Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-09/tgmwc-09-86.09
Last-Modified: 1999/12/11

Q. Now, you dealt in economic matters with the various
occupied countries through Reichskommissars?

A. I testified the other day that all sorts of authorities,
including the Reichskommissars, had to follow my economic
directives and orders.

Q. They were to report to you on economic matters?

A. Not about all of them, only in so far as they concerned
my directives.

Q. Who was your Reichskommissar in Poland?

A. There was no Reichskommissar in Poland. There was a
Governor-General in Poland, that was Dr. Frank.

Q. Who was the Reichskommissar in the Netherlands?

                                                  [Page 280]

A. Dr. Seyss-Inquart was Reichskommissar for Holland.

Q. Who was the Reichskommissar for Norway?

A. In Norway the Gauleiter Terboven was Reichskommissar.

Q. Terboven - he was also a Gauleiter you say?

A. He was Gauleiter at Essen.

Q. You appointed him to Norway or obtained his appointment?

A. I neither appointed him for Norway - because that was
beyond my jurisdiction - nor did I have him appointed. I did
not oppose his appointment in any way as I considered he
would make a very competent Reichskommissar.

Q. He was there from 1940 until 1945?

A. I believe that is correct.

Q. Now, I will ask to have you shown Document 134-R, a
communication from Terboven to you.

(The document was handed to the witness.)

That is a communication of 1st May, 1942, is it not?

A. I noted the date, yes.

Q. And that reports to you as follows, does it not - it is
addressed to you as Reich Marshal, "My esteemed Reich
Marshal," is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Omitting the first paragraph, unless you care to have it:

  "Several days ago, on an island West of Bergen, we
  captured a Norwegian sabotage unit trained by the Secret
  Service, and found extensive stores of sabotage
  instruments, some of them of a new kind, including
  probably poison and bacteria. Those which appeared
  unfamiliar were forwarded to the Reich Security Main
  Office for closer examination.
  
  Besides other tasks, this sabotage unit was to begin its
  sabotage work on Sola and Herdla, using the explosive of
  which a sample is enclosed herewith. This appears from
  written directives found. Since it must be assumed that
  similar actions are under way on airfields on the rest of
  the European coast, and assuming that a means of sabotage
  actually unknown until now is involved, I am
  communicating with you by the fastest possible means in
  order to give you an opportunity to issue an appropriate
  warning.
  
  Unfortunately, two especially reliable officers of the
  Security Police were killed in the fight against the
  sabotage unit. We buried them this morning at 10.00 hours
  in the Heroes' Cemetery in Bergen.
  
  On the same day and at the same hour eighteen Norwegians
  were shot on my order. These had been captured some time
  previously, in the attempt to go to England illegally.
  
  On the same day the entire village which had harboured
  the sabotage unit was burned down and the population
  deported. All the males were taken to a German
  concentration camp without any notification being sent to
  their families. The women were sent to a female forced
  labour camp in Norway, and those children who were not
  capable of working went to a children's camp. Heil
  Hitler! Yours obediently, Terboven."

Is that correct?

A. It says so in the letter, a copy of which is before me.

Q. Terboven remained after that report until 1945, did he
not?

A. That is correct.

Q. Now, later in the same year, 1942, you adopted very
similar means to those reported by Terboven to you, did you
not?

A. I did not understand the question.

Q. Well, you adopted later in the same year the same means
as Terboven, did you not?

A. I? Where?

Q. Well, I will ask that you be shown Document 1742-PS.

                                                  [Page 281]

Now, this is a decree of 26th October, 1942, by Goering. I
ask you to follow me:

  "Simultaneously with the intensified combating of
  guerrilla activity ordered by the Fuehrer and the
  cleaning up of the area behind the lines, in particular
  that behind the Army Group Centre, I request that the
  following points be taken into consideration and the
  conclusions drawn therefrom be put into practice:
  
  1. Simultaneously with the combating of the underground
  forces and the combing out of the areas contaminated by
  them, all available livestock must be driven off to safe
  areas. Similarly, food supplies are to be removed and
  brought into safety, so that they will no longer be
  available to the guerrillas.
  
