Chapter XXII: Book 3: of the document book for the Defendant Hess there are also a (18)

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But why is there an objection if it is simply a textual reproduction? The Prosecution has been given textual reproduction.

MAJOR BARRINGTON: There is no objection at all.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean it is not in the right column?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: I was putting in the Allied column only the ones which could make up a complete set according to the Prosecution’s views.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Is that true of 284 also, the Soviet-German pact?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: I do not know whether that has come before...

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Why do you object to that then?

THE PRESIDENT: By “Pact,” is it the German Pact of the 28th of September 1939?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: This is the 28th of September 1939. I am told that there is no objection to that.

Number 285 is again simply a German report which draws conclusions of facts, and the Prosecution says that has no proper evidential value. It is a very long report by the German Foreign Office concerning the agitation in Europe against the German Reich by the Soviet Union, and it is full of conclusions of fact and opinions.

THE PRESIDENT: It is after the date of the beginning of war against Russia?

MAJOR BARRINGTON: It is after the beginning of that war, My Lord, yes. Number 286 and 287, those are objected to as being without value as evidence. They come from the _Völkischer Beobachter_.

Number 288 is said to be a captured Soviet document; but it has deteriorated generally in the English version, had no date and no signature, and it seems of very doubtful value.

Number 289 is a report from the Yugoslav military attaché in Moscow, which is also thought to be irrelevant by the Prosecution.

Then Group Number 8, My Lord, is the group concerning the United States of America, Documents 299 to 310, and including 285(a). The first ten documents, Your Lordship will see, are reports from, we would say they come from a very indirect source, the process report by the Polish Ambassador on the political situation in the United States in 1939. The next one seems to come from Portugal, the next from the Polish Ambassador again, the next two also from the Polish Ambassador. Then the next one, Number 300, is President Roosevelt’s Quarantine Speech in 1937, which seems too far back to be of any proper relevance. Number 301 is a German summary of events in the United States, which we say is irrelevant for the reasons I have stated: That they are German summaries, rather more unreliable than irrelevant. Number 302 again is the Polish Ambassador’s report. Number 303 is a statement by President Roosevelt in 1936, and Number 304 is President Roosevelt’s message to Congress on the 4th of January 1939. I do not think there is anything very objectionable about that. To numbers 305 to 308, there is no objection; 309—in my copy there are two different versions of 309. The first one is a German summary of the facts without any dates and with no sources indicated. It seems to be of no proper value as evidence, and the second one, 309 and 309(a), are declarations of the Pan-American Conference and the German note in reply to it. I do not think the Prosecution can take a very strong objection to that, but it does not seem to be very closely in point.

TC-72, Number 127, and TC-72, Number 124, are both appeals of President Roosevelt to Hitler and are not objected to. 310 is another German summary of facts without any sources indicated.

The ninth group is simply a miscellaneous group; and, if My Lordship will turn back to the first page of my note, it is the first 8 documents on that page, down to Number 45. They are all allowed. There is no objection to them, except Number 12, which is the announcement of the Reichstag election results. It does not seem to matter one way or the other whether that is in.

Number 45 is Lord Rothermere’s book of predictions and prophecies, _Warnings and Prophecies_. I think the Prosecution contends that it is not relevant evidence in this case.

The next lot of miscellaneous ones is on Page 2, Numbers 70 to 73. Number 71 is the German-Lithuanian treaty about Memel, and there is no objection. Number 70 is thought to be rather irrelevant. Numbers 72 and 73 are objected to because they deal with the Fourteen Points of President Wilson.

The next lot of miscellaneous ones is on the last page of one of my notes right down at the bottom, Number 296, and that is a speech by Hitler on the Rhineland. You have all the evidence that has been given. It appears to be rather cumulative, if it is not in already. I have not actually checked whether it is in.

Number 298 on the top of the next page is, in fact, superfluous. It is the same as Number 274. And down at the bottom of the last page, My Lord, 311, is a paper written by the Defendant Ribbentrop on the Führer’s personality.

THE PRESIDENT: That has already been ruled out.

MAJOR BARRINGTON: That, I think, has been ruled out this morning by Your Lordship. Number 312 is an affidavit of Frau Von Ribbentrop. Number 313 is an affidavit of Dr. Gottfriedsen. I understand from Dr. Horn that, although he had been allowed Dr. Gottfriedsen as a witness, he thinks it will save time if he reads the affidavit or a part of it. Perhaps, if Your Lordship will allow the Prosecution to make what comments they think fit when he comes to do that, it would be the best way of treating it.

That is all—all my points, My Lord. There are just the Low Countries and the Balkans.

MR. DODD: May it please the Tribunal, it is true that Mr. Barrington has spoken for all of us; and I do not intend to go over any of these documents, except this, because I fear there is some question in the minds of the members of the Tribunal about our objection running from 76 through 116, 118 to 122, and 114 to 148, the Polish documents. We also say, of course, with Major Barrington that they are cumulative, but it seems to me there is a much more basic objection. Perhaps they all have to do with the alleged incidents inside Poland and they were published in these _White Papers_. These incidents involved the mistreatment of Polish citizens inside Poland, who were perhaps of German extraction. Well, it is our view that such documents are irrelevant here because that is no defense at all to the charges; and we cannot permit, we say, a nation to defend itself or these defendants to defend themselves on charges such as have been preferred here, by proving that citizens of another state, although they may have been of German extraction or any other extraction, were mistreated inside that state. Beginning with 76 running through to 116, 118 through 122, 114 through 148, and 151 through 152—it is 124 through 148 rather than 114 through 148, 124 through 148. The last are 151 and 152.

M. AUGUSTE CHAMPETIER DE RIBES (Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): I will ask the Tribunal’s permission to make two short remarks about documents which are part of the fifth and sixth group, and which concern entirely French documents taken from the _German White Book_. It is, as a matter of fact only for this reason, that the French Prosecution has any knowledge of them, for, contrary to what the Tribunal believes, the French Prosecution has not yet received a translation of the documents submitted by Dr. Horn. The first group, Number 5, Documents 221 to 245; these are General Staff documents; and it appears that from them Dr. Horn wishes to draw the conclusion that England and France violated the neutrality of Belgium. If we ask the Tribunal to reject the 25 documents, it is only because we see a grave risk of the Tribunal’s losing time in useless discussions. Far from having any reason to fear discussion, we feel that on the contrary France and Britain would both be found to have respected scrupulously the two pacts which they had signed: The first being to respect the neutrality of Belgium, and the second being to respect the pact by which they had guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium.

What is the precise issue here, Gentlemen? Only to find out whether Germany, France, or England violated the neutrality of Belgium. The Defendant Ribbentrop has been asked this by his counsel, and has answered it in the clearest possible manner, during Saturday’s session, in a statement which the Tribunal is certain to remember. The Defendant Ribbentrop said, “Of course it is always very hard in a war like this to violate the neutrality of a country; and you must not think that we enjoyed doing things like that.”

That, Gentlemen, is a formal admission that Germany violated the neutrality of Belgium. Why should we waste time in discussing the relevance of these 25 documents now?

I go on to the second group, Group Number 6. These are General Staff documents, which Germany claims to have seized; and they concern events in the Balkans in 1939 and 1940. The French Prosecution asks you to reject the 22 documents submitted by Dr. Horn for the two reasons following: They have absolutely no claim to be considered authentic, and they are not relevant. They have absolutely no claim to be considered authentic—they are all extracts from the _White Book_; and the Tribunal knows the Prosecution’s views on this point. Moreover, the great majority of these documents are extracts from documents originating with the Allied general staffs. No originals have been produced; and the supposed copies are not even submitted in their entirety. In the second place, they are not relevant, for they all concern plans studied by the general staffs in the last months of 1939 and the early part of 1940. These plans for French or British intervention in Yugoslavia and Greece naturally presupposed the consent of the governments concerned as an indispensable condition. The plans were never carried through. They were definitely abandoned after the Armistice of June 1940. The documents date from 1939 and 1940; and the Tribunal will remember that the aggression against Yugoslavia and Greece occurred on 6 April 1941 at a time when the Hitler Government no longer had any reason to fear plans made in 1939.

These documents, which have no claim to be considered authentic, are also in no way relevant to the present discussion; and for that reason the French Prosecution asks the Tribunal to reject them.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Horn. Dr. Horn, the Tribunal thinks that you may possibly, in view of the evidence which the Defendant Ribbentrop has given, find it possible to withdraw some of these documents, in view of the time that has been taken up. I mean the Defendant Ribbentrop has dealt with the subject very fully; and it may be, therefore, that you will be able to withdraw some of these documents in order to save time.

DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President, I will withdraw all the documents which are cumulative. I should like first...

THE PRESIDENT: If you let us know now what it is you wish to withdraw...

DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President.

To begin with may I state my position on a few basic questions? That is the probative value of the _White Books_ and the ambassadors’ reports. I would like to point out that these documents had a decisive influence on political opinion. That applies to the Defendant Von Ribbentrop as well as Hitler. And in addition, I would like to point out that the Prosecution have relied largely on reports of this kind. I should like, therefore, to ask for equal rights for the Defense.

Then I would like to say a few words about the documents of the French General Staff which were found in the town of La Charité during the French campaign. If the High Tribunal shares the doubts and misgivings expressed by the representative of the French Prosecution, I ask permission to question the Commander of Army Group 10, Field Marshal Leeb, as to the fact that these General Staff documents were found in the town of La Charité.

The Polish documents to which I have referred were found in the Polish Foreign Ministry at Warsaw. The Commander-in-Chief at that time, Field Marshal or Generaloberst Blaskowitz, can testify to that effect. And in this connection I would also name Generaloberst Blaskowitz as a witness, if the Tribunal has any misgivings.

Moreover, I can summarize the opinion of the Defense by saying that I believe that objections can be raised against a document only if its inaccuracy is obvious from the contents or if it can be shown to be a forgery. I ask the Tribunal to admit all the other documents contained in the _White Books_ or the ambassadors’ reports.

