Chapter VI: Section 3 (3)

“‘. . . selected from the various wards of the institutions
according to an excessively simple and quick method. Most
institutions did not have enough physicians, and what physicians
there were were either too busy or did not care, and they
delegated the selection to the nurses and attendants. Whoever
looked sick or was otherwise a problem patient from the nurses’
or attendants’ point of view, was put on a list and was
transported to the killing center. The worst thing about this
business was that it produced a certain brutalization of the
nursing personnel. They got to simply picking out those whom
they did not like, and the doctors had so many patients that
they did not even know them, and put their names on the list.’”

I shall stop my citation there, Mr. President, but what I should like to do subsequently, unless the Tribunal is going to call upon Dr. Stahmer to speak. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we are now going to hear what Dr. Stahmer wants to say.

DR. OTTO STAHMER (Counsel for the Defendant Göring): I am sorry that I must contradict what has just been said, for there is no proof that these things took place or that the Defendant Göring is responsible. The Defendant Göring states that he was quite unaware of these events and that he had nothing whatever to do with matters of that kind. As far as I know, the Prosecution itself. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: I have to interrupt you, Dr. Stahmer. You will have a full opportunity of presenting arguments to us to show that the evidence which is adduced, which is brought forward now against the Defendant Göring, has really no reference to him. You will have a full opportunity to do that at the appropriate stage when you present the defense. The only question we are considering now, the technical question, is whether this document is a document which is admissible. We are considering it, of course, but it is not the appropriate time for you to present your argument that the document does not refer to Göring and that Göring had no knowledge of it. That will be your defense. It isn’t an objection to the admissibility of the document. It is an argument to show that Göring didn’t know anything about the document and didn’t know anything about the experiments.

Do you understand what I mean?

DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir.

M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I only wanted, by introducing. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, M. Mounier, continue.

M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I take leave to point out to you that my friend, Mr. Elwyn Jones, has just pointed out to me that this is admitted as proof in view of the conditions under which it was submitted. This is the document entitled, “Neuropathology and Neurophysiology, including Electroencephalography, in Wartime Germany.” Besides this reference is found in the English copy which I submitted in the modest document book which I submitted to the Tribunal just now. I should like to tell you, Mr. President, in citing this short passage. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Maybe the Tribunal had better keep the original document for the present.

M. MOUNIER: My aim, Mr. President, in citing this short passage, is to demonstrate the truly atrocious way in which they treated people in order to procure the necessary material for these so-called experiments. According to the Prosecution this relates to Hermann Göring, for the Tribunal will take into account the fact that these experiments were made for the purpose of obtaining information of a scientific or pseudo-scientific nature concerning the effects upon the brains of airmen of all the accidents which might happen to them.

These experiments are connected with those of Dr. Rascher, concerning which some correspondence took place. The Defendant Hermann Göring cannot have been ignorant of this correspondence, for it directly concerned the Air Force, which he commanded. I cite, for instance, a letter dated 24 October 1942, which was addressed by Himmler to Dr. Rascher and which I submit to the Tribunal under the Exhibit Number RF-1409 (Document Number 1609-PS).

To save the time of the Tribunal I shall not read this letter. I shall simply refer to another document which has already been cited as Document Number 343-PS. It was submitted by the American Prosecution as Exhibit Number USA-463, 20 December 1945 (Exhibit Number RF-1428), and it is a letter which proves that as early as 20 May 1942 Field Marshal Milch was charged by the Defendant Göring with the task of transmitting to the SS his special thanks for the aid which they had given the Luftwaffe with these pseudo-medical experiments. Consequently, we consider that in this respect the responsibility of the Defendant Hermann Göring is clearly established.

Mr. President and Gentlemen, I have concluded the points concerning the Defendant Hermann Göring to which I wanted to draw the attention of the Tribunal. There is a conclusion in my brief against the Defendant Hermann Göring. With the permission of the Tribunal I shall not read it. I shall say that this conclusion is an extract from an old book dating from 1669, which is certainly known to everyone in Germany at least. Its title is _Simplizius Simplizissimus_ by Grimmelshausen. It is a work in which persons are seen invoking dreams. Unfortunately the realization seems to have been achieved by the National Socialist regime.

I now go on to the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, whose case concerns most particularly our friends in the Netherlands on behalf of whom France is acting as counsel.

Consequently, Mr. President and Gentlemen, as regards the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, the French Prosecution is going to outline as briefly as possible both in the name of the Netherlands Government and in its own name the separate charges against this defendant. The part played by the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, his participation in the annexation of Austria, were carefully studied during the course of this Trial. But it is his operations in Holland which deserve to be thrown into special relief today.

On 13 May 1940 the Netherlands Government left Holland for a friendly Allied country. Its presence there was indicative of its firm determination not to yield up in any way its sovereign rights.

On 29 May 1940 the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, who had the rank of Reich Minister without Portfolio, was appointed Reich Commissioner for the occupied Netherlands. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart has therefore been considered responsible, by virtue of his functions, for all the acts committed by the so-called German Civil Government from that date up to the capitulation of the German Army. The speeches which he made afford evidence that he was invested not only with purely administrative functions but also with political authority.