  2. All male and female labour suitable for any kind of
  employment must be forcibly recruited, and allocated to
  the General-Plenipotentiary for Manpower, who will then
  employ them in safe areas behind the lines or in the
  Reich. Separate camps must be organised behind the lines
  for the children."

Is that right?

A. Absolutely. It concerns areas overrun by guerrillas, and
no one could expect me to leave cattle and foodstuffs at
their disposal. Furthermore, people who were repeatedly
being incited to guerrilla activities and revolts against us
had to be brought back to safe areas and put to work. I
would like to emphasise that this was absolutely vital for
the security of the troops. But I may emphasise again that
you said I gave the same orders which you read from
Terboven's letter. I did not order villages to be burned and
did not order the shooting of hostages. This was something
basically different.

Q. You simply seized all the men, women and children, and
moved them out. That is what I referred to.

By May, 1944, your problem in the loss of fighter aircraft
and fighter personnel was becoming serious?

A. Yes.

Q. On 19th May, 1944, you had a conference in your office,
on the subject of fighter aircraft and the losses of fighter
personnel, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. You have been shown the minutes of that meeting and
authenticated them in your interrogations?

A. They are not minutes of this conference. It is a short
and brief summary by an officer of a meeting which - as far
as I know - lasted two days.

Q. I will ask to have you shown Document 166-L. It is
entitled, "Most Secret Document," is it not?

A. That is correct.

Q. And it is also entitled, "Minutes of conference on
fighter aircraft with the Reich Marshal on 15th and 16th
May, 1944," that is correct, too, is it not?

A. No, it says, "Notices of a conference on fighter aircraft
at the Reich-Marshal's on 15th and 16th May, 1944."

Q. "Notices," you translate it "notices"? It says
"memorandum" here and that is the original.

A. "Notes of Conference on Fighter Aircraft." Lasting two
days.

Q. Yes. And at first General Galland described in detail the
situation regarding fighter personnel; that took place, did
it not, and he reviewed the losses?

A. Yes.

Q. And then he reviewed at some length under Item 2,
"Remedial Measures," is that right?

A. According to the memorandum, yes, but whether that
actually took place I cannot say.

                                                  [Page 282]

Q. This conference took place, did it not?

A. Certainly; it lasted two days.

Q. And under Item 3 General Galland made certain proposals,
did he not?

A. Yes.

Q. Then, after considerable discussion, General Schmidt made
certain proposals, Items 12 and 13, is that right?

A. It must have been so. At any rate it says so according to
the memorandum.

Q. You recommended a conference between the Chief of the
General Staff and the Chief of Artillery as soon as
possible, did you not? Item 13?

A. Yes.

Q. And General Schmidt's recommendations and requests appear
in Items 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18?

A. Yes.

Q. Then you decided, "The Reich Marshal has decided that
only three groups of fighter squadrons are to remain in the
Reich and that all the fighters fit for operations are to be
pressed into service."

That occurred, did it not?

A. Yes.

Q. Then, "The Reich Marshal desires that when low-level
attacks on airfields are made, causing considerable loss in
personnel and material, the measures taken for defence and
dispersal are to be re-examined by the
Luftwaffenfuehrungsstab." That is Item 19. That occurred,
did it not?

A. Yes.

Q. Item 20 reads, "The Reich Marshal wishes to propose to
the Fuehrer that American and English crews who shoot
indiscriminately over towns, at moving civilian trains or at
soldiers hanging to parachutes, should be shot immediately
on the spot."

Have I correctly read that?

A. It says so. here, and I objected at once, at the time,
that this was not correct. This passage has no connection at
all with the context of these notes, Items 19-21. Besides
the expression "soldiers hanging to parachutes" is entirely
misleading and not commonly used. I thought for a long time
about how this could have got into the notes, which I never
saw and which were drawn up over a period of two days, and
the only explanation I can suggest is that I pointed out (as
can be gathered from the other testimonial matter) that
around that time the Fuehrer gave a directive in this
respect, and that in any event there must be a mistake; that
is, not that the Reich Marshal wants to propose, etc., to
the Fuehrer, but that I could have suggested that the
Fuehrer had some such intention. But about this the author
of these notes would have to be consulted. No other item in
all these notes refers to this. Even the next item is
entirely different. Whereas everything else is related, this
one point is foreign.