As to the documents on Polish minority questions I would like to point out that Prime Minister Chamberlain himself described the minority question as being the decisive question between Germany and Poland. Since these negotiations, of which the main subject, besides Danzig and the Corridor, was the minority question, led to war, the minority question is therefore one of the causes of the war. Therefore I ask that the documents on this point, which prove continuous violation of the minority pacts on the part of Poland be admitted in evidence.

If the High Tribunal agree, I will now begin to submit the documents to the Tribunal for judicial notice or to read certain essential passages; and I would like to tell the Tribunal now which documents I will dispense with.

DR. DIX: I should be grateful to the Tribunal if I might just state my position—not as regards the case of Ribbentrop, with whom I am not concerned; my colleague, Dr. Horn, is dealing with him—but simply on principle, not exclusively from the Defense point of view, but quite objectively and basically in regard to the various problems which the Tribunal must consider before making their decision as to the admissibility of any piece of evidence—either in the form of a question put to a witness or a document to be submitted.

I am not asking for permission to talk for the sake of talking, but because I believe that by doing so I can shorten the later stages of the proceedings; because I hope that the Tribunal will be in agreement with the main points of my statements and that therefore it will be unnecessary for the Defense to make these statements at a later stage.

I have naturally to leave it entirely to the Tribunal whether they consider it now the appropriate time or whether I shall do it only after my colleague Horn has finished with his documentary evidence. At any case I should like to make the statements before the Tribunal have ruled upon the applications of the Prosecution and of Dr. Horn.

I should like to ask Your Lordship whether the Tribunal will allow me now to make clear, as shortly as possible, the position I take up in principle on the questions which I consider of vital importance for the decision. May I do this?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. DIX: I believe, without wishing to criticize the juridical value of the statements which we have heard here, that there has been some confusion of ideas. We must keep the distinction quite clear in our minds: 1. Is an item of evidence—and that applies to witnesses as well as documents—relevant? 2. Is an item of evidence useful as such? 3. Is an item of evidence cumulative and therefore to be rejected?

If the Tribunal rule that something offered in evidence is not relevant, not useful, or cumulative, then it must refuse the application for it at this stage of the proceedings. On the other hand, the question of the credibility of something offered in evidence—that is, whether the answer of a witness is to be believed or not, whether the contents of a document may be considered credible, whether expositions set forth in a _White Book_, for instance, are to be believed or not believed—that, in my opinion, is a question which can be decided only when the evidence in question has been brought into the proceedings and the Tribunal have taken judicial notice of it and are able, when freely evaluating the evidence—a course which is open to the Tribunal—to pass judgment on its credibility or otherwise. For that reason I think that at the present moment there seems to be no reason for saying, for instance that this document cannot be used at all because it is part of a _White Book_ published by the German Government. No one will deny that a _White Book_, that is, a publication, an official publication, issued by any government, can as such be useful and relevant evidence. Whether the passage read and introduced into the proceedings is such that the Tribunal can give it credence is a question that can be decided after the evidence in connection with the _White Book_ has been introduced into the proceedings, and the Tribunal have taken official notice of the passage in question.

Now, I turn to the question of relevancy and effectiveness. The representative of the British Prosecution has stated here that the reports sent by the German ambassadors to their Foreign Minister are, _per se_, not useful. At least, that is the way I understood him. They will be admitted only if the Prosecution wishes to use them. In other words, they are to be admitted only if the Prosecution, wishes to use them to the detriment of the defendants. I do not think that this point of view can be maintained. The representative of the British Delegation cited Article 21 of the Charter in this connection. Article 21 of the Charter has nothing whatsoever to do with this question. Article 21 of the Charter merely states, so far as I remember it—I do not have the Charter on hand but I believe I know the contents of it very well—that documents referring to the investigation by the governments of the victorious powers of war crimes committed in their own countries do not have to be read, but may merely be submitted to the Tribunal for judicial notice. This question however has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of the usefulness or relevancy of a report submitted at any time by a German ambassador to his Foreign Office. Whether this report has been admitted, or is to be admitted, can be decided according to whether the Tribunal consider as relevant the subject which it concerns and which it is to prove—if the fact which is to be proved by it is considered relevant by the Tribunal and is adequately established by one or both parties. Then, in my opinion, this ambassador’s report should be admitted; and after its admission the Tribunal can, by freely weighing the evidence, consider the value of the evidence, that is, its credibility, and moreover its objective as well as its subjective credibility. So much for the clear-cut differentiation of the concepts of relevancy and usefulness and for the concept of the value of evidence, that is, the objective and subjective credibility of evidence.