It is, therefore, useless for him to try, as he did when he was interrogated by my friend Mr. Thomas Dodd, to maintain that in Holland he was nothing more than an official empowered to put his seal on orders, in the same way that in Austria earlier he was practically only a telegraph operator. This interrogation is dated 18 September 1945, Pages 20 to 22. I do not insist further, as I did not wish to produce these interrogations in order to avoid wasting the time of the Court with the numerous interrogations which would have had to be cited in cross-examination, and these documents will really remain for the edification of the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, has the interrogation been put in?

M. MOUNIER: No, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as a matter of technical procedure. . . .

M. MOUNIER: I know in advance that you cannot accept this as proof already constituted in your eyes, considering the rule. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it can be given if the rule is complied with.

M. MOUNIER: My intention, Mr. President, is the following—to state. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, I think you are misunderstanding me. Under the article the prosecutors have got the right to interrogate any of the defendants, and this was an interrogation of one of the defendants.

If the Prosecution choose to do so, they can offer their interrogation in evidence. If they do not choose to do so, they need not do so. Under such circumstances the interrogation is not in evidence, and need not be furnished to the defendant until it is.

M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President, I have not alluded to these statements made by the defendant. I simply wish to point out that when the defendant of whom I am now speaking is cross-examined, we shall be able to confront him with the statements he made, or, at least, I hope so.

With the permission of the Court I shall first take up the subject of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart’s terrorist activities. These are shown by the following measures:

First, a whole system of collective fines. In March 1941 he established a system of collective fines which were imposed upon the Dutch cities where he thought that elements of the resistance movement existed. Thus the city of Amsterdam had to pay a fine of two and a half million.

The Defendant Seyss-Inquart also established a system of hostages. On 18 May 1942 he published a proclamation announcing the arrest of 450 persons in important official positions, who were only suspected of being in relation with the resistance movement.

In fact, the defendant has admitted before Mr. Dodd. . . . No, I stop, Mr. President, I did not submit these interrogations. I shall pass over this passage and only point it out in a general way, and I beg the Court not to consider this fact as an infringement of the Charter. I am simply pointing out to the Court that in this case, too, the Defendant Seyss-Inquart tried to hide behind the shadow of the Reich Chancellor, the shadow of the Führer, Hitler.

By the decree of 7 July 1942, the defendant ordered that the German tribunals, the judges of which he himself appointed, were to try not only the German citizens in Holland, but also citizens suspected of activities hostile to the Reich, to the Nazi Party, or to the German people.

At the same time the Defendant Seyss-Inquart introduced the death penalty for those who had not properly performed the security jobs assigned them by the Wehrmacht or the Security Police or who had failed to inform the German command posts of all criminal projects directed against the occupation forces which came to their knowledge.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, you were citing then a proclamation dated 18 May 1942. You did not give us any number as yet.

M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I ought to say that I am referring in a general way to the official report of the Netherlands Government (Document Number RF-1429). The government submitted a report. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Is it stated there?

M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Did that also apply to the document of 7 July 1942 that you just spoke of?

M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart also appointed the SS Obergruppenführer Rauter, General Commissioner for Security. The latter is responsible for the murder of thousands of Dutchmen executed with the passive consent of Seyss-Inquart, inasmuch as Rauter’s appointment was always maintained and was never terminated.

On the other hand, the Netherlands Government charges the Defendant Seyss-Inquart with the creation of a whole series of exceptional courts. In May 1943 he established summary police jurisdiction, and in fact through an ordinance issued by Hitler, Dutch prisoners of war who had been freed shortly after the cessation of hostilities were once more interned. A tough resistance showed itself in the Dutch factories and the newly established summary jurisdiction sentenced several Dutch citizens who were executed. Moreover, Seyss-Inquart did not fail to boast of all these terrorist measures at a meeting of Dutch collaborators and claimed responsibility for them.

The Defendant Seyss-Inquart was Hitler’s supreme representative in Holland. He should be considered as responsible, along with the Defendant Sauckel, for the mass deportation of workers from Holland to the Reich between 1940 and 1945. Whether or not the German military authorities played any part themselves in the mobilization of labor, Sauckel’s officials in Holland were normally placed under the authority of the Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart, and he must be considered as responsible for their actions. It was the Defendant Seyss-Inquart who signed the decree of the Reich Commissioner, Number 26 of 1942, which is found in the official Dutch report, in an official publication ordering the compulsory transport of Dutch labor to Germany. Those who would not work for Germany got nothing to eat; the occupation authorities even went so far as to make huge roundups in the streets of Rotterdam and The Hague in order to procure labor for the fortifications of the Wehrmacht.

In regard to economic pillage during the Defendant Seyss-Inquart’s period of office as Commissioner, the Dutch economic system was plundered like that of the other occupied countries. In the winter of 1941-42 woollen goods were requisitioned by order of Seyss-Inquart for the German Army on the Eastern front. In 1943 textiles and every-day household articles were requisitioned for the benefit of the bombed-out German population. Under what the occupation authorities called the “Action Böhm,” people of the Netherlands were compelled to sell wines and various objects destined to form gifts for the German population for the celebration of Christmas 1943.

