Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-11/tgmwc-11-104.03
Last-Modified: 2000/01/10

Q. There is no difference between us. That is what I was
suggesting. Now, I'd like you to look at the next paragraph.
It also deals with General Roettig. Then after that you
explain the position of the officers. You say this:

   "I only know an order existed that only officers and, I
   believe, only those who were caught by the Gestapo
   should be handed over to them."

Then you say, you talk about Intelligence - I don't want to
trouble you about that. Then, if you would look at the next
paragraph:

  "I received a report from the camp saying so-and-so many
  men had been shot while attempting to escape. I didn't
  bear from the Gestapo at all. It's like this: The reports
  were sent to the camp. Then the camp informed us that a
  certain number of men had been recaptured and a certain
  number shot. Things were reported in that way. The
  Gestapo sent me no information whatsoever; they merely
  told us casually, whenever we made inquiries, that they
  had recaptured a certain number."

                                                  [Page 198]

Now the next sentence I want you to look at carefully:

  "The Field Marshal gave us detailed instructions to
  publish a list at the camp, giving the names of those
  shot as a warning. That was done. That was a direct order
  which we could not disregard."

Is that correct?

A. We were ordered to display in the camp a list of all
those who were shot as a warning to other prisoners.

And then the next sentence says:

  "Apparently the bodies were burned and the ashes put into
  urns and sent to the camp."

And then there is the arrangement about the burial.

Then you say that that raised great difficulties. A sentence
or two later you say that matters of that sort were always
passed to higher authority. This particular matter was
passed to the Party Chancellery and then there was hell to
pay. The cremation of prisoners of war is forbidden.

And then later on, when you say that you raised the question
of it being contrary to the Convention, you say:

   "Whenever I addressed myself to the Officers' Corps and
   said, 'Gentlemen, we only act according to the
   Convention,' someone from higher authority of the Party
   Chancellery arrived the following day and said,
   'Gentlemen, the Convention is a scrap of paper which
   doesn't interest us.'"

Is that correct as to the general procedure?

A. It is not entirely correct; the O.K.W. took the point of
view that the Convention should be observed, but the
prisoner-of-war affairs as such, in Germany, were only
outwardly in the hands of the O.K.W. The people who really
formed the decisions on prisoner-of-war affairs were the
Party and Economic offices. Thus, for example, my office had
to submit every order that was issued to the deputy of the
Party Chancellery and the Party Chancellery decided how this
order was to be issued, and not the O.K.W. at all.

Q. I don't want to go into it in detail. You had an
interview with Bormann's deputy, Friedrich, at the Party
Chancellery. And then, in 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 Force side of it - I didn't intend to put that.

Then I want you to come to where it says, in the paragraph
after you talked about the question of handing over prisoner-
of-war camps to Himmler's organisation, you see it reads,
"We were told all men who escape are to be shot." It may be
the beginning of the next paragraph in my English version.
Do you see it? After a long paragraph about Air Force camps.

A. What page, please?

Q. The trouble is the pages are different, but it begins,
"We were told all men who escape are to be shot." It is the
third paragraph from the end of the document. If you start
from the end of the document you will see a paragraph, "I
can't remember"; one before it, "We arranged with the Field
Marshal." It is the one before that. "We were told all men
who escape are to be shot." Have you got it?

  "The Field Marshal prohibited anything concerning this to
  be put into writing. Anything at all. Only the camp was
  to be informed all about it. I discussed the matter with
  Gravenitz once more. I can't tell you the exact details
  any more. We contacted the Gestapo regarding the return
  of the bodies. We had to have them back. Then von
  Gravenitz left for the Front."

                                                  [Page 199]

Now it is the next bit I want you to look at carefully.

  "I then said to Oberstleutnant Krafft, 'I will not
  continue like this; I am going to cover myself at all
  costs so that we are not involved in it afterwards. It's
  true the Field Marshal has forbidden it to be put in
  writing, but I must have it in writing. It must be signed
  by the Fuehrer.'"

Now that is what you said to Krafft; comparatively
unimportant.

A. That is not entirely correct.

Q. Tell us what you would like altered in it.

A. I wanted it in writing, signed by the Field Marshal, and
for this reason I issued a memorandum describing this
discussion. And thus I had the Field Marshal's signature for
future events so that I would have something in writing to
prove it actually true.

Q. Now, just look at the next sentence. I think that
entirely agrees with what you have said:

  "Contrary to Field Marshal Keitel's orders, I pretended
  that I hadn't understood properly, and worked the thing
  out on paper. I said to Oberstleutnant Krafft, '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 it 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.'"

A. That is not entirely correct.

Q. What change would you like to make in that, General?

A. I stated clearly in my sworn statement that the Field
Marshal had written on the margin: "I didn't say shoot, but
turn over to the Gestapo."

Q. Is 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.'"

A. Well, that is right.

Q. I wanted this to be quite clear, General. The draft order
or note of information that you had put up to the Field
Marshal contained the word "shoot"?

A. Yes.

Q. Now there is only one other bit. You go on to say:

  "We arranged with the Field Marshal 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 go 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 caused 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?

A. This does not directly concern this matter but rather an
order that was to be issued by Wagner in connection with it
and was to be submitted to the Fuehrer in two ways: Once,
via the chief of the O.K.W., and the other time via Himmler.
This order had been submitted to Keitel in draft form which
then

                                                  [Page 200]

went to the Gestapo. The Gestapo also read this draft and
then the matter was carried no further. I was never able to
find out why this was so and for this reason I myself duly
addressed Kaltenbrunner about this matter.

Q. Was this the order in its final form which directed that
escaped prisoners of war should be handed over to the
Gestapo or the police?

A. Yes.

Q. I see. So this, General Westhoff, 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?

A. Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I don't think one need go
into it in detail 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 on which he
wants to question this witness. Perhaps the Tribunal would
consider it a convenient time to do it now.

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 O.K.W. 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?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. NELTE:

Q. Witness, what was just read to you is called a statement.
Have you ever given this statement in complete form orally
or in writing?

A. I was interrogated on different occasions and this
interrogatory, which has been presented to me, is a
summation of my testimony. Of course, I found errors here
and there because it has been summarised, and the questions
have been omitted.

Q. In other words, this is a summation of the answers you
gave to questions at various interrogations?

A. Yes.

Q. Was this summation ever submitted to you?

A. No.

Q. I had the impression that the passages read to you here
were on occasion very long and that you actually answered
only the latter part of these passages. I should like to ask
you whether after this interrogation in London you were not
again interrogated?

A. I was interrogated here in Nuremberg.

Q. By Colonel Williams?

A. Yes.

Q. What did Colonel Williams say to you at the conclusion of
this interrogation? What did he request of you?

A. At the conclusion of the interrogation, Colonel Williams
asked me to describe briefly the basic central point of my
testimony and to sum it up in a sworn statement.

Q. Did you swear to this statement before Colonel Williams?

A. Yes, I swore to it.

Q. Now, I should like first of all to go through the
interrogation with you,

                                                  [Page 201]

that you had with Colonel Williams and which is to be found
in Exhibit RF-1450. I am having this document handed over to
you.

THE PRESIDENT; What do you mean by Exhibit 1450?

DR. NELTE: RF-145O is contained in the document book, in my
document book, as No. 5.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean Exhibit RF 1450, do you?

DR. NELTE: Yes, RF.

BY DR. NELTE:

Q. This document is entitled "Summary of Interrogation of
General Adolf Westhoff by Colonel Curtis L. Williams, on 2nd
November, 1945."

THE PRESIDENT: Just one minute, Dr. Nelte.... 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 objections. 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?"

BY DR. NELTE:

Q. I have here a compilation of those points in the document
or in the notes of Colonel Williams, which, according to
your declaration, are not supposed to be correct. I now ask
you, what did you, or did you not upon being questioned by
Colonel Williams .

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, it is not right for you to say
that they are different - you must ask him questions about
it; not make statements yourself.

BY DR. NELTE:

Q. What did you say to Colonel Williams in answer to his
question as to whether the prisoner-of-war camps in their
entirety were supposed to be subordinate to the O.K.W. and
to Field Marshal Keitel?

A. The prisoner-of-war camps were subordinate to the O.K.W.
only to the extent that the O.K.W. had the legal control of
them and dealt with the Protective Powers, the International
Red Cross in this case. The O.K.W. did not have the power to
give orders or dole out punishment in the camps.

Q. What did you answer to Colonel Williams's question
regarding the rights of the O.K.W. in respect to the
inspection of the camps?

A. The O.K.W. was entitled to inspect. That can be seen also
in my official orders in which it states clearly that the
inspector was entitled to inspect the camp.

Q. What did you answer to Colonel Williams's question, to
whom was Stalag Luft 3 subordinate?

A. Stalag Luft 3 Sagan was subordinate to the Commander-in-
Chief of the Luftwaffe, because the Commander-in-Chief of
the Luftwaffe, on his own request, had already at the
beginning of the war all prisoner-of-war camps containing
airmen placed under his control.

Q. Did you answer to one of Colonel Williams's questions
that Goering, Himmler, Keitel and Hitler had decided to
shoot the officers who escaped from Sagan?

A. No, that is a mistake. Colonel Williams asked me what the
Fuehrer had said to Field Marshal Keitel; thereupon, I
answered clearly that I could give no information about
this, since I had not taken part in that conference. I could
only make statements about the conference that Field Marshal
Keitel had had with General von Gravenitz.

Q. Did you answer Colonel Williams that Field Marshal
Keitel, during this conference with Gravenitz, had said:
"This is my order"?

A. No, the Field Marshal could not issue an order regarding
the shooting, since the shooting was not within the
competence of the Wehrmacht but within that of the Gestapo.

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