Now, with regard to the question of whether evidence is cumulative. It is certain that every jurist in this courtroom agrees that cumulative evidence should not be admitted; but the question of whether evidence is cumulative may in no circumstances be judged formally, so to speak, mechanically. I can well imagine that a question with the same wording as one that has already been put, need not necessarily be cumulative, for reasons which I will enumerate in a moment and that a question which in form does not resemble one already put, may nevertheless be cumulative because it requires an answer from the witness regarding the same evidence, but expressed in different words. The fact that a question may be identical in wording with one which has already been put does not necessarily mean that it is cumulative as shown by the old proverb _Si duo faciunt idem non est idem_. If, for instance, I ask a witness who bears the stamp of a fanatical adherent of the Nazi regime for his subjective impression of something and then put the same question on the same impression to a witness who is known to be a fanatical opponent of the Nazi regime, then these two questions are certainly not cumulative, for it is of paramount importance, if the Tribunal is to be in a position to form an opinion and make a decision, to find out whether an impression is registered in the same way by two worlds, so to speak—by two diametrically opposed persons. Therefore one has to take the witness into consideration in judging whether a question is cumulative or not. A further example of the fact that a question which is exactly similar to one previously put need not be cumulative would be, for instance, if I put the question to the defendant and then to a witness who is not interested. In saying this I wish in no way to disparage the evidence given by the defendant under oath. That is far from being my intention. In principle, the testimony of both the witnesses is alike. There is, however, a great difference. In order not to take too long I will cite only one example—whether when investigating some phase of the defendant’s inner life about which he himself is best informed, I question a witness who had an impression of this incident concerning the defendant, or whether I question the defendant himself for whom this inner impression is a part of the psychological background of his deed.

I should like to stop at this point, in order not to take up too much of the Tribunal’s time with theoretical expositions. My intention in making this statement was only to request the high Tribunal in making their decision, I repeat in regard to relevancy and usefulness, to make a clear distinction in the question of the value to be attached to subjective evidence, which should be decided after its admission, and to ask the Tribunal, when considering whether evidence is cumulative, not to be guided solely by the outward form of the question or the document but to investigate whether it would not be in the interest of truth and give a deeper insight into the case to put the same question to different people, or to have the same question confirmed, or not confirmed, by written statements by different people.

My conscience is uneasy about this academic exposition, but I hope that the clarification which I have tried to make and in which I may perhaps have succeeded to some extent, may help to shorten somewhat later stages of the proceedings.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know how long you think you are going to be over these documents, because we are getting further and further behind. And how long do you anticipate you will be? Have you made up your mind yet what documents you are prepared to withdraw, if any?

DR. HORN: Mr. President, I should need about two more hours—that is without objections on the part of the Prosecution, and I believe that in that time I can finish my entire presentation including the reading of the most important passages, which are limited to a very few documents. Therefore, without objections about two hours.

THE PRESIDENT: You have heard the Prosecution’s objections. We have heard them. We will consider them, and we will consider any answer that you make to them; but we do not desire at this stage, when we have all these other defendants’ cases to be heard, that you should go into these documents in detail now and read them, and we hope that you will not think it necessary to read from these documents after you have answered the objections of the Prosecution to certain of the documents.

DR. HORN: I have the intention...

THE PRESIDENT: Have you the idea that you had finished your argument in answer to the Prosecution’s objections or not? Did you intend to deal further with the admissibility of any of these particular documents or not?

DR. HORN: In accordance with the wishes expressed by the Tribunal I intend to submit these documents in groups, with a brief connecting text and in each group where the Prosecution has made objections to add a few remarks on the points raised. I do not intend to do any more.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, you see, the position is this. The Prosecution have objected to certain documents on certain grounds, and we want to give you a full opportunity to answer those objections. When you have your full answer to those objections, we think it will be appropriate we should adjourn and decide upon those objections and upon your arguments. Do you see? That we should rule that, after you have given your answer to the objections, we should adjourn and decide which of the documents we rule to be admissible in evidence.

DR. HORN: If the Tribunal intends to give its ruling after I have taken my position on the objections of the Prosecution, then I ask that I be given an opportunity now, for, to begin with, I would like...

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a moment, Dr. Horn. Because you see, it is 5 o’clock, and we shall not be able to conclude it tonight.

Dr. Horn, if you could conclude your arguments in answer to the questions of principle which have been raised by the Prosecution now, we think it would be the most convenient course if you could do it in a fairly short time. I mean, you have heard what the Prosecution say about these various groups, and it would be more convenient, we think, if you could answer that in the space of a quarter of an hour now.

DR. HORN: First of all, I would like to refer to documents numbered 48 to 61. In regard to these I can take only the following position.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. HORN: Number 48 to 61. Perhaps I may again use these pages of the Prosecution, with their objections, as a basis. Documents 48 to 61 were rejected as irrelevant, but these documents deal with rearmament and preparation for war by the opposite side. I can arrive at the basic motives animating Hitler and Ribbentrop only by contrasting the German evidence with the evidence given by the other side. I cannot judge of the illegality of an action unless I know all the facts. To know all the facts, I have to know the attitude taken by the other side. Therefore, I consider these documents highly relevant.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. HORN: The next group of decisive importance consists of the documents dealing with the Polish minority problem. The representative of the Prosecution has said that by the German-Polish agreement of 5 November 1937, the minority problem was sanctioned by both countries. That is, all violations of international law in regard to minority questions would be considered a closed chapter if they had occurred before that year. This view is certainly not correct, because one agreement cannot sanction the violation of a prior agreement. Moreover, during the negotiations for the 1934 pact between Germany and Poland it was expressly agreed, as I can prove by means of these documents that, after a general political agreement had been made, the minority question as well as that of Danzig and of the Corridor should be settled.

These questions were expressly held in abeyance pending a further settlement by agreement, and as no such settlement of the two questions was made, the documents dealing with the violations by the Poles of international law with regard to minority pacts cannot be rejected on account of this agreement. For this agreement, as I should like to emphasize once more, particularly deals with a further agreement for the settlement of this question.

The second objection for this group is the fact that the minority problem on the whole is called irrelevant. Previously I stated briefly that the British Prime Minister Chamberlain himself realized the need for regulating this problem. I will submit this document too; it is Document Number 200 in my document book. All the political circles concerned thought that the solution must be found for this question and therefore considered it relevant. I ask the Tribunal therefore to admit the documents referring to it. These documents cannot be rejected in part as cumulative, as was done here, for on the strength of these documents, I wish to prove that these minority pacts have been repeatedly violated since 1919, and I submit documents from the international tribunal of The Hague and the League of Nations at Geneva, showing that these violations took place during a period of over 20 years.

I accept the objections made by the Soviet Delegation to Documents 286 to 289, and I withdraw Documents 286 to 289.

Since the Tribunal recently objected to the book _America in the Battle of the Continents_, I also withdraw documents presented under Number 290, 1 to 5. I have also referred to that book under several other numbers, and I withdraw also all those numbers which refer to the book, _America in the Battle of the Continents_. As for the ambassadors’ reports, I again refer to my statement and the basic statements made here a moment ago by my colleague, Dr. Dix. I am convinced that, on principle, and on the strength of the legal arguments adduced and also in view of the fact that the Prosecution have used such reports extensively, the Defense should also be granted the right of referring to these reports, especially as they formed the foundation on which German political opinion was based.

I shall not be able to dispense with the files of the French General Staff either, for the reasons I have stated. It has been said that Documents 221 to 269 are irrelevant. They are not irrelevant, because we had neutrality pacts with those countries, and in the neutrality pacts it was agreed that Germany would respect their neutrality as long as the other side also respected it. As it would now be possible here to prove that the other side did not respect this neutrality, the proof of whether a war of aggression against these countries by Germany...

THE PRESIDENT: The point that M. Champetier de Ribes was making was that France was out of the war by 1940. Therefore documents which were drawn up by the French General Staff in 1940 had no relevance in 1941. Isn’t that so? That is the point that he was making.

DR. HORN: You mean the French Prosecutor?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the French Prosecutor.

DR. HORN: Yes. However, the fact that breaches of neutrality were committed by France and were known to the German Government at the time alters the legal situation completely. You cannot say that Germany waged an aggressive war against these countries when we knew through our intelligence service that our opponents intended to occupy these countries, and did in fact do so, by sending out General Staff officers. Thus it was the other side which was guilty of violation, and the files which have been found have only confirmed the intelligence reports submitted to us at the time; I say, at the time.

Therefore, you cannot accuse Germany of violating the neutrality pact in these cases. I would like to ask the Tribunal, therefore, to admit those files as relevant for the reasons stated. With reference to the other documents, I ask to be permitted to make my statement when I submit the documents to the Tribunal in the presentation of evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: You see, Dr. Horn, we want to rule upon it when we have heard your arguments; we do not want to have to rule again over every document. We want you to take them in groups, in the way the Prosecution has, so that we may make up our minds and rule.

DR. HORN: These are the main objections which I have to make to the arguments of the Prosecution. I ask the Tribunal once more to differentiate between considerations of principle raised by Dr. Dix, and between the factual considerations raised by myself with regard to the individual groups.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will adjourn now.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 3 April 1946 at 1000 hours._]

NINETY-EIGHTH DAY
Wednesday, 3 April 1946

_Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has read and considered every one of the documents produced by Dr. Horn on behalf of the Defendant Ribbentrop and the Tribunal rules as follows:

I will refer only to the documents to which no objection was taken, where the Tribunal rejects them; that is to say, documents to which no objection is taken are allowed with the particular exceptions which I make.

With reference to the documents to which objection was taken, the Tribunal rejects Numbers 12, 45, 48 to 61 inclusive. It allows Document 62. It rejects Documents 66, 67 and 69. It allows Document 70. It rejects Documents 72, 73, 74. It rejects Documents 76 to 81 inclusive. It grants Document 82. It rejects Document 83. It grants Documents 84 to 87 inclusive. It rejects Documents 88 to 116 inclusive. It rejects Documents 118 to 126 inclusive. It allows Document 127. It rejects Documents 128 to 134 inclusive. It rejects Documents 135 to 148 inclusive. It rejects Documents 151 and 152. It allows Documents 155 and 156. It rejects Documents 157 and 158. It rejects Document 161. It allows Document 162. It allows Document 164. It allows Documents 165 to 183 inclusive. It rejects Document 184. It allows Documents 185 and 186. It rejects Document 191. It allows Documents 193 and 194. It rejects Document 195, Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4. It grants Document 195, Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. It rejects Documents 196 and 197 and 198. It rejects Document 204. It rejects Document 207. It grants the whole of Document 208. It grants Document 210. It rejects Document 211 (a) and (b) and Document 212. It grants Document 213. It rejects 214. It rejects 215 (a) and (b). It grants Documents 217 and 220. It grants Documents 221 to 245, except Document 238, and it also excludes all comments contained in those documents. It rejects Documents 246 to 269. It rejects 270 and 271. It rejects 275. It rejects 276. It grants 277 and 278. As to 279, the Tribunal would like Dr. Horn to inform them what that document is because in the copy that they have got it is unidentified. That is 279, Dr. Horn, in Book 8, I think.

DR. HORN: The document contains the Non-aggression Treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union, of 23 August 1939. It contains the text of that treaty.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well, then that will be allowed. 280 and 281 are granted. 282, 283, and 284 are granted. 285 is rejected. 286 to 289 were withdrawn. 290 was withdrawn. 291 is granted. 292 is rejected, 293 is rejected, 294 is rejected. 295 is rejected. 296 is granted. 298 to 305, inclusive, are rejected. 306 is granted. 307 is rejected. 308 is granted. 309 and 309 (a) are both rejected. 310 is rejected. 311 had already been ruled out. 313 is granted. 314 is rejected. 317 is granted. 318 is rejected. Well, 312 is granted; it had not been objected to. I do not have a note of 315 and 316; are they asked for?

DR. HORN: 315, Mr. President, is the reproduction of a PS number, that is 1834-PS, and has already been submitted and therefore need not be submitted again.

THE PRESIDENT: Does that apply also to 316, Dr. Horn?

DR. HORN: 316 also has a PS number and therefore need not be resubmitted.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, that deals with all the numbers, I think.

DR. HORN: Mr. President, I will dispense with Number 312, and ask instead for Number 317. This contains a notarized statement under oath...

THE PRESIDENT: 317 is granted.

DR. HORN: Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Horn, will you deal with the ones which we have left in, as far as you wish to deal with them. If you wish to comment upon any of the ones that we have allowed, you may do so now. We do not desire you to do so, but if you wish to do so, you may.

DR. HORN: May I ask Your Lordship for permission to present my arguments. I will present only very brief arguments at a time to be determined by the High Tribunal, so that I can sort the documents and need not take up your time unnecessarily? All the documents are fastened together at present and it would take longer if I were to present my case now than if I could present the sorted documents. I therefore ask the Tribunal to set a time when I may present these documents.

THE PRESIDENT: The application is granted.

DR. HORN: Yes. I will then have concluded my case and will need only a relatively short time to comment briefly on some but not all of the documents.

THE PRESIDENT: If Dr. Nelte is already to go on with the case of the Defendant Keitel, the Tribunal suggests possibly you might be able to deal shortly with your documents at 2 o’clock.

DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Would that be agreeable to Dr. Nelte?

DR. HORN: I will consult my colleague.

Dr. Nelte has just advised me that he will fetch his documents and then he can proceed with the presentation of his case immediately.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

[_Dr. Nelte returned to the courtroom._]

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal is much obliged to you for presenting your argument now.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I will begin the presentation of the case for Keitel by asking you to summon the defendant to the witness stand, and I shall question him. The documents which I will use in this interrogation were submitted with a list yesterday. I hope that those documents are at your disposal so that you will be able to follow my questions in a manner which is desirable in the interest of a smoothly conducted interrogation.

THE PRESIDENT: Then you will call the Defendant Keitel?

DR. NELTE: Yes.

[_The Defendant Keitel took the stand._]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?

WILHELM KEITEL (Defendant): Wilhelm Keitel.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me:

I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.

[_The defendant repeated the oath in German._]

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down if you wish.

DR. NELTE: Please describe your military career briefly.

KEITEL: In the year 1901, in the beginning of March, I became an officer candidate in an artillery regiment of the Prussian Army. At the beginning of the first World War, in 1914, I was the regimental adjutant of my regiment. I was wounded in September 1914, and in the beginning of November I became chief of a battery of my regiment. Since the spring of 1915 I served in various general staff capacities, first with higher commands of the field army, later as a general staff officer of a division. Towards the end I was the first general staff officer of the Naval Corps in Flanders. Then I joined the Reichswehr as a volunteer. Beginning with the year 1929 I was Division Head (Abteilungsleiter) of the Army Organizational Division in the Reichswehrministerium. After an interruption from 1933 to 1935 I became, on 1 October 1935, Chief of the Wehrmacht Department (Wehrmachtsamt) of the Reichskriegsminister, that is Chief of Staff with the Minister of War. While on active service I became Generalmajor. At that time I was chief of an infantry brigade. On 4 February 1938 to my surprise I was appointed Chief of Staff of the Führer, or Chief of the OKW—Oberkommando der Wehrmacht. On 1 October 1939, I became General of the Infantry and after the campaign in the West in 1940 I became Field Marshal.

DR. NELTE: Were you a member of the National Socialist German Labor Party?

KEITEL: No, I was not a member. According to military law I could not be or become a member.

DR. NELTE: But you received the Golden Party Badge. For what reason?

KEITEL: That is correct. Hitler presented this Golden Badge of the Party to me in April 1939, at the same time that the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, General Von Brauchitsch, received it. The Führer said it was to be in commemoration of the march into Czechoslovakia. The Golden Badge had “16 and 17 March” engraved on it.

DR. NELTE: In the year 1944 the Military Service Law was changed so that active soldiers could also become members of the Party. What did you do at that time?

KEITEL: That is correct. In the late summer or autumn of 1944 the Military Service Law was changed so that active soldiers could also be Party members. At that time I was invited to submit personal data for the Party in order to be listed as a member of the Party. At the same time I was asked to send in a donation of money to the Party. I submitted personal data to Party headquarters and also sent in a donation, but as far as I know I never became a member. I never received a membership card.

DR. NELTE: To what extent did you participate at Party functions?

KEITEL: Owing to my position and to the fact that I accompanied the Führer constantly, I participated at public functions of the Party several times, for example, at the Party rallies in Nuremberg, also each year when the Winter Relief Work campaign was launched. Finally, according to orders, each year on the 9th of November, I had to attend, together with a representative of the Party a memorial service at the graves of the victims of 9 November 1923. It took place symbolically in memory of the fight on 9 November, between the Party and the Wehrmacht. I never participated in internal conferences or meetings of the Party directorate. The Führer had let me know that he did not want this. Thus, for example, every year on 9 November I was in Munich, but never participated in the gatherings of the so-called Hoheitsträger (bearers of power) of the Party.

DR. NELTE: What decorations did you receive during the war?

KEITEL: During the war—it must have been in the winter of 1939-1940—I received the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross. I did not receive any other German war decorations.

DR. NELTE: Do you have any sons?

KEITEL: I had three sons, all of whom served at the front as officers during this war. The youngest one died in battle in Russia in 1941. The second was a major in Russia and has been missing in action, and the eldest son, who was a major, is a prisoner of war.

DR. NELTE: Field Marshal Keitel, beginning with essential matters, I would like to put the following basic questions to you: What basic attitude did you, as a soldier, an officer, and a general, have toward the problems with which you had to deal in your profession?

KEITEL: I can say that I was a soldier by inclination and conviction. For more than 44 years without interruption I served my country and my people as a soldier, and I tried to do my best in the service of my profession. I believed that I should do this as a matter of duty, laboring unceasingly and giving myself completely to those tasks which fell to me in my many and diverse positions. I did this with the same devotion under the Kaiser, under President Ebert, under Field Marshal Von Hindenburg, and under the Führer, Adolf Hitler.

DR. NELTE: What is your attitude today?

KEITEL: As a German officer, I naturally consider it my duty to answer for what I have done, even if it should have been wrong. I am grateful that I am being given the opportunity to give an account here and before the German people of what I was and my participation in the events which have taken place. It will not always be possible to separate clearly guilt and entanglement in the threads of destiny. But I do consider one thing impossible, that the men in the front lines and the leaders and the subleaders at the front should be charged with the guilt, while the highest leaders reject responsibility. That, in my opinion, is wrong, and I consider it unworthy. I am convinced that the large mass of our brave soldiers were really decent, and that wherever they overstepped the bounds of acceptable behavior, our soldiers acted in good faith, believing in military necessity, and the orders which they received.

DR. NELTE: The Prosecution, in presenting evidence regarding violations of the laws of war, Crimes against Humanity, repeatedly point to letters, orders, _et cetera_, which bear your name. Many so-called Keitel orders and Keitel decrees, have been submitted here. Now we have to examine whether and to what degree you and your actions are guilty of and responsible for the results of these orders. What do you wish to say to this general accusation?

KEITEL: It is correct that there are a large number of orders, instructions, and directives with which my name is connected, and it must also be admitted that such orders often contain deviations from existing international law. On the other hand, there are a group of directives and orders based not on military inspiration but on an ideological foundation and point of view. In this connection I am thinking of the group of directives which were issued before the campaign against the Soviet Union and also which were issued subsequently.

DR. NELTE: What can you say in your defense in regard to those orders?

KEITEL: I can say only that fundamentally I bear that responsibility which arises from my position for all those things which resulted from these orders and which are connected with my name and my signature. Further, I bear the responsibility, insofar as it is based on legal and moral principles, for those offices and divisions of the OKW which were subordinate to me.

DR. NELTE: From what may your official position and the scope of your legal responsibility be inferred?

KEITEL: That is contained in the Führer’s decree of 4 February 1938 which has been frequently cited.

DR. NELTE: I am submitting this decree to you so that you can have the text before you. In this Führer decree, Paragraph 1, you will find:

“From now on I will directly and personally take over the Supreme Command of the entire Wehrmacht.”

What did that mean compared with the conditions that had existed until then?

KEITEL: Until that time we had a Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht, Field Marshal Von Blomberg. In addition there was the Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht who, according to the constitution, was the head of the State—in this case, Hitler. With the resignation of the Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht, Von Blomberg, there was only one Supreme Commander and that was Hitler himself. And from that time on he himself exercised command of all three arms of the Wehrmacht: The Army, Navy, and Air Force. It also says “from now on directly.” That should establish unequivocally that any intermediary position with authority to issue orders was no longer to exist, but that Hitler’s orders as Supreme Commander were issued directly to the three arms of the Wehrmacht and their Commanders. It also says here “directly” and “personally.” That, too, had its meaning, for the word “personally” was to express the fact that there was and would be no, I would say, “deputizing” of this authority.

DR. NELTE: I assume therefore that you never signed your orders “acting for”?

KEITEL: No, I do not remember a single instance in which I signed “acting for.” According to our military principles, if the question had arisen to appoint a deputy, it could have been only one person, the Commander-in-Chief of the three arms of the Wehrmacht, namely the one highest in rank.

DR. NELTE: In Paragraph 2 of the decree of 4 February 1938 it says:

“...the former Wehrmacht office in the Ministry of War, with its
functions is placed directly under my command as OKW and as my
military staff.”

What does this signify in regard to the staff which was thereby formed?

KEITEL: The Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht had his military staff in the Wehrmachtsamt, that is to say, the Wehrmachtsamt in the Ministry of War. Hitler, as Supreme Commander, took over the Wehrmachtsamt as his military staff. Thus, this staff was to be his personal working staff. At the same time that the post of Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht was eliminated, that of Reich Minister of War was also removed. There was no War Ministry and no Minister of War as heretofore. Thus one could clearly see what Hitler wanted, namely, that between him and the Wehrmacht divisions there was to be no one holding office with any authority either in command channels or in ministerial functions.

DR. NELTE: When this decree was issued you were installed as holder of a new office with the title of “Chief OKW.” Will you please clarify whether this term “Chief OKW” is correct; that is, whether it really was what the title seems to indicate.

KEITEL: I must add that I realize only now that this term in its abbreviated form is not quite apt. To be exact one should have said, “Chief of Staff of the High Command of the Wehrmacht,” and not the abbreviation, “Chief OKW.” From the case presented by the Prosecution I gathered that the idea of “Chief” was interpreted as if that were a commander, chief of an office, with authority to issue orders. And that, of course, is an erroneous conclusion. It was neither a position of a chief in the sense of a commander, nor, as might have been assumed or has been assumed, was it a position as chief of a general staff. That too, is incorrect. I was never Chief of the General Staff of the Wehrmacht. It was Hitler’s unmistakable wish to concentrate in his own person all the authority, all the power of command. That is not merely a retrospective statement. He clearly expressed this desire to me on several occasions, partly in connection with the fact that he told me repeatedly, “I could never put this through with Blomberg.”

DR. NELTE: I have here a statement made by Field Marshal Von Brauchitsch and submitted by the Prosecution.

KEITEL: Perhaps I might add something further. I was discussing the fact that it was not a position of Chief of the General Staff, since it was Hitler’s basic view that commanders-in-chief of the Wehrmacht branches each had his own general staff, or operations staff, and that he did not want the High Command of the Wehrmacht, including the Wehrmacht Operations Staff, to take over the functions of a general staff. Therefore, in practice the work was done by the general staffs of the Wehrmacht branches, while the Wehrmacht Operations Staff of the OKW, which was purposely kept small, was a working staff for Hitler, a staff for strategic planning and for special missions.

DR. NELTE: Then Field Marshal Von Brauchitsch’s statement in his affidavit, of which I have already spoken, is correct? It says here:

“When Hitler had decided to use military pressure or military
power in attaining his political aims, the Commander-in-Chief of
the Army, if he participated, received his instructions first
orally, as a rule, or by an appropriate order. Thereupon the OKW
worked out the operation and deployment plans. When they had
been submitted to Hitler and were approved by him, a written
order from the OKW to the branches of the Wehrmacht followed.”

Is that correct?

KEITEL: Yes, in principle it is correct insofar as the final formulation of the order to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army took the form of a directive, as we called it, based on the general plans which had already been submitted and approved. This work was done by the Wehrmacht Operational Staff (Wehrmachtführungsstab); thus the Wehrmacht Operational Staff was not an office which became independently active and did not handle matters concerning the issuing of orders independently; rather the Wehrmacht Operational Staff and I took part in the basic determination or approval of these proposals and formulated them in the manner in which they were then carried out by Hitler as Commander-in-Chief. To speak technically we then passed these orders on.

DR. NELTE: Then I have an affidavit by Generaloberst Halder which deals with the same subject. You know this affidavit Number 1. I believe I can dispense with the reading of it and as evidence refer only to Halder’s affidavit Number 1, which has been submitted by the Prosecution (Document Number 3702-PS).

In addition the Prosecution submitted another treatise without a special number. The title of the treatise is “Basis for the Organization of the German Wehrmacht.”

THE PRESIDENT: Is this the document which you say the Prosecution offered in evidence but did not give a number to?