Q. In all the notes of the two days, this is the one thing
that you say is mistaken.

Now I ask that you be shown Document 731-PS.

Now, the conference, the notes of which I have just read to
you, was followed within a week by the order, Document 731-
PS, was it not, the memorandum, Document 731-PS, which
reads:

  "The Fuehrer has reached the following decision in regard
  to measures to be taken against Anglo-American air crews
  in special instances: Enemy airmen who have been brought
  down are to be shot without court-martial proceedings in
  the following instances." . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, should you not refer to
a passage four lines above that, after "Report of the Reich
Marshal"?

                                                  [Page 283]

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I did not, but perhaps for the record
it ought to be in full.

  "Chief of the Command Staff of the Armed Forces, chief
  WR.St. Please direct drafting of order. W (Warlimont), K
  (Keitel), Deputy Chief of Command Staff of the Armed
  Forces. Must go to Reichsfuehrer S.S. According to report
  of the Reich Marshal, General Korten made the following
  statement: 'Memorandum"' - I think the next line is not
  in the original - "'The Fuehrer has given the following
  ruling in regard to measures to be taken against Anglo-
  American air crews in special instances:
  
  Enemy airmen whose machines have been shot down are to be
  shot without trial by court martial in the following
  cases:
  
     (1) In the event of the shooting of our own German air
     crews while they are parachuting to earth.
     
     (2) In the event of aerial attacks upon German planes
     which have made emergency landings and whose crews are
     in the immediate vicinity.
     
     (3) In the event of attacks upon railway trains engaged
     in public transport.
     
     (4) In the event of low-level aerial attacks upon
     individual civilians, farmers, workers, single vehicles
     and so forth.'"

Now, there is a note: "In the event of low-level aerial
attacks on individual civilians, single civilian vehicles
and so forth," is there not?

A. On my copy, "In the event of low-level aerial attacks -
on single" - "single" is crossed out here and there are two
words written above which I cannot read. Before the
expression, "single planes" is the word "civilian" and
referring to point 2 it says: "I consider it doubtful,
because the destruction of a plane which has made an
emergency landing cannot be designated as gangster work but
rather as a measure in keeping with the strict standards of
permissible warfare."

We are concerned with the entire series of questions
discussed in these days and weeks and to which von
Brauchitsch also testified recently.

Q. That note about that emergency landing is signed by "J,"
is it not, which stands for Jodl?

A. Certainly.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think that is all I wish to ask.

There are a number of documents which should be introduced
in this connection, and I think it will be best perhaps if
we tabulate them and get them ready over the evening and
present them in the morning.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, Mr. Justice Jackson, you can put
them all in then.

BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:

Q. I want to ask you first some questions about the matter
of the British Air Force officers who escaped from Stalag
Luft III. Do you remember that you said, in giving your
evidence, that you knew this incident very completely and
very minutely? Do you remember saying that?

A. No. I said that I had received accurate knowledge; not
that I had accurate knowledge - but that I received it.

Q. Let me quote your own words, as they were taken down, "I
know this incident very completely, very minutely, but it
came to my attention, unfortunately, only later." That is
what you said the other day, is that right?

A. Yes, that is what I meant, that I know about the incident
exactly, but only heard it two days later.

Q. You told the Tribunal that you were on leave at this
time, in the latter part of March, 1944, is that right?

A. Yes, as far as I remember I was on leave in March until a
few days before Easter.

                                                  [Page 284]

Q. And you said, "As I can prove." I want you to tell the
Tribunal the dates of your leave.

A. I say again, that this refers to the whole of March - I
remember it well - and for proof I would like to mention the
people who were with me on this leave.

Q. What I want to know is, where you were on leave.

A. Here, in the vicinity of Nuremberg.

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