The same thing happened with regard to the organization of the black market, for, in order to carry out the Four Year Plan, Seyss-Inquart gave the Defendant Göring and the Defendant Speer competent assistance in the pillage of the Dutch economic system. We can say in this way that a huge black market was fostered and maintained. The Four Year Plan utilized “snatchers” for these alleged purchases but when Dutch prosecutors tried to intervene they were prevented from doing so by the German police.

In 1940 the Defendant Seyss-Inquart issued an ordinance permitting the German authorities in Holland to confiscate the property of all persons who could be accused of hostile activities against the German Reich. The property of the royal family was, on the Defendant Seyss-Inquart’s orders, confiscated by the General Commission for Security. The occupation troops could help themselves to everything that was of use to them.

This pillage was manifested in a particularly cruel manner by the abuses which went on in connection with the requisition of food products.

In fact, the official report of the Dutch Government and the document already submitted by the Economic Section of the French Prosecution under Document Number RF-139 (Exhibit Number RF-139), and Document Number RF-140 (Exhibit Number RF-140) show that, from the very beginning of the occupation, food stocks were systematically removed with the consent of Seyss-Inquart—as was also the case with agricultural produce, which was transported to Germany. When a railway strike broke out in the north in September 1944, soon after the liberation of southern Holland, Seyss-Inquart, in order to break the strike, gave orders that no food stocks were to be moved from the northeast to the West. As a result of this, it was impossible to establish food stocks in the West.

Consequently, Seyss-Inquart must also be held responsible for the famine which ensued during the winter of 1944-45, causing the death of some 25,000 Dutchmen.

In regard to works of art, the pillage was carried on in the same way. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart must be considered responsible for organizing the removal of works of art from Holland, since he expressly called in his friend, Dr. Mühlmann, who was a specialist in this branch.

In this connection I refer to the document submitted by the Economic Section of the French Prosecution under Document Numbers RF-1343 and RF-1344. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart issued a whole series of measures contrary to international law which did considerable harm to the Netherlands.

In 1941 the Dutch authorities had established a currency control system which allowed them to keep track of purchases made with German money, either of goods or public funds, with the aim of preventing abuses which would lead to the plundering of Holland’s wealth in the form of materials or of currency.

On 31 March 1941 the Defendant Seyss-Inquart abolished the “currency” frontier existing between the Reich and the occupied Dutch territory. By so doing, he paved the way for all the abuses committed in monetary matters by the occupying power, in addition to the impossible sums demanded by Germany to defray the expenses of occupation: 500 million Reichsmark on 24 March 1941.

The frontier control between Dutch occupied territory and Germany was also abolished by order of Göring, in order to expedite the pillage of the Netherlands’ economic system. When the war began to go badly for the Wehrmacht, especially after 1 September 1944, the destruction became systematic. The objectives aimed at by the Germans in the Netherlands were the following: First, to demolish or put out of action factories, shipyards, basins and docks, port installations, mines, bridges, railway equipment. Second, to flood the western parts of Holland. Third, to seize raw materials, semi-manufactured products, manufactured goods and machines, sometimes by requisitioning, sometimes in return for payment in money, but in many cases simply by force of arms. Fourth, to break open safe-deposits containing securities, diamonds, _et cetera_, and to take illegal possession of these. The result of these measures, responsibility for which devolves wholly or to a great extent on the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, was to throw Holland into a state of unspeakable and undeserved misery.

I have now concluded, Mr. President, the case of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, how long a time do you anticipate you will take this afternoon, because I understand that the case against the Defendant Hess will be presented afterwards; and it is important that he should finish that day, so that the Chief Prosecutor may have a full day for his opening statement.

M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, both yesterday and today I have yielded most willingly to the wishes of the Tribunal. I understand perfectly your anxiety to expedite the trial as much as possible, and in view of this, I shortened the remarks which I was going to make to you this morning. For this reason, too, I state in the name of the French Prosecution that I shall now forego the presentation of the cases of the other defendants, which were on the schedule. I merely ask the Tribunal to refer to the files which we have submitted, except in the case of Keitel and Jodl. If it please the Court, my friend and colleague, M. Quatre, will make a few remarks about these two defendants at the beginning of this afternoon’s session. He will try to make them as short as possible. In that way the British Delegation will have the two hours which it needs to present the case of Hess.

Consequently, may it please the Court, M. Quatre will take the floor for an hour at two o’clock and then give way to the British Delegation.

THE PRESIDENT: Another question that I would like to ask you, M. Mounier, as to the documents against the other defendants, other than Keitel and Jodl, have they been furnished to the defendants concerned in them?

M. MOUNIER: Yes, they have, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

M. CONSTANT QUATRE (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): Mr. President, Your Honors, I have the honor today to bring to a close the presentation of the French Prosecution by recapitulating the charges against the Defendants Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl. Before going into my statement, I shall ask the Tribunal for permission to present a few observations. First of all, to spare the time of the Tribunal, we have joined the two defendants in the same brief. Their activities were carried on so much in common that in separating them we would run the risk of tedious repetitions and for this reason, I am condensing as far as possible what I have to say.

This presentation consists of three parts. In an introduction, I have endeavored to show the position of the two defendants in the general design of their activities. The first part following this deals with the preparation of plans of aggression, and will only be mentioned. It has already been sufficiently expounded so that it need not be brought up again.

The second part will claim my special attention. It concerns the responsibility incurred by the defendants for the crimes committed in the course of the war. In this connection, I shall not mention all the documents, testimonies, and interrogatories concerning these two defendants. If their guilt is a function of the repetition of their crimes, its main characteristic is the criminal intent which caused these crimes to be carried out. This criminal intent is made particularly clear by the few documents to which I have limited myself. I shall ask the Tribunal’s permission to make a few intentionally brief quotations from these.

The documents quoted will be first quoted under the session number, which you will find written in red in the margin of the copy before you. I shall thereupon indicate the original number. If the document has already been submitted, I shall furnish the date at which it was submitted and the number under which it was submitted.

As Chief of the National Socialist Party and subsequently as Chancellor of the Reich, Hitler endeavored to gain sole control of the German Army. He wanted the unity which he had established between Party and State to prevail throughout the Army, the State, and the Party. Only under these conditions would the war machine be capable of fulfilling its function. The initial impulse would come from the Party, the State would translate it into action, and the Army would impose it, if necessary, both at home and abroad.

To achieve this aim it was necessary first of all to impose legislation which would in fact bring the whole military organization under the Führer’s orders. It was also necessary to take steps to eliminate personalities too unyielding to submit to these measures. The execution of Von Schleicher in 1934 and the disgrace of Blomberg in 1938 are two examples. All that remained was to provide for their replacement by military chiefs whose conscience was sufficiently elastic to allow them to play the part of faithful executives. Keitel and Jodl were among these.

Their personal convictions and their rapid rise to eminence prove this. Questioned on 3 August 1945 by Colonel Ecer of the Czechoslovakian Military Judiciary, the Defendant Keitel spoke thus of his relations with Hitler and the National Socialist Party, (Exhibit Number RF-1430, formerly Document Number RF-710):

“In my innermost thoughts I was a faithful supporter of Adolf
Hitler and my political convictions were National Socialist.
When the Führer accorded me his confidence, my personal contact
with him further influenced me towards National Socialism. Today
I am still a firm partisan of Adolf Hitler, which does not imply
that I adhere to all the points of the program and policy of the
Party.”

On 7 November 1943, in a speech delivered in Munich to the leaders of the Reich and of the provinces on the strategic position of Germany at the beginning of the fifth year of the war, Jodl made the following statement by way of peroration, Exhibit Number RF-1431, Document Number L-172, submitted by the American Prosecution of 27 November 1945 under Number USA-34:

“At this moment I should like to testify, not only with my lips
but from the bottom of my heart, that our trust and confidence
in the Führer are boundless.”

Keitel, who entered the Army in 1901, was still a colonel in 1931. Jodl, who was 3 years younger, was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel only in 1932, in spite of the opportunities offered by the war of 1914-18. The past years had brought them only mediocre advancement. Those which lay before them were to lead them to the heights of honor and responsibility. They saw their star rising at last simultaneously with that of the new master of Germany. The immediate result was their admission to public life.

During the years preceding the war, Keitel did not cease to exercise high functions in the most exalted ranks of the German Armed Forces. As he was in special favor with the new master of Germany, he adopted every possible means of strengthening the influence of Nazi ideology within the Army from the moment of Hitler’s accession to power. His activities in the Armed Forces Department were particularly fruitful. This was a ministerial organization which temporarily replaced the Reich Ministry of War and was responsible among other things for the preparation and co-ordination of plans affecting the German Army. The defendant’s period in office is rendered the more noteworthy by the fact that sweeping changes in organization had just been effected. The Reichswehr of the professional soldier was replaced by the Wehrmacht, recruited by compulsory military service. It was not enough to call the whole youth of Germany to the flag; it had to be clothed and fed and supplied with powerful modern weapons. This increase in the number of men under arms, these beginnings of a military economy and of a policy of rearmament, were largely due to the efforts of the defendant, who at that time enjoyed, in fact if not in theory, the prerogatives of a Minister of War.

On 4 February 1938, when Hitler abolished the War Ministry and proclaimed himself Commander-in-Chief, he transferred the chief powers of the Ministry to the High Command of the Armed Forces and its chief, Keitel, became at the same time Chief of the Führer’s personal staff.

The defendant was to retain these functions until the German Army capitulated. As Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces, Keitel did not exercise direct authority over the three services composing the Armed Forces: the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy, which were directly under Hitler. His particular function was the co-ordination of matters affecting the three services; he acted as liaison agent between Hitler and these three services, but he did more than this. His main role was that of adviser. He collated the information reaching him from the different services under his orders. This included reports from the Operations Staff under Jodl, information from the office of Admiral Canaris, reports made by the economic Armament Office under General Thomas, and by the administrative, financial, and legal branches. No matter how personal and authoritative Hitler’s way of working may have been, it did not exclude the regular and constant participation of Keitel in the acts of his master. It was he who was in a position to carry out his chief’s demands, to suggest, to prepare, or to modify his decisions.

If we consider his qualifications as a member of the Defense Council of the Reich and as a member of the Secret Cabinet Council and also consider their political importance, it is easy to see the scope of the role played by the defendant in every sphere, whether in the preparation of military plans in the strict sense of the term, the life or conduct of the German Army, the distribution of manpower, or the utilization of the economic resources of Germany.

Whenever a meeting was held at general headquarters or at the Chancellery, Keitel was present. He was present when Hitler made decisions of major importance. He was at his side on marches into the countries to be annexed. When orders by Hitler had to be transmitted, he in his turn would give orders, elaborating his chief’s ideas and adding his personal contribution. In countersigning Hitler’s decrees, Keitel did not alter the validity of these texts as regards the law of the Third Reich, but he gave Hitler a guarantee of their usefulness for the Wehrmacht and their execution to the last detail. It was in that way in particular that he acknowledged responsibility.

Like Keitel, Jodl was one of those men who staked their success on the success of the new regime and its creator. His attitude, his orders, and his activities show that he was a general inspired by political considerations, attached to Hitler, who showered favors on him. In assuming the direction of the general Operations Staff of the High Command of the Armed Forces, he also took an active and important part in the elaboration of his chief’s orders.

Hitler represented the exclusive right to make decisions (Page 9 of my brief) but the two defendants who shared his every-day life during the period of hostilities brought his decisions into being, elaborated them, and ensured their execution.

Jodl fulfilled this role of counsellor, although in theory his authority was by no means equal to Keitel’s. This did not prevent him from intervening in matters outside the field of pure operations, but in which he likewise engaged his personal responsibility.

This responsibility of the two defendants has a bearing on the preparation and execution of plans of aggression. We shall not come back to this point. In this matter our British colleague, Mr. Roberts, has brought out perfectly the role played by these two defendants, and we shall consider more particularly their responsibility in the conduct of the war.

First of all, their responsibility for the murder and ill-treatment of civilians, collective sanctions, and the murder of hostages (Page 13 of my brief).

From the beginning of the war and keeping pace with the occupation of new territories by the German armies, there appeared measures against the civilian population, in violation of the laws of war and of the law of nations. These violations range from the apparently harmless to the most severe sanctions, the most cruel treatment, the most senseless and inhuman executions.

If we turn to the occupied territories in the East, towards Norway, towards the western countries, we find everywhere the same reactions, the same scrupulous execution of the same directives. On 16 September 1941, Keitel signed an order regarding the repression of communist insurrectionary movements in the occupied territories. This is Exhibit Number RF-1432, Document Number 389-PS. If the Tribunal will permit me, I should like to read briefly from this document. Keitel’s directives are the following:

“Every case of insurrection against the German occupying power
is to be attributed to communist initiative irrespective of the
particular circumstances.

“The most severe measures are to be taken to nip the rising in
the bud at the first signs, so as to uphold the authority of the
forces of occupation and to prevent such movements from
spreading. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that in the
countries in question human life often means nothing and that
intimidation can be achieved only by unusual severity. In this
case, the death penalty must as a general rule be considered a
fitting reprisal for the death of a German soldier.”

THE PRESIDENT: We have had this read already.

M. QUATRE: I am sorry, Mr. President. On 5 May 1942, addressing himself to Belgium and France in particular, Keitel ordered hostages to be taken and executed in these two countries. They were to be chosen from the nationalists, the democrats, and the communists. This is Exhibit Number RF-1433 (Document Number 1590-PS), the original of which is now in the hands of the Prosecution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which will not fail to submit it in the course of its presentation. This order merely confirms previous directives, since orders given in August and September 1941 by General Von Stülpnagel, Commander-in-Chief in France, already concerned the execution of hostages. This is Exhibit Number RF-1434 (Document Number 1588-PS) submitted 29 January 1946 by the French Prosecution under Exhibit Number RF-274.

To impose order in the occupied territories and to protect the members of the German Army from attempted violence, Keitel did not hesitate to violate the stipulations of Articles 46 and 50 of the Hague Convention, which forbid the use by the occupying power of all means of coercion or collective reprisals and which, on the contrary, impose respect for the lives of individuals.

These were not isolated cases of violation; the same things are repeated in all the occupied countries. These preventive arrests were built up into a system. They are well suited to the goal that the High Command had set itself: That of assuring in this manner a certain attitude on the part of the population which should be advantageous from a military point of view. The terms of Exhibit Number RF-1433, which I have just quoted, are perfectly definite:

“. . . the military commanders should always have on hand a
certain number of hostages of various political leanings. . . .

“It is important that these should include personalities in the
public eye. . . .

“In cases of attempted violence, hostages belonging to the same
group as the guilty person are to be shot.”

The reign of terror thus instituted was to reach its climax in the regulations for applying the Nacht und Nebel decree, issued by Keitel on 12 December 1941. This is Exhibit Number RF-1436, which I submit today as Document Number 669-PS. If the Tribunal will allow me, I shall read a few characteristic lines indicating Keitel’s intentions.

THE PRESIDENT: I think we had it more than once already.

M. QUATRE: I apologize, Mr. President, and I shall go on. This is the starting point of the deportations to which France, among other countries, has contributed in such a great degree. It is unnecessary to labor the point. You know the treatment inflicted upon these women and men, torn from their homes in contempt of every law; and the atrocities committed on them are present to all our minds.

Let us likewise call attention to Exhibit Number RF-1437 (Document Number UK-20) submitted 9 January 1946 as Exhibit Number GB-163. That is an order of 26 May 1943, signed on his behalf, in which Keitel prescribed in Paragraph 3 that detailed investigations are to be made in given cases regarding the relatives of Frenchmen fighting for the Russians, if these relatives reside in the occupied zone of France. If the investigation reveals that these relatives have helped to facilitate their flight from France, severe measures are to be taken.

On 22 September 1943 the High Command of the Armed Forces, this time over Jodl’s signature, sent the Commander-in-Chief in Denmark a telegram interesting from two points of view. It is Exhibit Number RF-1438 (Document Number UK-56) already submitted on 31 January 1946, under Exhibit Number RF-335. The first paragraph authorizes the enrollment of Danish nationals in the military formations of the occupying army, in SS formations. Apart from being injurious to the honor of the individuals, it contravenes the terms of the preamble of the Hague Convention, which stipulates that, in cases not included in the regular provisions, the population and the belligerents must remain under the safeguard of the laws of humanity and the exigencies of the public conscience. This attempt at Germanization ignored completely the exigencies of the public conscience.

As for the second paragraph of this telegram ordering the Jews to be deported from Denmark to Germany, that is the application of the general principle of the deportation of Jewish populations which was to lead to their utter extermination. The Tribunal is sufficiently informed on this point, so it is unnecessary to labor it.

I now come to the unwarranted devastation and destruction of cities, towns, and villages (Page 20 of my brief). The policy of terrorism carried on by the German armies in France against the resistance movement, against the Free French Forces, broke all bounds when the occupying power took steps, not against the members of the resistance forces themselves, but against the inhabitants of villages and towns suspected of harboring these resistance forces or giving them aid. I quote in this connection from a brochure put out by the High Command of the German Armed Forces under the date of 6 May 1944, which bears the signature of the Defendant Jodl in the name of the Chief of the OKW. This is Exhibit Number RF-1439, formerly Document Number F-665, submitted 31 January 1946 under Exhibit Number RF-411. Paragraph 161 of this notice reads as follows:

“The cleaning up of villages suspected of concealing bands needs
experience. The forces of the Security Service and the rural
Secret Police are to be employed. The real helpers of the bands
are to be identified and the most rigorous measures taken
against them. Collective measures against the populations of
entire villages, including the burning of the places in
question, can be ordered only in exceptional cases and then only
by divisional commanders, SS leaders, or chiefs of police.”
(Page 21 of my brief.)

But what the Defendant Jodl had ordered as an exceptional measure became the general rule in France in the spring and in the summer of 1944. Actions which had been exceptional when this order was signed now took on the aspect of large-scale operations, ordered and carried out in violation of the law of nations by army units assisted by the forces of the Security Service and the rural secret police.

On the pretext of investigating or making reprisals against local resistance elements, German officers and men scrupulously carried out the orders given by the Chief of the Operations Staff.

It was in this way that the withdrawal of German armies in France was marked by dead towns such as those which bore the names of Oradour-sur-Glane, Maillé, Cerizay, Saint-Dié, and Vassieux-en-Vercors. Jodl is responsible for these “mopping-up” operations, which began with the most arbitrary arrests and went on by progressive stages to torture, the wholesale massacre of men, women, old people, and children—even infants in arms—and the looting and burning of the villages themselves. No distinction was made among the inhabitants; all of them, even the babies, were “genuine auxiliaries.”

Never have the necessities of war justified such measures, all of which constituted violations of Articles 46 and 50 of the Hague Convention.

I come now (Page 23 of my brief) to the mobilization of civilian workers and to the deportation of civilians for forced labor. The decree appointing Sauckel Plenipotentiary for Labor Allocation, under date of 21 March 1942, is signed by Hitler, Lammers, Chief of the Reich Chancellery, and the Defendant Keitel. This is Exhibit Number RF-1440 (Document Number 1666-PS) submitted by the American Prosecution on 12 December 1945 under Exhibit Number USA-208.

The first paragraph provides for the recruiting of all available civilian labor for employment in the German war industry and particularly in the armament industry. All unemployed workers in Germany, the Protectorate, the Government General, and all the occupied territories were liable for this. This constitutes a violation of Article 52 of the Hague Convention.

On 7 November 1943, in the course of the speech to which we have already alluded, the Defendant Jodl, speaking of the tasks incumbent upon the populations of German-occupied territories, declared in Exhibit Number RF-1431 (Document Number L-172) which I quoted some time ago:

“In my opinion the time has come when we must have no scruples
in taking stern and resolute measures in Denmark, Holland,
France, and Belgium in order to force thousands of unemployed to
work on fortifications, which is more essential than any other
work. The necessary orders have already been given.”

Sauckel would not have expressed himself otherwise. Jodl also champions this requisitioning of services to utilize the potential labor of the western occupied territories for military purposes in the exclusive interest of Germany. It matters little that the Hague Convention prohibits such procedure. For him, too, total warfare and the triumph of Germany take precedence over respect for international conventions or the customs of war.

I now come to the responsibility of the Defendant Keitel in the sphere of economic spoliation and looting of art treasures. I shall be extremely brief. I point out to the Tribunal three documents which have already been submitted to it. I simply refer to them: Exhibit Number RF-1441 submitted yesterday by my colleague of the Economic Section under Exhibit Number RF-1302, and Exhibit Number RF-1400 (Document Number 137-PS) submitted 18 December 1945 by the American Prosecution under Number USA-379, and finally Exhibit Number RF-1443 (Document Number 138-PS), submitted yesterday under Exhibit Number RF-1310.

In regard to this, I shall merely submit to the Tribunal today a short letter consisting of five lines, addressed by Keitel to Rosenberg, Chief of the Einsatzstab. This is Exhibit Number RF-1444, (Document Number 148-PS) which reads as follows:

“Most Honored Reich Minister.

“In reply to your letter of 20 February I inform you that I have
instructed the High Command of the Army to make the necessary
arrangements with your delegate for the work of your special
units in the operational area.”

It can therefore be said that Rosenberg’s activities received the continued support and assistance of the Army from the very first and in this way Keitel also made a personal contribution to the looting of the art treasures of France and the western countries. These measures were at first invested with an appearance of legal justification. They did not take place, according to Keitel, by virtue of a right to take, but simply as a guarantee for future peace negotiations. But these measures quickly degenerated into a general plundering of the art treasures of all kinds possessed by these western countries, in violation of the stipulations of Articles 46, 47, and 56 of the Hague Convention, which forbid the confiscation of private property and the pillage or seizure of works of art and science by the members of the occupying army.

I have now reached the last main part of my brief, which concerns (Page 28) the violations of conventions and laws of war relating to prisoners of war. In this field, in particular, Keitel and Jodl have made themselves guilty of peculiarly unwarrantable measures, contrary to the laws of war.

To begin with, they have violated Article 6 of the Appendix to the Hague Convention, which stipulates that “work carried out by war prisoners shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with war operations.”

Now, in a memorandum signed on his behalf, dated 31 October 1941, Keitel, as Chief of the OKW, forces Russian prisoners of war, interned in the Reich, to perform work connected with war operations. This is proved by Exhibit Number RF-1445 (Document Number EC-194) submitted by the American Prosecution on 12 December 1945, under Exhibit Number USA-214. In this text Keitel expresses himself thus:

“The Führer has just ordered that even the labor capacity of
Russian prisoners of war must be placed at the disposal of the
German war economy on a large scale.”

That is the signal for the immediate setting up of a program for incorporating these prisoners into the German war economy. It is true that in 1941, this document concerns only Russian prisoners of war; but from 21 March 1942, the incorporation of all war prisoners into the German war industry, and more especially the armament industry, is put into practice. The decree signed by Hitler appointing Sauckel Plenipotentiary for Labor Allocation, to which reference already has been made, provides, likewise, for the use of all prisoners of war in the German armaments industry. This is shown by Document RF-1440, which reveals the violation of Articles 27, 31, 32, and 33 of the Geneva Convention.

One month later, on 20 April 1942, Sauckel expressed himself thus, in his mobilization program for the labor forces, Exhibit Number RF-1446 (Document Number 016-PS) submitted 11 December 1945 by the American Prosecution, under Exhibit Number USA-168:

“It is absolutely necessary to make the fullest possible use of
all prisoners of war and to employ the greatest possible number
of new civilian workers, both men and women, if the labor
program in this war is to be realized.”

In this way Sauckel succeeded in incorporating 1,658,000 prisoners of war into the war economy of the Reich by 6 February 1943, as he announced in a speech made at Posen. This is shown by Exhibit Number RF-1447 (Document Number 1739-PS), submitted on 8 January 1946 by the French Prosecution under Exhibit Number RF-10.

The 1,658,000 prisoners of war were the following: Belgians, 55,000; French, 932,000; British, 45,000; Yugoslavs, 101,000; Poles, 33,000; Russians, 488,000; Others, 4,000; Total: 1,658,000.

The fact that such a large contingent was put at the disposal of the German war economy implies perfect collusion between Sauckel’s labor services and Keitel, who, in his capacity of Chief of the High Command, was responsible for this reservoir of manpower and the use to which it was put.

These flagrant violations of the Hague and Geneva Conventions were later accompanied by measures inspired or authorized by the defendants, which were even more serious because they no longer violated only the war prisoners’ rights as such but also involved physical assaults on their persons, which might even cause their deaths. These violations have a bearing, first of all, on the violation of security (Page 32 of my brief).

Exhibit Number RF-1448, (Document Number 823-PS), submitted 30 January 1946 under Exhibit Number RF-359 offers us a report drawn up by the office of the Operations Staff for the Chief of the High Command. It relates to the establishment of camps for British and American Air Force prisoners in German bombed towns. The Operations Staff of the Luftwaffe proposed this arrangement so that the presence of these air force prisoners might protect the population of the cities concerned against possible attacks by the British and American Air Forces and in order to transfer all the existing camps for air force prisoners to these places.

Jodl approved this measure on behalf of the General Staff of the High Command, considering that if it was limited to the establishment of new camps, it would not be contrary to international law.

If we did not know the reason underlying this decision we might believe, like the Defendant Jodl, that it does not run counter to international law. But this measure, as the first lines of this document specify, is above all an indirect means of safeguarding the German urban population. The Allied war prisoners are only a means of warding off possible air attacks; and to attain this end no hesitation is shown in aggravating their condition by exposing them to the dangers of war. This is a grave violation of the obligation regarding the safety of prisoners imposed by Article 9 of the Geneva Convention upon the power detaining prisoners of war.

Keitel writes only two words on the first page of the document—“No objections”—and adds his initials.

I now come (Page 34) to the measures taken against escaped prisoners. The nature of these measures later became particularly serious, as is shown by Exhibit Number RF-1449 (Document Number 1650-PS), submitted on 13 December 1945 by the American Prosecution under Number USA-246. The Tribunal is sufficiently informed as to this and it is not necessary, I think, for me to read it.

This document reveals the “Aktion Kugel” which was designed to put a stop to the escapes of officers and noncommissioned officers. Its only purpose was to turn escaped prisoners over to police organizations. This is the Sonderbehandlung mentioned in orders and reports, but this “special treatment,” as you know, is nothing more or less than extermination.

Yet, in the terms of Article 47 and succeeding articles of the Geneva Convention, only disciplinary punishment in the form of arrest can be inflicted by the detaining power on escaped prisoners of war. Keitel did not hesitate to abandon these methods for more radical means.

DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): The French prosecutor is about to refer to a document which is in the document book under RF-711 and has been presented to the Court under Document RF-1450. This document is marked as a summary of an interrogation of General Westhoff, and it forms a particularly grave charge against the Defendant Keitel. It concerns the shooting of R.A.F. officers who had escaped from the Camp of Sagan. I protest against the use of this document in evidence for the following reasons:

1. The original is not an affidavit but only a summarized report of General Westhoff’s statements. 2. The report submitted is not signed by Colonel Williams, who conducted the interrogation. It is not signed at all but has only a translator’s note on it. 3. One cannot see, from the document, who drafted it. 4. In addition, one cannot see from that report whether General Westhoff was questioned under oath. 5. General Westhoff is, as far as I know, right here in Nuremberg. 6. There is a protocol concerning General Westhoff’s interrogation. For these reasons I ask the Court to verify whether that document, which has been presented as a résumé of General Westhoff’s interrogation, can be admitted in evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: [_Turning to M. Quatre._] Well, what do you say to the various points raised by Dr. Nelte?

M. QUATRE: Mr. President, I recognize the soundness of the request by the Defense and I shall be in a position at the end of this session to produce before the Tribunal the complete minutes of the interrogation of General Westhoff, accompanied by an affidavit by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. I regret not being able to produce them at the moment. I received these minutes late for certain reasons and I thought it better not to add them to my document book.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that the document which you have submitted to us cannot be admitted. It is a mere résumé. The Tribunal thinks, also, that it can allow the interrogatory to be used only if a copy of it is handed to the defendants’ counsel and the witness who made the interrogatory is submitted to the defendants’ counsel for cross-examination, if they wish to cross-examine him. Otherwise you must call General Westhoff and examine him orally. Is that clear? I will repeat it if you like.

The document you have submitted to us is rejected. You can either call General Westhoff as a witness, in which case, of course, he will be liable to cross-examination; or you can put in the interrogatory after you have supplied a copy of it to Defense Counsel, and then General Westhoff, who made the interrogatory, will be liable to cross-examination by the Defense Counsel.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would the Tribunal allow me to intervene for one moment?

The document to which my learned friend referred a moment ago as having been certified by myself is a report of the United Nations War Crimes Commission, which I received from the Chairman, Lord Reith, and certified as such a report. It therefore, in my respectful submission, becomes admissible under Article 21 of the Charter. It is not merely a transcript of the interrogation. That is the document to which my learned friend referred and that is available and can be procured quite shortly.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I follow that point, but at the same time that does not altogether meet the situation. If it is true that General Westhoff is in Nuremberg at the present moment, it would scarcely be fair that a document of that sort should be put in unless the person who made the statement or from whose interrogatory the statement was composed was submitted for cross-examination.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With the greatest respect, My Lord, I should like the Tribunal to consider that point because the Tribunal has not got the document in front of it; but it is a report to the United Nations War Crimes Commission, based on the interrogatory. It therefore, in my respectful submission, becomes admissible as a report within the actual words of Article 21 and therefore is a matter which the Tribunal shall, under the Charter, take judicial notice of.

THE PRESIDENT: Would your submission be that the right course would be to take that report into consideration and leave it to the defendants, if they wished it, to call General Westhoff?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That would be my submission—that is my submission because of the effect of Article 21 or the course which is contemplated in view of the special powers and special validity given to such reports by Article 21.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know whether the interrogation was made by the Prosecution in Nuremberg?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am told that the interrogation was made in London. I did not know that General Westhoff was in Nuremberg. I will make inquiries on that point.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, were you able to inform us whether or not the interrogation was made in Nuremberg or in London?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am told it was made in London.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you know where the witness is now?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I did not know he was in Nuremberg until Your Lordship mentioned it, but I can easily verify that point.

DR. NELTE: Last week I received a letter from General Westhoff, from the witnesses’ block of the prison here in Nuremberg, with answers to other questions. So you see that he was here last week.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.

[_A recess was taken._]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if I might just add one or two words to clarify the position. I do this because this is a matter to which the British Government, in particular, attached very great importance.