Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-11/tgmwc-11-101.04
Last-Modified: 2000/01/05

Q. Well, look at the Document D-770, which is, I think, your
answer; it is Exhibit GB 305. You will notice on the
distribution list that that goes to the Commander of the
Armed Forces in the Netherlands, and is in addition to the
signal which we have just been looking at. Now, you say:

   "According to the Fuehrer's order of 3oth July, 1944,
   non-German civilians in the occupied territories who
   attack us in the rear in the crisis of our battle for
   existence, deserve no mercy. This must be our guiding
   principle in the interpretation and application of the
   Fuehrer's decree itself and the Chief of the O.K.W.'s
   executive decree of 18th August, 1944.
   
   If the military situation and the state of
   communications make it impossible to hand them over to
   the S.D., other effective measures are to be taken
   ruthlessly and independently.
   
   There is, naturally" - and I ask you to note the word
   "naturally" - "no objection to passing and executing
   death sentences by summary court-martial under such
   circumstances."

I cannot remember, defendant, whether you have ever had an
independent command yourself or not. Have you? Have you had
an independent command, apart from your division? I think
that was the last independent command you had. You have not
had an independent command yourself, have you?

Do I not make myself clear?

A. I did not understand. What do you mean by "independent"?

Q. I mean that you have not been a commander or chief of an
army or army group yourself, if I remember rightly, or of an
area, have you?

A. No, I have not.

Q. I ask you to put yourself in General Christiansen's
position. That answer of yours was a direct encouragement,
practically amounting to an order, to shoot these railwaymen
out of hand, was it not? "To take other effective, measures
ruthlessly and independently."

A. That is explained by the form of summary court-martial
procedure. It is not left to the discretion of the
individual. jurisdiction of summary court was provided.

Q. Just look at the way it is put, defendant. I suggest to
you that it is quite clear. One sentence states: "If handing
over to the S.D. is impossible, owing to the military
situation and the difficulty of communication, other
effective measures are to be taken ruthlessly and
independently."

Then, the next sentence: "There are, naturally" - look at
the word "naturally." I suppose that it was "naturlich" in
German. Is that correct?

                                                   [Page 82]

A. I have not got the word "naturlich" here. Two words, so
far as I can make out, have been inserted.

Q. But it says: "There is, naturally, no objection to
passing and executing death sentences by summary court-
martial procedure." What you are saying is that, of course,
there is no objection to a summary court-martial, but you
are telling him, in addition to that, that he is to take
effective measures ruthlessly and independently. If General
Christiansen had shot these railwaymen out of hand, after
getting that letter from you, neither you nor any other
superior could have blamed him for it, could you?

A. According to the last sentence, he was obliged to carry
out summary court-martial procedure. It says: "There are no
objections to the executing of this sentence by summary
court-martial procedure under such circumstances."

Q. But what did you mean by "effective measures to be taken
ruthlessly and independently"? What did you mean by that, if
it was only an ordinary summary court-martial procedure?

A. Not apart from summary court procedure, but by means of
the same. That is what the last sentence means. It is also
unusual to appoint a summary court in such cases.

Q. Yes, even on your basis, to use a military summary court-
martial to shoot railwaymen who will not work is going
rather far even for you, is it not?

A. That was a very severe measure, yes.

Q. Do you tell the Tribunal that when you make all these
additions - taking you through the chain of additions that
you make to the order replacing the "Nacht und Nebel" order,
of which you disapproved, do you say that you went to Hitler
for every one of these executive orders and answers that you
made?

A. Yes. I went to him on the occasion of every one of these
orders. I must emphasise the fact that I did not issue any
of these orders without previously submitting them to the
Fuehrer. I must expressly point out that that was so.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I think a misunderstanding has
crept into the translation. The translation interprets
"Standgericht," as "Summary Court-martial." I do not believe
that the words "Summary Court-martial" reflect accurately
what we understand in the German language by "Standgericht."
I do not know just what you understand in the English or
American language by "Summary Court-martial," but I can
imagine that this means some summary procedure.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I was taking it in favour of the
defendant that it meant the court he referred to yesterday,
one officer and two soldiers. I was taking that. If I am
wrong, the defendant will correct me. Is that right,
defendant?

THE WITNESS: I described this "Standgericht" summary court-
martial procedure briefly yesterday, and the criterion of a
summary court-martial was that it was not always necessary
for a fully trained legal expert to be present, although it
was desirable.

THE PRESIDENT: While you are on the subject of translation,
the defendant seemed to suggest that there was no word in
the German which is translated by the English word
"naturally." Is that true?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I had it checked, and I am told that
the translation is right.

THE PRESIDENT: There is a German word which is translated by
"naturally"? I should like to know that from Dr. Nelte.

DR. NELTE: I am told that a false conception or false
judgement might be produced in this connection since in
British and American law a summary court-martial has no
right to pass sentence of death.

I am told that a "summary court-martial" -

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, Dr. Nelte; I did not ask that
question. The question I asked you was whether there was any
German word which is translated into English by the word
"naturally." Is that not a clear question?

DR. NELTE: In the German text it says "under such
circumstances, of course."

                                                   [Page 83]

I think the English translation is incorrect in using the
word "naturally" and in putting it after "in these
circumstances" at the beginning so that one is led to
conclude that it means "there are naturally no objections
("es gibt natfirlich keme Einwendungen"), whereas the German
text says "Against the passing and executing of death
sentences by summary court-martial procedure there are,
under such circumstances, of course, no objections." ("Gegen
die Verhangung und Vollstreckung von Todesurteilen im
standgerichtlichen Verfahren bestehen unter solchen
Verhaltnissen selbstverstandlich keine Bedenken.")

THE PRESIDENT: Then the answer to my question is "yes."
There is a word in the German which is translated
"naturally."

DR. NELTE: Yes, but there is no translation of the words, or
. . . The words "naturally" and "under such circumstances"
are separated in the English version, while in the German
version they belong together. "Naturally" refers to "under
such circumstances."

BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:

Q. Now I want to come to another point. You told us
yesterday that with regard to forced labour you were
concerned in it because there was a shortage of manpower and
you had to take men out of industry for the Wehrmacht. Your
office was concerned with using military forces in order to
try and round up people for forced labour, was it not?

A. I don't think  that is quite the correct conception. The
Replacement Office in the High Command of the Wehrmacht -

Q. If you are going to deny it, I put the document to you. I
will put General Warlimont's views to you and see if you
agree. I think it saves time in the end. Please look at
Document 389-PS, which will be Exhibit GB 306-Page 9 of the
English version. It is the report of a meeting at Berlin on
12th July, 1944. You have to look on through the document
after the letters from the defendant Sauckel and the
defendant Speer - the account of a meeting in Berlin. I
think it is Page 10 of the German version. It starts with a
speech by Dr. Lammers and goes on with a speech from the
defendant Sauckel, then a speech from the witness Von
Steengracht, then a speech from General Warlimont:

"The Deputy of the head of the O.K.W., General Warlimont,
referred to a recently issued Fuehrer order." Have you found
the portion? I will read it if you have.

A. Yes, I have found the paragraph "The Deputy of the Chief
of the O.K.W."

  Q. "The Deputy of the Chief of the O.K.W., General
  Warlimont, referred to a recently issued Fuehrer order,
  according to which all German forces had to participate
  in the task of raising manpower. Wherever the Wehrmacht
  was stationed, if it was not employed in pressing
  military duties (as, for example, in the construction of
  coastal defences), it would be available, but it could
  not be assigned expressly for the purpose of the G.B.A.
  General Warlimont made the following practical
  suggestions:
  
  (a) The troops employed in fighting the partisans are to
  take over in addition the task of raising manpower in the
  partisan areas. Everyone who cannot give a satisfactory
  reason for his presence in these areas is to be seized.
  
  (b) When large cities are wholly or partly evacuated on
  account of the difficulty of providing food, those
  members of the population suitable for labour are to be
  utilised for labour with the assistance of the Wehrmacht.
  
  (c) The Refugees from the areas near the front should be
  rounded up with special vigour with the assistance of the
  Wehrmacht."

After reading this report of General Warlimont's words, do
you still say that the Wehrmacht -

A. I am not aware that the Armed Forces have ever received
an order mentioning the rounding up of workers. I would like
to say that I know of no such demand and I have not found
any confirmation of it. The conference as such is unknown to
me and so are the proposals you mentioned. It is new as far
as I am concerned.

                                                   [Page 84]

Q. It is quite clear that General Warlimont is suggesting
that the Wehrmacht should help in the rounding up of forced
labour, isn't it?

A. But as far as I know it has never happened. I do not know
that such an order was given. According to the record, this
is a proposal made by General Warlimont, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, perhaps in those circumstances you
should read the three lines after the passage you have read.

Q. My Lord, I should. The next line: "Gauleiter Sauckel
accepted these suggestions with thanks and expressed the
expectation that a certain amount of success could be
achieved by this means."

A. May I say something about that? May I ask that when the
time comes Gauleiter Sauckel should be asked whether and to
what extent troops of the Armed Forces did actually
participate in such matters. It is not known to me.

Q. No doubt the defendant Sauckel will be asked a number of
questions in due time. At the moment I am asking you. You
say that you don't know anything about it?

A. No, I do not recollect that any order was given in this
connection. I gather from the statement by Warlimont that
discussions took place.

Q. Now I want to ask you a few questions about the murder of
various prisoners of war. I want to get it quite clear. Did
you mean yesterday to justify the order for the shooting of
commandos, dated 18th October, 1942? Did you wish to say
that it was right and justified, or not?

A. I stated yesterday that neither General Jodl nor I
thought that we were in a position, or considered it
possible, to draft or submit such a written order. We did
not do it because we could not justify it or give reasons
for it.

Q. The next question that I put to you is this: Did you
approve and think right the order that was made that
commandos should be shot?

A. I no longer opposed it, firstly on account of the
punishment threatened and secondly because I could no longer
alter the order without personal orders from Hitler.

Q. Did you think that that order was right?

A. According to my inner conviction I did not consider it
right, but after it had been given I did not oppose it or
take a stand against it in any way.

Q. You know that your orders have contained provisions for
the use of parachutists being dropped for sabotage purposes,
don't you? Don't you remember in the "Fall Grun" against
Czechoslovakia? I would put it to you if you like, but I
would so much prefer that you try to remember it yourself.
Don't you remember that your own orders contained a
provision for parachutists being dropped for sabotage
purposes in Czechoslovakia?

A. No.

Q. You don't?

A. No, I do not remember the order.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I refer you to it. My Lord, it is
Page 21 and 22 of the document book.

THE WITNESS: Which document book, please?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: It ought to be your first document
book, and quite early on. It is part of the "Fall Grun,"
which is Document 388-PS, and it is item 11. I think it is
somewhere about Page 15 or 16 or 20. You remember the
Schmundt minutes and then it is divided into items. The
Tribunal will find it at the foot of Page 21:

  "For the success of this operation, co-operation with the
  Sudeten German frontier population, with deserters from
  the Czechoslovakian Army, with parachutists or airborne
  troops, and with units of the sabotage service will be of
  importance."

THE WITNESS: May I read the paragraph which I think you
mean?

                                                   [Page 85]

Q. Yes; it is headed "Missions for the Branches of the Armed
Forces.

A. "Missions for the Branches of the Armed Forces." It
states:

  "For success, co-operation with the Sudeten German
  frontier population, and the deserters from the
  Czechoslovakian Army, with parachutists or airborne
  troops and with units of  the sabotage service can be of
  importance."

These parachutists and airborne troops were in fact to be
set to work on frontier fortifications, as I explained
yesterday, since army authorities believed that the
artillery resources at our command were insufficient to
permit of our combating them with artillery.

This does not mean parachutists or saboteurs but actual
members of the German Air Force, and the sabotage service is
mentioned at the end.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor