by telephone." That is you, isn't it?
Q "The latter said that the Fuehrer's aim in this action was to prevent this manner of waging war (dropping small detachments who do great damage by demolitions etc. and then surrender). That was the object of the order, wasn't it? But if I might be allowed to ask you this question, do you draw any distinction between a British airman who bombs a power installation from the air and a British parachutist in uniform who is landed and blows it up with an explosive? Do you draw any distinction in International Law?
A No. The fact of destruction of an object by an explosive I consider completely permissible under International Law, but I do not consider it permissible for youths wearing civilian clothes under their uniform and having a pistol in a holster which starts firing as soon as one raises one's arms to surrender. not going to argue at all with you; but when you consider the case you will find many, many cases where these persons were executed and there is no suggestion that they had anything but a uniform at all. people were mixed with those who had on civilian clothes. and they will have to be, perhaps, summarized sometime. But would you agree that a parachutist in uniform, with no civilian clothes, acting like that, if he is killed, shot by the SD, would you agree that that would be murder?
Or would you rather not answer that? full uniform, I do not consider that an action contrary to International Law; and for this reason I apposed the Commando order in this form.
Q I hear your answer and I won't pursue that matter. Then the document goes on -- I don't want to read it all: "The head of the Wehrmacht Legal Department spoke to the effect that, under these circumstances, one should consider issuing an order suitable for publication. Article 23c of the Hague Regulations for Land Warfare, which forbids the killing or wounding of an enemy who lays down his arms or is unarmed if he surrenders unconditionally, had to be explained; when the Regulations for Land Warfare were concluded, this manner of waging war was not yet known and the regulation could therefore not apply to this," Well now, that was the first bundle. Now I want to put you -not seen any of these papers previously. I am now seeing them for the first time; but they prove, word for word, what I said day before yesterday under oath, that my staff had heard of the order and carried on preparatory work with the Legal Department and with the Foreign Department to draft such an order, but I did not accept any order and did not submit any to the Fuehrer.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I offer it as GB 487.
Q. Now the first document in the bundle is a teletype dated 13th of October and it is signed by Canaris.
Is that right, Witness?
A. It is a teletype message from Canaris, yes.
Q. It is a teletype to the CPS. Staff. The subject is "T reatment of Prisoners of War". "Regarding the notice dated 7.10.42, issued by the OKW - The following attitude in abbreviated form is taken regarding the discussions and measures which have been commenced". No.1 doesn't matter; it is about Chaining. No.2 is the important one: "Treatment of Sabotage Units. Sabotage units in uniform are soldiers and have the right to be treated as prisoners of war. Sabotage units in civilian clothes or German uniform have no claim to treatment as prisoners of war (francs tirours)". You agree of course, with the correctness of that, do you not? The rest of that document doesn't matter. You agree, do you now, with that opinion in Paragraph 2, as a man who knows International Law?
A. Paragraph 2, I admit it, yes. That is entirely my opinion. It agrees completely with my point of view.
Q. And now the next document.
MR. ROBERTS: If the Tribunal would kidly go to the last documents of the three, which is headed "Telephone Call. Reference: Letter Ausl/Abw, letter of 13.10.42. My Lord, that is the one I have just read.
Q. "Opinion of the Wehrmacht Legal Department". Paragraph 2, that is referring to Canaris' opinion, "Fundamentally in agreement. It may, however, be possible to support the following train of thought with regard to special cases: Fighting potentialities, such as exist new and such as it is intended to prevent, came about long after the creation of the Hague Convention,for Land Warfare, in particular as a result of the war in the air. In this connection special attention is drawn to the mass use of parachutists for purposes of sabotage. Anyone who commits acts of sabotage as a soldier with the intention of surrendering after the act of sabotage without fighting, does not act like an honest fighter.
He misuses the right of Article 23c of the Hague Convention for Land Warfare, during the formulation of which no such methods of warfare were contemplated. The misuse lies in the speculation on surrender without fighting, after successful completion of the act of sabotage. This view regarding the inadmissibility of sabotage commandos can be backed up without reservation, provided we also apply It to ourselves". That document has your intial on the top, Witness? Is that right?
A. I have read this document. It contains the opinion of the Wehrmacht Legal Department on International Law, which on this point agrees with the fuehrer's opinion. It controls the possibility, under International Law, that a misuse of International Law could be committed by intending from the beginning to surrender after an action and thus prearrange for Immunity for oneself. I don't quite share this opinion, but it was the opinion of the highest Legal Department at this time.
Q. Many, many brave soldiers, when they are outnumbered, surrender, do they not? Many Germans surrendered at Bizerte and Tunis, thousands of them. How did that put them outside the pale of International Law or the protection of it?
A. But they were soldiers who were captured in the normal course of war, and the Fuehrer always recognized that at all times. This is a doubtful case but it has nothing to do with me. I only acknowledge that document.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, the intermiediate document is a letter signed by Lehmann, who was head of the Legal Department It merely confirms the telephone conversation which I have read and I don't think it Is necessary to read it again. It is before the Defendant.
Q. Well now, the last of these documents before the order was finally drawn up and issued. The Court has already seen it because it was put in. It is 1263 PS, RF 365. My Lord, it was in the Jodl Document Book, No.2, Page 104.
T here is an unfortunate omission from page 110 in Dr. Exner's book, which I am perfectly certain is quite inadvertant.
Will you look at the document dated 15 October 1942?
My Lord, I think that is the first in your bundle. It is page 110. It is first in the signle documents. It is page 110 of Dr. Exner's book, and I apologize to him because I have just seen the marginal writing. It was covered ever before, and I had not seen it. I apologize. BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q. It is a note, is it not, witness, signed Warliment, your deputy, 15 October. I think you will find it the second document in your file. I do not want to read it all again, because it has been read, but you see, "The Proposal of the Foreign Office Abw. will be submitted as Appendix 1". which it is suggested under letter "A" that sabotage troops who do not wear uniforms should be court-martialed, and you have said "No". You have given your reasons. And "B": Members of sabotage units who are in uniform but are guilty of dishonorable activity are to be put into military confinement. Do you say that that doesn't go either? ond paragraph down:
"The Chief of WR--" That is the legal department -- "has made a statement to the effect that the order was to be drawn up in such a way that it will take into account our own interests." Is it "our own interests", witness? "Take into account our own interests"?
A. Yes, that is our own interest.
Q. "...our own interests while considering the future conduct of the war. In this way he wanted to avoind repercussions which would counteract our further intentions. Sabotage is an essential part of conducting wa r at a time of total warfare; we ourselves have strongly developed this method of fighting".
And you write again, don't you, "But the English are much more in need of it".
A. Yes, it is an undeniable fact in the war at that time that the English used it much more than we did.
Q. Is that a reason for making an order of this kind to try and discourage the English from using sabotage detachments?
A. No, that is certainly no reason. It is only a contradiction of the statement that we developed this method of fighting. That occasioned me to write, "Yes, but the English to a much greater extent that we", but that has nothing to do with the reason for the order.
Q. Then I am not going to take more time on that particular document, except -- Have you got a document dated 14 October with 1, 2, 3, 4 at the end? I think it is on a separate page, the 1, 2, 3, 4.
A. Yes.
Q. It says:
"With this view in mind to prevent the enemy's fighting the war by using sabotage troops, following questions have to be clarified before formula ting an order:
"1) Do we ourselves have the intention to commit sabotage units in the zone of rear echelons of the enemy only, or also far back in the zone of the interior?
"2) Whe will commit more sabotage troops, the enemy or we?
"3) Can we establish the principle: Sabotage units do not conduct legal war; they are to be exterminated in the fighting without money?
"4) Do we attach importance to arrest first the single members of this group for interrogation bu counter intelligence and not kill them immediately? office before the orders were drawn up.
A. Those were questions -- not a point of view -- but questions which on the basis of the communique were raised in the Wehrmachts Fuehrungs Stab. The basis for all these documents proves the correctness of everything I said here two days ago.
The staff and the legal department and the foreign department worried about how they could draw up the execution order to the supplement of the communique of the Fuehrer. Nothing was done. That is what I testified day before yesterday. That is what you yourself have proved through submitting these documents.
Q. You have said, I think, part of the Fuehrer's order disgusted you?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have said in your interrogation that circulating this order was one of the things which went against your inner conscience -- one of the few things. "Your inner convictions"-- to use your actual words.
A. In the previous interrogation I said that it was one of the few--or the only--order that I received from the Fuehrer which I in my own mind completely rejected.
Q. You rejected it, but those young men went on being shot did they not?
A. I described that here exactly, but in practice the commanders in chief at the front supported by me, interpreted this order as mildly as possible and, in fact, only a very few cases occurred. I believe that most--almost all that I learned of at any rate--were strongly justified because the fighting methods of those people were not the methods of honest soldiers.
Q. You see, you talk about your inner conviction. I think Keitel spoke about his inner conscience. But should we have heard anything about these convictions and this conscience if Germany had not lost the war?
A. No, but then we might have heard of the atrocities at Dieppe in a similar trial.
Q. Now, I just want to deal with a few examples very quickly of the order being carried out, as you said it was only carried out a few times.
I just, first of all, went to refer to UK 57, which is on copy 344.
I can read this out. It is a report which is initialed by Keitel.
"On 16 September 1942--" Mark the date. It is more than a month before the commando order came into being. "--ten Englishmen and ten Norwegians laded on the Norwegian coast. Dressedein the uniform of the British mountain Rifle Regiment. Heavily armed and equipped with explosives of every description. After negotiating difficult mountain country, they blow up important installations in the power station at Dromfjord on 21 September. The German sentry was shot. Norwegian workmen were threatened that they would be chloroformed. For this purpose the Englishmen were equipped with Morpheus Syringes. Several of the participants have been arrested. The others escaped into Sweden." Court, I think, in January. They were shot on 3- October 1942. That would be, shot as a result of the order which you circulated, although it was not in existence when those men blow up that power station. You told me some time ago, that that power station was a proper military target. Those men were in uniform. Can you begin to justify that?
A. No, I can not justify that, and I do not want to justify that. I consider it completely illegal. Even this order could never be retroactive, but I did not learn of it at that time. Of UK 57 I read the first part, and the second part I read only here. The third part I read in April 1944.
Q. Well, now, there ar e other exhibits dealing with this matter which I am not going to put to you. They have been refferred to before, and I do not want to be cumulative. I would like-- Perhaps I will ask you one question first. taken under this Fuehrer order was to be reported in the Wehrmacht report?
A. That was ordered, yes.
Q. I just want to give you an example of the Wehrmacht report.
MR. ROBERTS: 526-PS, US 5-2. My Lord, it is 7A, pagee15. It Is dated 10 May 1943, G erman page 21 of the small book. BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q. It is a notice from the "Q" branch of your staff.
"On 30 March 1943 in Toftefjord an enemy cutter was sighted. Cutter was blown up by enemy. Crow: T we dead men, le prisoners.
"Cutter was sent from Scalloway by the Norwegian Navy.
"2 Colt machine guns, 2 mounted machine guns, a small transmitter. 1,000 kg of explosives.
"Purpose: In connection with the organization for sabotageing strong-points, battery positions, staff and troop billets and bridges.
"Fuehrer ordered executed by the S.D.
"Wehrmacht report of 6 April announces the following:
"'In Northern Norway an enemy sabotage unit was engaged and destroyed on approaching the coast".
That was false, was it not?
A. I confirm this communique of 6 April which was set up, as on 6 April I received the contribution to the communique from the commander in-Norway. This brief formulation came from the commander at the front, but what actually happened is set down in this notice of 10 May, but, unfortunately, I never saw it. On 10 may 1943, I was going by train to Bad Gastein to cure a severe illness, and that is haw it happened that I did not see the document until here in Nurnberg. I am sorry. It would have been one of the few cases when I might have been able to interfore.
Q. Witness, keep-it in from of you, because, you see, the action was not taken on 10 May; it was taken before, or on 6 April. Look at the last paragraph:
"Wehrmacht Report of 6 April announces the following: