A I have done nothing more, nothing less, than to write down a decree by the Fuehrer and to forward it to those offices which were concerned.
Personal or political influence in these questions I didn't have.
QUnder your own signature?
AFor the signatures which I have written I gave an explanation yesterday, how they came about and what their significance was.
QYes, correct, you did talk about it yesterday. Right now I would like to determine more precisely your views with regard to Jugoslavia. Would you agree that the OK, participated directly in the organization of provocative acts and incidents so that German aggression could be facilitated and justified in the public opinion of the world?
AI have this morning, in answering questions of the counsel of another defendant, stated very clearly that I participated in no preparations of any incident, and that military offices also, according to the desire of Hitler, had nothing to do with the preparation, deliberation, or the execution of such incidents at any time--incidents here in the sense of provocation.
QCorrect. That part did the OKW take in insuring the occupation of the Sudetenland?
AGeneral, which Free Corps do you refer to?
QI am talking about the Sudetenland now, the Free Corps of the Sudetenland.
AI am not informed as to whether any military office or military department had sent armies there or sent them there secretly. I don't know it. At any rate, an order in that direction has not been given, or at lease has not passed through my hands. I cannot remember anything.
QThe and for what reason issued the decree to occupy Moravia and Bohemia by the German military units on the 14th of March 1939, in the afternoon, at the time when President Hacha was still on route to Berlin for purpose of negotiations with Hitler?
A The order was decided, in the end, by the Fuehrer. There had been preparations to occupy that area where the well-known steel works were, near Maehrisch, Ostrau, before the march into Czechoslovakia.
As a justification for that decision, Hitler had told me that would be done in order to keep the Poles from the North from grabbing it, and thereby getting the most modern rolling mill in the world. He stated that as a reason for the incident; and that occupation Actually took place in the late hours of the 14th of March.
QYes, and during the same period, at the same hour, President Hacha was en route to Berlin to negotiate with Hitler?
AYes, that is absolutely correct.
QThis is treachery, is it not?
AI don't believe that I am supposed to judge the facts. It is correct that the occupation occurred on that evening. I have given the reasons, and President Hacha found out about it only after he had arrived in Berlin.
Now I remember the name. The rolling mill was Witkovitz.
QIt is clear to me.
I have a few other questions in connection with aggression against the Soviet Union.
Yesterday you testified to several things on the subject. You related your position, or your viewpoint, with regard to the attack on the Soviet Union. You announced to the Tribunal that the order for preparing Plan Barbarossa took place at the beginning of December 1940.
AYes.
QDo you recollect that quite thoroughly and quite precisely?
AI do not know of, or do not remember any specific order by the High Command of the Armed Forces which would have ordered the execution of this plan called Barbarossa on the basis of a previous order. I explained yesterday, however, that already in September a decree had been issued concerning transport and railroad conditions. I cannot recall whether I signed that decree, but I mentioned yesterday such a preparatory decree to improve transport conditions from the West to the East.
QIn September, you mean?
A It may have been in September or October, but I could not state it with certainty.
More accurate information may be obtained later on from General Jodl, probably, who would remember that better.
QNaturally, when he takes the witness stand we shall interrogate him also.
I wish that you would recollect briefly the following: You first learned of Hitler's plans to attack the Soviet Union in the summer of 1940. Is that correct?
ANo. In the summer of 1940 -- I believe what you are referring tois the conversation which is mentioned in the diary of Jodl. Do you mean the conversation referred to in the diary of Jodl? This was apparently a briefing conference, and I did'not participate in it. My thoughts during that time justify my belief that I was not present, because I was on the way almost every day, by airplane, and therefore could not be present at briefing conferences.
QWhen did your conversation with Ribbentrop take place?
AThat may have been during the last days of August, or possibly the beginning of September, but I could not state the exact date any more. I would reconstruct the date by the fact that only on the 10th of August I returned to Berchtesgaden, and after that date I wrote the memorandum which I mentioned yesterday.
QAnd so you assert that you first heard about Hitler's plans to attack the Soviet Union from conversations with Ribbentrop?
ANo, no. After having been absent from Berchtesgaden for about two weeks -- partly on leave and partly on duty in Berlin -- I returned to headquarters at Berchtesgaden, and only then, on one of the subsequent days, probably during the middle of August, for the first time, I heard about thoughts of Hitler of that kind. That was the basis for my memorandum.
QIn that case, I put my question correctly. That is, in the simmer of 1940 you already learned of Hitler's plan to attack the Soviet Union?
AYes. The middle of August, after all, is still summer.
QYes, I quite agree; August is summer.
Further, I would like to remind you of the testimony of the witness Paulus, which he gave here to the Tribunal on the 11th of February of this year.
Paulus, as you might recollect, informed the Tribunal that when he entered the service of the OKH, on the 3rd of September, 1940, among other plans he also saw there the preliminary operational draft of the plan for attacking the Soviet Union, known under the code name of Barbarossa. You do remember that part of Paulus' testimony, do you not?
AI only remember it insofar as he stated it was a study or a sketch of a maneuver for training purposes, and he had found the material for that at the occasion of his transfer into the General Staff. The sketch itself in not known to me, and it could not be known to me because the materials and files and the various studies of the General Staff of the Army were never at my disposal, and I never had an opportunity to look at them.
QWhat I want to establish is this. You do not deny that in September, 1940, in the OKH, there were plans made and work done on the preliminary draft of the Plan Barbarossa?
AIf the testimony of Rudolf Paulus is availble, then I could not say that it is not true because I could not say whether it is actually true. That is, I can neither deny it nor affirm it.
QVery well, You have stated to the Tribunal that you were against the war with the Soviet Union.
AYes.
QYou also stated that you even suggested to Hitler that he change his intentions with regard to the Soviet Union.
AYes, not only that he change them, but that he should drop the plan and not conduct any war against the Soviet Union. That was the content of my memorandum.
QThat is precisely what I asked you.
Now I would like to ask you about a conference, evidently known to you, which took place three weeks after Germany attacked the Soviet Union, on the 16th of July, 1941. Do you remember that conference? It was dedicated to the problem of war against the Soviet Union.
ANo, at the moment I don't know.
Q I did not intend to submit that document to you at this particular minute.
You may remember that I submitted it to the defendant Goering. The document dealt with the participation of the Soviet Union, that is, of annexing some of its territories. Do you recollect now?
AThat is a document which I knew. I believe it is marked on top "BO-FU." During my interrogation I characterized it as a memorandum from Reichsleiter Bormann; I made that statement. At that time I also testified that only during the second part of that conversation was I present, and that I had not been present during the first part of the conference. I have also testified that it was not the record of the minutes, but a free summary made by Reichsleiter Bormann, which was dictated.
QBut you do remember that already at that time, on the 16th of July, the question was posed about annexing the Grimea, the Baltic State, the Volga Region, the Ukraine, Byelerussia, and other territories; that is, annexing those to Germany?
ANo, I believe that was discussed at the first part of the conference. As I remember the conference, I only recall the part where questions of personnel were discussed and, in particular, about certain persons who were to be appointed for certain jobs. That I remember, but the document I have only seen here, I didn't know if it before, and I did not attend the first half of the conference.
Q In that case may I put the question differently: What were the final objectives pursued by Hitler and his entourage in conducting their war against the Soviet Union?
AI personally, according to the explanations which Hitler had given to me, saw the more profound reasons for this war in the fact that he was convinced that in thecourse of the years to come, between the Slavic Empire of Communism and the German Reich of National Socialism, it would have to come to a war one way or another. The reasons which were given to me were the following: If I once believe and I am convinced that such a dispute or conflict between the two nations will have to occur, then rather now than later. This is about the way in which I could formulate it.
But the questions which are in that document BO-FU about the partition of several areas, I do not remember. I cannot recollect. Maybe they were pictures of the imagination.
QAnd you tell the Tribunal on oath that you did not know of Hitler's plans to seize the territories of the Soviet Union and to colonize these?
ANo. That has not been expressed in that form. It is true that it came to my knowledge that the Baltic provinces should come into a sort of dependence of the Reich, and that the Ukraine should come into a closer connection from the point of view of economy and nutrition, but concrete objects of conquest are not known to me and if they were ever mentioned I never considered them seriously. That is the way I thought about it at that time. I cannot explain how I see it today, but I have to say frankly how I saw it at that time.
QDid you know that at this conference of the 16th of July Hitler announced the necessity to rub the City of Leningrad off the face of the earth?
AI have read that document here again. If it is contained in the document I cannot remember it now. But I have had this document before me here; I have read it in the presence of the American prosecutor; and if it is said in there then it is only the question of whether I have heard it or whether I have not heard it. That depends entirely on the time at which I entered into that conference.
Q I told you that I do not plan to submit the document right now because it was submitted several times already.
The extracts already cited to the Defendant Goering stated: The Leningrad region is wanted by the Finns. The Fuehrer wants to erase Leningrad altogether and then give it to the Finns.
AI can only say that it is necessary to establish at what moment I attended that conference. Whatever had been said before I could not hear, and that I can only indicate if I am given the document or if one reads the record of my interrogation. I told the judge at that time.
QVery well. I shall give you the minutes of the conference immediately. We shall find the place. While we are looking for the place I will ask you one other question on the same subjct:
With regard to the destruction of Leningrad, did you not know from other documents available?
AI have been asked about that by the Russian delegation and the general who is present here, and he has called my attention to a document.
QI know; that is correct.
AI know the document as well which came from the navy, and I also know a second document which at that time contained a short directive -I believe on the order of Jodl -- concerning Leningrad. I have been interrogated on both documents;: but, on the other hand, I have to point out that neither as a result of a siege, artillery, or by the air force has a wanton destruction taken place in the sense as we know it from other places to a much greater extent. It never came to a systematic shelling of Leningrad, as much as I know. Consequently, one can only state what I have said at that time under oath to the gentleman of the Soviet delegation.
QYou mean it is known to you personally that Leningrad was never shelled?
ACertainly artillery was used against Leningrad, but in the sense of a destructive shelling it never came to that. That would have occurred, General, if it would have come to an attack on Leningrad.
QAfter you get acquainted with the document I will ask you a few other questions on the subject.
A It is very simple. After these remarks had been made I entered into a conference room.
I have told the interrogator that I heard the last sentence, which was about the appointment of Gauleiter Lohse, when I entered the room. Everything that had been said before I did not hear.
QIf you please. Have you found the place of the minutes of the meeting -- the paragraph that deals with Leningrad? You do see that there is that entry in the minutes of the meeting about Hitler's remark. You arrived at the conference immediately after they had finished talking about Leningrad?
AYes. I entered the room when they were talking about the qualifications of Gauleiter Lohse--whether he could be used as an administrative official. That was the first thing that I heard. A debate was going on just as I entered.
QIt states there quite clearly: Rub the city of Leningrad off the face of the earth.
AYes, I have read that here.
QThe same is stated in the decree, is it not?
AYes; but that is not a causal connection for me. That was a decree of the navy. Is that what you meant? The order which was found with the navy--the Kriegsmarine?
QYou do know that there were two decrees, one issued by the naval command and the other by the OKW. You do know that, don't you?
AYes, I have seen both these decrees here. They were submitted by the Russian delegation.
QAnd you do know of a decree signed by Jodl of the OKW? It also talks about erasing the city of Moscow--rubbing that off theface of the earth.
AThat I do not remember now anymore. If mention was made of Leningrad at that time, if it is stated there I mil not deny it.
QI am asking you. What is the purpose of the decrees? Did OKW issue decrees for the purpose of having them obeyed?
AThe decree or the order of thenaval command is no OKW order and not known to me. The shorter order, signed Jodl of the OKW, was not issued in my presence, because if I would have been present I would have signed it.
Certainly I was absent. Therefore, I do not know the prerequisites or the discussions which preceded that decree.
QYou have not replied to my question. I am asking you: Are the decrees issued so that they could be obeyed, or otherwise?
AThat was a directive but not an order, because an order can only be given from the local command office of the army. It was just a directive.
QAre not directives of the OKW meant to be obeyed, followed, carried into action? And about your statement that no one shelled Leningrad, we don't really need that statement, since the destruction of Leningrad is well known to the world.
Proceeding further: Do you know -
AI ask to be permitted to say that I was not commanding there. That is why I don't know.
Q Do you know that before the beginning of the war against the Soviet Union defendant Goering issued a so-called "Green Folder" which countained directives on economic questions in the territories which were to be occupied in t the Soviet Union by the German Army?
AYes, that is known to me.
QDo you affirm that your decree of the 16th of June 1941, issued directives to all the German armed forces to obey these economic directives without question?
AYes, there is this directive which makes known to all groups of the Army which organization was established and for what purposes, and that accordingly all the military commands of the army had to coordinate with them. That I have not ordered, but I have just transferred it.
QWas it your own decree of where you merely obeying your directions?
AI only merely passed on the orders received from the Fuehrer because I could not give any orders to Reich Marshal Goering in that respect.
QYou did issue an order to Field Marshal Goering, however, concerning the armed forces?
AI could not give him an order; I could only pass on the intention of the Fuehrer to the commander of a branch and he could pass it on to his subordinate commanders.
QYou did not disagree with the Fuehrer's desires on the subject, though though, did you ?
AAny protest, since this was nothing concerning the field of competency of the OKW, I could not voice. I did not have to; I just passed it on.
QYou do affirm that this order of yours had this objective: the immediate and full economic exploitation of the occupied regions of the Soviet Union in the interest of German war economy?
AAn order of that kind would be purposeless, and the purpose of an organization such as the economic organization Oldenburg I have not given because this was not my problem. I only passed on the contents of the "Green Folder" to the high command of the army in order for them to act on it.
QYou do admit that the directives contained in the "Green Folder" were aimed at the plunder of the material wealth of the Soviet Union and all its citizens.?
A. No. Of destruction or extermination nothing could be found such as I remember in the "Green Folder" Perhaps the exploitation of surplus which could be found there, especially in the field of food and raw materials which should be utilized for the entire war economy of Germany; but not to destroy them.
I said in the "Green Folder" there were basic thoughts for the use of reserves which we expected to find which were considered surplus, but never to destroy then and in doing so to lot the Soviet population starve. That was not the case. I have seen these things myself and therefore I an qualified to speak about it.
Q You do not consider that plunder?
ATo squabble over words, whether booty or exploitation or plunder, I think brings us into a field which we do not need to discuss here. Everybody has a different use of words.
QVery well, we shall not argue about it. My last question with regard to the attack on the Soviet Union is this: Do you agree that the method of behavior and of conducting the war in the East on the part of the German army differed radically from even the elementary conception of military honor and military necessity or wisdom?
ANo. To that I cannot agree in that form; rather that the disintegration of the war against the Soviet Union and in the East occurred and was not to be attributed to the German Army but to those conditions which I have stated in an affidavit submitted by my counsel to the Court. I beg to ask that the Russian prosecutor should read it and see my opinion about it.
QVery well. To conclude the questions with regard to aggression and to pass to another subject, I have the following questions here and I do hope that you will tell the Tribunal whatever knowledge you possess as the person closest to Hitler on the subject of military questions. My question is this; What were the objectives of the OKW? How were these questions posed before the German armed forces? What were the directives to the German armed forces in case a victory over the Soviet Union was final?
AI do not know what you mean by that; what is meant by that. Which demands were put to the military leadership in case the war should have terminated successfully? May I ask you to put this question again? I did not quite understand it.
QI mean this: The problems for further conducting the war after the eastern campaign was concluded successfully, that is, what were the plans?
AThen that could occur which actually did occur later, that is, the landing of the British and American forces in France, in Denmark or in Germany. There were various possibilities of warfare which could have occurred which could not even have been anticipated.
QI am not asking the questions in general but specifically. You undoubtedly do know some of the documents and plans pertaining to "C" or naval warfare, plans which were already ready by the 8th of August 1941, plans dealing with carrying on the war after the eastern campaign was concluded successfully, that is, plans about invading Iraq, Syria and Egypt.
You do knew the document dealing with plans of that nature?
ASo far that has not been submitted to me, and I cannot recall it.
QYou do not knew this document 8-57 already submitted to the Tribunal as USSR-336? I shall show it to you in a minute.
A I see this document for the first time, at any rate here during the proceedings.
It begins with the sentence:
"The Command of Naval operations has a draft Concerning the preparations."
This order or draft of the Naval Command I have never seen. The draft for a directive could only come from the High Command of the Armed Forces, that is the Armed Forces Leadership Staff, which represented the leadership of the army, navy and air force and it is quite possible that thoughts had been formulated and put down in the shape of a draft of a directive and it would have been made known to the members of the Staff. I cannot remember such a draft of the directive of the Armed Forces Leadership Staff but I believe that Colonel General Jodl is in a position to give us more information about that. I cannot remember it.
QYou do not remember that directive. aI shall not ask you about it in detail but you do see that the document contains plans for the seizure of Gibraltar with the active participation of Spain. It provides further for an attack on Syria, Palestine, Egypt and so on. And you say that you have no idea of what these plans were and that you do not know about this document?
AI will be glad to give information about that. An attack on Gibraltar, representing the entrance to the Mediterranean, had already been planned before, that is during the winter of 1939-40, but it had never been executed. It was nothing new and the other questions which have been mentioned were such which were based upon the situation existing north of the Caucasus in the course of operations.
I would certainly not say that these could not have been thoughts in our minds but I do not remember every document or I have not read every document of the Armed Forces Leadership Staff, such as this draft.
QIf such documents you consider mere scraps of paper, documents concerning the seizure of foreign lands, than what do you consider important?
AI can only state the following, that it is true and sincerely stated in war time one makes manifold plans and considers various possibilities which seen in reality cannot be carried out and, therefore, afterwards also historically such papers, documents cannot be considered the expression of the leadership operational and strategic plans.
Q Yes, I do agree with you, of course, from a historical point of view this document is of no importance.
But in discussing the plans of the German General Staff at the time it thought it would defeat the Soviet Union and from the viewpoint of analyzing those plans or objectives the document is important. However, I shall not ask you any more about this document. I shall pass on to questions of your relationship toocrimes.
Your attorney for the defense, Dr. Nelte, submitted to you the basic documents of the Prosecution on the subject of war crimes. For that reason I do not plan to enter into a detailed discussion as to these documents. I shall merely ask you about the basic contents of these documents, such questions particularly which were omitted by your counsel when he questioned you.
First of all I turn to a document which the order of military jurisdiction in the region of the "Barbarossa" and of the special military measures to be taken by the armed forces. You do remember the document dealing with the subject? It was dated 13 May, 1941, that is more than a month before the beginning of the war against the Soviet Union.
Yes do remember that in that document, which predates the war, it states that elements suspected of anti-German tendencies must be immediately brought to the German officers and that it is the latter who will decide whether they will be shot or not? You do remember that directive, do you not?
You signed that order, did you not?
AYes, indeed, I have never denied that. But I have given explanations as to how the document came into being and who was its originator.
THE PRESIDENT:The date of the document seems to have come through wrong. Did you say the 13th of May?
GENERAL RUDENKO:The 13th of May.
THE PRESIDENT:What is the number of the document?
GENERAL RUDENKO:Document C-50, dated the 13th of May, 1941.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
QAlthough you told me that you have already explained to your counsel the subject of this order, nevertheless I have to ask you this question in a somewhat different form. Did you consider that the right of the officers to shoot people on the spot was not permissible -- did that exist or did it not exist?
AIn the German Army there has always been against our own soldiers and against our enemies military courts which could always be established, consisting of one officer and one or two soldiers who act as judges. That is what we call court martials but there has to be one officer at least to decide in this court. But as a matter of principle I have to repeat the statement which I have made yesterday.
QJust one moment. I am asking you to reply to this question. Did not this document abolish court procedure and trials with regard to suspects and did it not give the right to shoot civilians to the officers of the German Army, is that not so?
AIn the case of German soldiers it was correct, it was admitted, that is a court martial with judges and there is a Standgericht which/consists of soldiers and they have the right to execute.
THE PRESIDENT:You are not answering the question. The question is what right does this document give, not what the orders in the German Army are. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
QCan you reply to this question? Did this document do away with court procedure and trials and did it give or did it not give the German officers the right to shoot persons who were suspected of anti-German attitudes?
AThat was an order which was given to me by Hitler. He hadissued that order and I put my name under it and what consequences that had, what meaning it has, I have explained that in detail yesterday.
QYou, Mr. Field Marshal, signed that decree, you as a Field Marshal. Even considering the decree was not incorrect did you not understand the consequences of that decree? If you did then why did you sign it?
AId cannot say any more than that I put my name under it and whatever measure of responsibility I may have assumed in my position by doing so.
QAnd one more question. On the 13th of May, 1941, which is the date of the decree, in other words, almost a month before the beginning of the war against Russia, plans were already made for procedure of that kind, for assassination really.
A That I do not understand. It is correct that this order was issued about four weeks before the beginning of the campaign "Barbarossa" and another four weeks before that it had been given to the generals in a statement by Hitler.
They knew that weeks before.
QWith regard to how the decree was applied you are informed?
AI have in the preliminary interrogations also told the Soviet interrogator of my opinion and about the fact that generals have spoken to me about this order and it has not been mentioned here that is says specifically that the higher commanders have the right to suspend this order as soon as a pacification took place in their area. I have answered that to everybody who asked me about the interpretation of this order. I said that it specifically stated that you could suspend this order as soon as your area is pacified. That was the subjective possibility for the commanders and it is included.
QAnd finally the last question in connection with this order. Did this order actually establish an atmosphere or position, a situation where German soldiers or German officers could go unpunished for shooting civilians or being lawless in general?
AWithin certain limits. The limit was given in the oral order to the generals, that is to say by using the most extreme amount of discipline on your own troops.
QI think,defendant Keitel, that these limits have already been established from documents submitted to the Tribunal.
I have the following question to ask. On the 12th of May, 1941, a plan was developed with regard to how to treat the Soviet prisoners of war. Do you remember that document?
AAt the moment I cannot recall which one you mean. It is not clear to me what you are referring to.
QI mean the document dated the 12th of May, 1941, which establishes the procedure by which political commissars, political workers, of the Red Army be not recognized as prisoners of war but be annihilated.
AAbout that I have only seen the remarks. I do not recall the document but I know about the facts. I cannot recall the document from memory at this moment. Could I see it please?
Q If you please.
THE PRESIDENT:What number is it?
GENERALRUDENKO: 780-PS, dated May 12, 1941, and under the subject of treating Soviet prisoners of war and political workers in the Red Army.
AIt is not an order, but a memorandum by the Department of National Defense, with the remark that decisions by the Fuehrer have been required, and that memorandum contains the suggestion for an order. I remember that and I have seen it. The result of the report to Hitler is not mentioned; only the suggestion is made of regulating that problem. As far as I know, that was then reported to the High Command of the Army as having been approved by the Fuehrer or having been discussed or taken care of between the Fuehrer and the commanders of the army.
QWhat do you mean by "regulating"? There are so many terms known to us from the German terminology, such as execution, special regime. In using all those terms meant just one thing; they meant assassination, putting people to death. Just what do you mean by "regulating"?
AI do not know which word means regulating. I have said that, in the sense of that memorandum, according to my recollection, directives had been issued by Hitler to the army at that time; that is, an approval to the suggestion which has been made in that paper.
QIn that case you do not deny that already in May, at least more than a month before the beginning of the war, projects were already there to annihilate or do away with the political commissars or political workers of the Red Army? You do not deny that such plans were there?
ANo, that I do not deny. That was the consequence of directives which had been worked out in writing by the generals.
THE PRESIDENT:The Court will adjourn now.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 6 April 1946, 1000 hours).
Official transcript of the International Military Tribunal in the matter of The United States of America, the French Re public, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Societ Socialist Republics against Hermann Wilhelm Goering et al, Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany on 6 April 1946, 1000 1300, Lord Justice Lawrence presiding.
WILHELM KEITEL --- resumed.
CROSS EXAMINATION --- continued. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q.I am asking you in regard to the order concerning so-called Communistic partisan movements in the occupied territories. Yesterday your counsel showed you this order. This order is dated 16 September 1941, R-98. I remind you of one phrase out of this order. It said in it that discontent should be suppressed and in order to do it, it is necessary to take immediately cruel measures in order to safeguard the authority of theoccupational powers and to prevent further dissemination of Communistic movement; and furthermore, one has to keep in mind that human life in countries affected absolutely does not cost anything and that intimidating action is possible only by means of applying extraordinary cruelty. You remember this basic idea of the order, that human life absolutely doesn't cost anything. Do you remember this sentence?
A.Yes.
Q.You signed this order with this statement?
A.Yes.
Q.Do you consider that this order was called for by necessity?
A.The background of this order has been explained by me yesterday and I have drawn your attention to the fact that his directive or order was predominantly directed to the supreme commander in the southeast and his departments. This is the Balkans I am referring to. Considerable partisan activities and bandit warfare was taking place and was assuming incredible proportions; and secondly, similar observations had been made in certain limited parts of the occupied Soviet territory. They had been observed there, too.
Q.It means that you consider that this order was quite correct and apt?
A.My basic views regarding all orders which were made with reference to the treatment of the civilian population have been explained to you. I have signed that order and within my official jurisdiction I am assuming the responsibility.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal considers that you are not answering the question. The question was perfectly capable of an answer yes or no and an explanation afterwards. It is not an answer to the question to say that you have already explained to your counsel. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q.Once again I ask you, do you consider this order -- and I mean to emphasize this particular order -- in which it is stated that human life absolutely does not cost anything, do you consider this order right?
A.It doesn't contain these words but the fact that in some eastern territory and in certain parts of the Soviet territory human lives were not respected. That was the effect which I had know during the previous years.