'" Is that correct as to the general procedure?
AThat is not entirely correct. The OKW took the point of view that the conversation should be observed. The treatment of prisoners of war in general in Germany was only exteriorly in the charge of the OKW. The people who really formed the decisions regarding prisoners of war were the Party offices and the economic offices. For example, my office had to submit every order that was issued to the Party Chancellory and the Party Chancellory interpreted how this order was to be carried out, and not the OKW.
QI don't want to go into it in detail. You had an interview with Bormann's deputy, Friedrich, at the Party Chancellory. And then, the next long paragraph beginning "The Air Force prisoner of war camps were under German Air Force Administration."
We have gone into that, if Your Lordship agrees, in detail -- the Air Fore side of it -- and I didn't intend to put that.
Then I want you to come to where it says, in the paragraph after you talke about the question of handing over prisoner of war camps to Himmler's organization, "We were told all men who get away are to be shot." It may be the beginning of another paragraph. It is the beginning of the next paragraph in my English version. Do you see it? After a long paragraph about Air Force camps.
AWhat page please?
QThe trouble is the pages are different, but it begins "We were told all men who get away are to be shot." It is the third from the last paragraph of the document. If you start from the end of the document you will see a paragraph "I can't remember"; and the one before it, "We arranged with the Fieldmarshal." It is the one before that. "We were told all men who get away are to be shot." Have you got it?
"The Fieldmarshal prohibited anything concerning this to be put into writing. Nothing at all. Only the camp was to be informed in order to put them in the picture. I discussed the matter with Graevenitz once more. I can't tell you the exact detail anymore. We contacted the Gestapo regarding the return of the bodies. We had to have them back. Then von Graevenitz left for the front."
It is the next bit I want you to look at carefully.
"I then said to Oberstleutnant Kraft, 'I won't do it like that; I am going to cover myself at all costs so that we are not involved in it afterwards.
It's true the Fieldmarshal has forbidden it to be put in writting, but I want to have it in writing. It must be signed by the Fuehrer.'" Now that is what you said to Kraft; comparatively unimportant.
AThat is not entirely correct.
QTell us what you like altered in it.
AI wanted it in writing that was signed by the Fieldmarshal, and for this reason I drew up a memorandum describing this discussion, In this way I wanted to get the Fieldmarshal's signature to it so that I would have something in writing to prove that it actually was the way things were.
QNow, just look at the next sentence. I think that entirely agrees with what you have said:
"Contrary to Fieldmarshal Keitel's orders, I pretended that I hadn't understood properly. I worked the thing out on paper. I said to Oberstleutnant Kraft 'I want to have the word "shoot" included so that Keitel can see it in writing. He may adopt a different attitude then.' When I got the thing back he had written the following in the margin: 'I didn't definitely say "shoot"; I said, 'Hand over to the police or hand over to the Gestapo,"'
AThat is also not entirely correct.
QWhat change would you like to make in that, General?
A I stated very clearly in my sworn statement that the Fieldmarshal had written on the margin "I didn't say shoot, but turn over to the Gestapo."
QIs that the same as is in this statement? It says, "He wrote in the margin 'I didn't definitely say shoot. I said hand over to the police or hand over to the Gestapo."
AThat is so, yes.
QI wanted this to be quite clear, General. The draft order or note of information that you had put up to the Fieldmarshal contained the word "shoot?"
AYes.
QNow there is only one other bit. You go on to say, "We arranged with the Fieldmarshal to have the matter submitted to the Fuehrer. We had the feeling that there was something not quite in order."
And then you say that you had to approach the police authorities on a slightly lower level, and about ten lines down you say this:
"In the end I couldn't get where I wanted with this affair, so I went to Berlin myself. It was the only time I ever saw Kaltenbrunner, and said to Kaltenbrunner: 'This matter is still outstanding. It should be submitted to the Fuehrer. It can't carry on like this. A decision must be made sometime. But apart from that I am of the opinion that the whole affair should be dropped. The whole thing is madness. It has already let us into so much unpleasantness and is so monstrous that I am still of the opinion that this affair should either be stopped in some way or the Fuehrer be dissuaded from continuing it any further.'" Is that generally, again in substance, a correct version of what you said to the Defendant Kaltenbrunner?
AThis is not directly a question of this matter but rather of an order that was to be issued by Wagner and that could be submitted to the Fuehrer in two ways: (1) via the chief of the OKW, and (2) via Himmler. This order had been submitted to Keitel and then to the Gestapo. The Gestapo read this outline of the order and then the matter was carried no further. I could not find out why this was so and spoke about this matter to Kaltenbrunner.
Q Was this the order in its final form that escaped prisoners of war should be handed over to the Gestapo or the police?
AYes.
QI see. So this, if I may have your attention, was really dealing with the future, was it? This was dealing with what was to be done in the future?
AYes.
QMy Lord, I don't think one need go into it in details again, unless the Tribunal wants. My Lord, the rest of the statement is only a general account of the attitude of the British prisoners of war, and I have no complaint about it at all.
My Lord, there is one problem that has arisen which perhaps the Tribunal would consider now. My friend Colonel Pokrovsky has certain quite different matters with regard to the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war which he wanted to raise with this witness, and perhaps the Tribunal would consider it a convenient time to do it.
THE PRESIDENT:It probably would be more convenient if Dr. Nelte put his questions to this witness, if he has any, first, before Colonel Pokrovsky.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:I should respectfully agree to clear up this topic first.
THE PRESIDENT:Unless Colonel Pokrovsky's questions might relate to the Defendant Keitel?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:They do relate, of course, to the position of the OKW with these prisoners of war, but they have nothing to do with Sagan.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Nelte, have you any questions you want to put to this witness? BY DR. NELTE:
QWitness, what was just read to you is called a statement. Was this statement in the form in which it was here read submitted to you orally or in writing?
AI was interrogated, and these arenotes which are a summation of my testimony. Of course, I found errors here and there because this is a summary and does not contain the individual questions and answers.
QIn other words, this is a summation of the answers you gave to questions at various interrogations?
AYes.
QWas this summation ever submitted to you?
ANo.
QI had the impression that the passages read to you here were on occasion very long and that you sometimes gave an answer to what was really only the latter part of these passages. I should like now to ask you whether after this interrogation in London you were again interrogated?
AI was interrogated here in Nurnberg.
QBy Colonel Williams?
AYes.
Q What did Colonel Williams say to you at the conclusion of this interrogation?
AAt the conclusion of the interrogation, Colonel Williams asked me to describe briefly the basic central point of my testimony and to sign this sworn statement.
QDid you swear to this statement before Colonel Williams?
AYes.
QNow, I should like to go through the interrogation with you, that you had with Colonel Williams and which is to be found in document 1450.
THE PRESIDENT:What do you mean by document 1450?
DR NELTE:RF1450 is contained in my document book as document 5, in my document book.
THE PRESIDENT:But you mean RF 1450, do you?
DR. NELTE:Yes, RF. BY DR. NELTE:
QThis document is entitled "Brief of Interrogation of General Adolf Westhoff by Colonel Curtis L Williams, on 2 November, 1945."
THE PRESIDENT.Just one minute. Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal thinks that you can put to this witness "Did you or did you not make a different statement in an interrogation at some other time?" But the document that you are referring to now is a document which the Tribunal refused to admit on your own objection. When the French presented that document, you objected to it and it was therefore not allowed to be put in, so that the proper way in which to put the question now is "Did you say to Colonel Williams so and so?"
DR NELTE:Very well. BY DR. NELTE:
QI have here a summation of these points that are contained in the document regarding Colonel Williams' interrogation, those points which do not correspond to your other interrogations. What did you say to Colonel Williams' question-
THE PRESIDENT:You are saying that he has made statements which are different from what he has said in evidence now. You must ask him about it and not make statements which are different from what he has said in evidence now.
You must ask him about it, and not make statements yourself. BY DR. NELTE:
QWhat did you say to Colonel Williams, to his question, whether the prisoner of war camps in their entirety were subordinate to Keitel and the OKW?
AThe prisoner of war camps are subordinate to the OKW only to this extent, that the OKW had the control of them and that the OKW have gotten in touch with the protecting powers; namely, the OKW did not have punitive powers in the prisoner of war camps.
QWhat did you answer to Colonel Williams' question regarding the right of the OKW regarding the inspection of the camps?
AThe OKW had the right to inspect. That can be seen also in my official orders which state clearly that such inspection is permissible.
QWhat did you anser to Colonel Williams' question, under whom the Stalag Luft 3 was subordinate.
AIt was subordinate to the High Command of the Luftwaffe, because the High Command of the Luftwaffe on its own wished, from the beginning of the war, all prisoner of war camps containing airmen under its control.
QDid you answer one of Colonel Williams' questions that Goering, Himmler, Keitel and Hitler had decided to shoot the officers who escaped from this camp?
ANo, that is a mistake. Colonel Williams asked me what the Fuehrer had said to Keitel; thereupon, I ansered clearly that I know nothing about this, since I had not taken part in that conference. I could only make statements about the conference that Keitel had with General von G raevenitz.
QDid you answer Colonel Williams that Fieldmarshal Keitel, during this conference, had said "This is my order?"
ANo. The Fieldmarshal could not issue an order regardin the shooting, since this shooting was not in the competence of the Wehrmacht but in the competence of the Gestapo.
QDuring your interrogation, particularly with Colonel Williams, did you state clearly that it had never been a question of an order issued by Keitel himself or of an order which Keitel transmitted to you on higher orders?
AThis is a question of information given to Graevenitz, that is stated altogether clearly in my sworn statement.
QIf I understand you correctly, you say that Fieldmarshal Keitel never issued an order of his own nor ever expressed or transmitted to you any order regarding these officers that were to be shot?
ANo, that he could not do.
QDuring the interrogation by the prosecutor a moment ago, there was talk of a report which the camp commander G oerlitz made to you. This is also in the protocol. Did you ask for or receive a report from the camp commander?
AI had no personal connection with the camp commander Goerlitz but there must be a confusion with the statement of the Swiss representative Naville.
QIs it correct that during the discussion between on the one hand, Keitel, and on the other hadn, Graevenitz, two matters were brought up; First, the case of the escaped Royal Air Force officers; and secondly the question as to how the Fuehrer action should be taken in order to prevent such escapes?
AYes, that is so.
QI know of a question to ask you in which I should like to request you to anser, if possible, only with yes or no. Is it true that in case 1 , namely, the affair of the escaped officers, the conversation consisted exclusively of a making known of these facts and of what had happened in the higher spheres of authority?
AYes.
QDid General Graevenitz, on the return from headquarters, did he not say to you "What can we do if the Gestap o once gets things into its hands?"
AYes.
Q In other words, it is clear, on the entirety of your conversation with Keitel, that it was a question here of an order directed to Himmler from Hitler?
AIn regard to the shootings, yes.
QAfter Professor Neville visited the camp, did he say to you that his impression was no doubt, that there were stronger forces against which the OKW was unavailing in its efforts?
AYes.
QDid the OKW in regard to the escaped prisoners and in regard to the treatment of them, have anything to do or was it perfectly clear that in this respect, this matter was settled so far as the OKW was concerned?
AThe OKW could do nothing further because the matter had been taken entirely from its hands.
QAccordingly, then, it is not correct to say that after this discussion between Keitel, Graevenitz and Westhoff, that a conference was called by the OKW?
ANo, there was no further conference with the OKW.
QA document has been submitted in which Colonel Walde--it is document D-731 in which Colonel Walde states, and to be sure, he says at the beginning that he had to reconstruct what had happened from memory and according to his recollection he believed that the OKW had called a conference that took place in the Prinz Albrecht Strasse. Do you know anything about this?
AOf this conference, I know that it could not have been called by the OKW, I only know about this conference from you and I also know that it could not have been called by the OKW; otherwise it would have been held at their headquarters and not at the Prinz Albrecht Strasse.
QIs it correct that the recaptured officers, recaptured by the Wehrmacht, were returned to the camp and remained there?
AYes.
QWere recaptured prisoners of war who were turned over to the camp in any case, let out again for any reason?
ANo.
QIs it, on the other hand, true that you gave the camp commander strict orders on the part of the OKW, that recaptured prisoners should under no circumstances be let out of the camp again?
A This order was not given to the camp commanders by me, but to the sectiona commanders (Wehrkreise) in charge of Prisoner of war, and by them to the camp commanders.
QAn order was mentioned that the names of the escaped prisoners who had net returned, should be published. You stated before that this order came from above in order to Serve as a deterrent and in order to clarify it and its purpose I should like to ask you whether Fieldmarshal Keitel aid not say as justification for this order "I hope, however, that the prisoners will be so shocked by this that they in the future do not try to escape"?
AYes, the Fieldmarshal said that.
QYou stated, or rather, it was read to you that Keitel to you and Graevenitz that nothing could be put down in writing about this whole matter nor could any other office be consulted on it?
AYes.
Q Now, is it correct to say that regarding this matter, 10 A pril-A-7-1-LJG namely the conference, that you drew up a memorandum on it and submitted it to Keitel?
AY es.
QIs it correct that Field Marshal Keitel did not take offense at this fact as one might have expected but wrote his initial "K" on this memorandum that you submitted to him?
AY es.
QIs it also true that you, because you had to report, got in touch with the R.S.H.A. in order to find, out something about the fate of these officers?
ANot only I tried to get in touch with the R.S.H.A. I myself did not succeed in this effort. It was turned over to the Allgemeine Wehrmachts Amt but it too did not succeed in these efforts.
QIs it further true that you asked the representative of the Red Cross, Dr. Naville, to visit you in connection with this affair?
AI did request such a visit.
QIs it further true that Field Marshal Keitel called you up and told you that the Foreign Minister had to have precise knowledge of the whole occurrence, needed this information in order to draw up a note to England and that you consequently were to tell the Foreign Office about the occurrence in all its details?
AY es.
QDid Keitel say on this occasion that you were to conceal anything or to put anything in a false light?
A.N o.
QWas the O.K.W. involved in the dictating of this note?
ANo.
QIs it correct that your representative, Colonel Kraft, was called to a meeting in Berchtesgaden called by the Foreign Office for the purpose of answering questions of the representative of the Foreign Office and to answer them truthfully?
A Yes.
QIs it finally correct that Colonel Kraft reported to you that the Foreign Office had presented anote to Hitler and Hitler had drawn it up and dictated the text himself?
ASo far as I recall, yes.
QThe second part of the conference between Keitel, Graevenitz and Westhoff concerned itself with the question of what action should be taken in the future. You stated in this connection that an order was to be drawn up and that it was a question of various spheres of competence that would have to be discussed with the R.S.H.A. Tell me in this connection, what did the R.S.H.A. or Himmler have to do with the administration of prisoners of war camps?
AHimmler was responsible for the security of the Reich and to this extent had to concern himself with the treatmentoof all escaped prisoners.
QDid he, in this way, come into conflict with you in the O.K.W. in your department K.G.W.?
AWhenever prisoners of war escaped we occasionally asked the R.S.H.A. what had been done about them and received no information.
QDoes that mean that it is possible that Himmler or his office gave you no information when he caught prisoners of war?
AThat is certainly possible and it was assumed to be so by us.
QDid you on one occasion, while drawing up orders and regulations which were concerned with the treatment of escaped prisoners of war, use the words "Stufe III"?
AN o.
QDo you know whether the meaning of these words which were equivalent to a sentence of death were known at all in the O.K.W.?
AI did not know their meaning. I was asked about them in London for the first time and had to state then that I could not say anything about them, that I did not know anything about them.
QWhen you say personally, then you probably believe that the organization as a whole shared the same ignorance?
AYes.
QI have a document here, number 1514-PS. It is a collective order of the Commander of Wehrkreis 6 regarding the treatment of escaped prisoners of war. Y ou will see in this order a number of references to previous years as far back as 1942.
I ask you now so far as you know from experience did an order issued on the 4th of March, 1944, or if it is asserted to have been issued, would it not have to be a part of this document if its contents were very important?
AIf it was a question of a secret order, then yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Nelte, aren't you getting very far away from the subject upon which this witness was being examined? I mean he was being examined about an interview which he had with the Field Marshal Keitel and here you are asking him about something which has nothing to do with that at all as far as I am able to see.
DR. NELTE:I believe that I can make clear that this does have something to do with the second part of that conference, namely regarding the treatment of captured escaped prisoners of war. These are preparatory questions that I must ask to make clear in my opinion -
THE PRESIDENT:It is a very long cross-examination of a witness whom you did not wish to call. The Tribunal wishes you to make your crossexamination as brief as possible.
DR. NELTE:I shall make it as brief as the interests of the defendant permit. BY DR. NELTE:
QIs it not customary in German legislation that in referring to an order issued by higher authorities, that the date and archive number is given?
AYes.
QDid you ever turn to the representatives of the guarantor powers or the Red Cross and communicate to them that prisoners of war of whom you knew about, that is that you knew they were recaptured but you had not been informed of their recapture?
ANo, I never did.
QDo you know and here I show you my last document, 1650-PS -
(Witness handed document)
THE PRESIDENT:What was the point of showing 1514-PS to him? He has not been asked any relevant questions about it at all.
DR. NELTE:From this document I found corroboration that if an order had been issued on the4th of March, 1944, it would have been contained in this document.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal all think it is a waste of time, Dr. Nelte.
DR. NELTE:I shall be through in a few minutes, Mr. President. BY DR. NELTE:
QWitness, would you please turn to page 3 of this document, under number two. It reads:
"The OKW is requested to inform the prisoner of war camps that in the interest of camouflaging the recaptured officers are not to be turned over directly to Mauthausen but to the local police authority."
Did you ever in your activity in the OKW know of such a request or order?
AThat is not familiar to me. This also took place at a time when I was not chief.
QBut on taking over on the first of April, 1944, you would have been informed of all important events?
AYes.
QDid you ever find out that such a document existed?
ANo.
QAnd now the last question, Look at the first page of this document. It is a telegram from the Chief of the SIPO and SD, Mueller, and it reads in the first paragraph as follows.
"The OKW has ordered the following. Every recaptured escaped prisoner of war is after he is crecaptured to be turned over to the SIPO or SD with the code word 'Stufe III ."
The defendant Keitel has stated that he dose not know of such an order on the part of the OKW.
I ask you now, did you when you took over office on the 1st of April and were shown the previous orders of importance, ever find out about such an order as this?
AI never found out about it there but it certainly existed.
QIn what way?
ASo far as I recall General Graevenitz brought this either from the Field Headquarters or from the General Wehrmacht office.
Q How is it possible that you never found out about thisorder when you took over office?
ABecause this order was to exist only orally.
QThen please tell me how were these things to be dealt with if this was to be only an oral order?
AIt would be transmitted orally. It could be transmitted as far as the KGW.
QAnd you know this order was transmitted?
AGraevenitz brought this order with him and as far as I know it was also transmitted further.
QThen you must have know what "Stufe III" meant.
ANo, that I did not know. I have said that I knew only that there was an order to turn over these recaptured prisoners to the Gestapo but I could not remember details because I never saw the written order.
QCan you then state that this order as you see it there before you was issued by the OKW?
ANo, that I cannot say.
QThank you.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken).
DR, KAUFFMANN (Counsel for defendant Kaltenbrunner): Mr President, permit me to put a few questions which refer to the person of the defendant Kaltenbrunner.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Kauffmann, we are going to call the witness Wielen afterwards. You realize that?
DR . KAUFFMANN:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:But you want to ask this witness questions, don't you?
DR. KAUFFMANN:Yes. The name Kaltenbrunner has been mentioned and I have a few questions on that subject BY DR. KAUFFMANN:
QWitness, you mentioned a little earlier that you had communicated with the Gestapo and that they hadn't given you any information. Can you remember who you contacted?
ANo. The conferences with the Gestapo took place currently; whenever prisoners of war had escaped, and we didn't know wherethey were, we made frequent inquiries at the Gestapo. But on one occasion I visited Kaltenbrunner, which was on the occasion of some other matter which had nothing to do with allied prisoners of war, and since that gave me an opportunity to talk to him personally, I immediately brought the matter up for discussion and tried to have that order rescinded. Kaltenbrunner and Mueller were present at the time.
QLater on in Berlin and after the case of Sagan you have talked to Kaltenbrunner personally?
AYes.
QWas the case of Sagan discussed?
AYes, I talked about the matter Sagan with Kaltenbrunner and I pointed out that this was an untenable situation.
QHow long after the case of Sagan did this conversation take place?
AI'm afraid I can't tell you that now; it may have been four weeks afterwards.
QWhat was Kaltenbrunner's view about that problem? What did he tell you?
A He himself said next to nothing. Mueller was talking most of the time.
I left without having been given either yes or no.
QWas Mueller present during the second discussion in Berlin, too?
AI have only been to Berlin once.
QWasn't the subject of that conversation the general question as to how one could reform the prisoner of war system in the future?
ANo.
QYou mean that only the case Sagan was discussed?
ANot exclusively the case Sagan. I was ordered to see Kaltenbrunner for another reason, referring to German prisoners of war, and I used the opportunity to discuss that other case with him at once. It was the only time that I have met Kaltenbrunner at all.
QAnd during that conference you neither had a positive nor negative answer?
AThat's correct.
QWhat was the impression with which you left that conference?
AImpression? The impression was that nothing much could be done.
QDid you report to your superiors about that conference?
AYes, I informed the General Armed Forces Department at the time.
QWhat was the content of that message you sent?
AThat I had had a discussion with Kaltenbrunner about the case.
QWell, that alone, witness would be enough. In such an important matter you must have mentioned the contents of that conference, not just the fact--
AOf course I reported the contents; that I had brought the matter up again, and that the Gestapo was taking the attitude that they wanted to wait.
DR. KAUFFMANN:I have no further questions, Mr. President. BY DR. STAHMER (Counsel for defendant Goering)
QWitness, During that conference you have mentioned, between Hitler and Keitel, regarding the escape of these allied flyers, did you mention the fact that it is supposed to have happened in the presence of Goering; did you state the fact that he was present personally/ Did you state it personally or did you gather that through Keitel?
A I have heard it through Fieldmarshal Keitel.
DR. STAHMER: I have no further questions.
(Dr. Laternser, Counsel for the OKW and General Staff, approached the lectern.)
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Laternser, if you are going to ask questions on behalf of the High Command -- that is what you wanted to do?
DR. LATERNSER:I was going to ask a few questions on behalf of the OKW and the General Staff.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, the witness has given his evidence about the fact that the OKW had nothing to do with these matters in connection with prisoner-of-war camps and he hasn't been cross-examined with reference to that by the Prosecution; so that the matter is not in dispute. And therefore it appears to the Tribunal that there is no question that need be put by you.
(A short pause.)
You had better specify your question.
DR. LATERNSER:Yes, Mr. President, up to now, the procedure was that every witness who appeared before the,Tribunal could be examined by every Defense Counsel and asked questions whichhe considered necessary. Are you going to depart from that -
THE PRESIDENT:I didn't ask you to argue the matter; I asked you to specify your questions.
DR. LATERNSER:Very well. BY DR. LATERNSER:
QWitness, you were active in the Eastern Campaign?
AYes.
QIn what,capacity?
AFirst of all in command of a battalion and then a regiment.
QIn what sector was your unit?
ATo begin with, in the Ukraine; later, before Leningrad, and then at Starja Russa.
QBefore the beginning of the Eastern Campaign do you give special instructions to your company commanders?
AIn what respect?
QAfter you had had the order to attack. I assume you must have had an order group of your company commanders and you as battalion commander must have been discussing orders with them.