The Nuremberg Trials (Vol.3). International Military Tribunal

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ order, because I had no insight into the hierarchy of command beyond Canaris. It was, as far as I was concerned, an order from Canaris—an order which I could discuss immediately with him, in the same way as I can discuss it here.

      DR. NELTE: You yourself did not hear this order?

      LAHOUSEN: No, I personally did not hear it. I never said I did.

      DR. NELTE: But you mentioned that later Keitel spoke to you about this matter?

      LAHOUSEN: The procedure was the same as in the case of Weygand.

      DR. NELTE: Do you remember whether any precise or positive expression such as “killing,” “elimination,” or something similar was used on this occasion?

      LAHOUSEN: The word generally used was “elimination” (umlegen).

      DR. NELTE: What I mean is whether in this connection such a word was used by the Defendant Keitel in addressing you?

      LAHOUSEN: Yes, of course—when I gave my report, the notes of which I have, together with the date, just as in the Weygand case. For reasons unknown to me, the Giraud affair was apparently carried further than the Weygand affair, for Canaris and I could determine the different stages in its development.

      DR. NELTE: You did not answer my question. What did the Defendant Keitel say to you in this instance, when you were present at the occasion of a report by Canaris and the question of Giraud was brought up? What did he say?

      LAHOUSEN: The same thing: “How does the matter stand?” And by “matter” he clearly meant Giraud’s elimination, and that was the very subject we discussed under similar conditions in the Weygand affair.

      DR. NELTE: That is your opinion, but that is not the fact on which you have to give evidence. I wish to find out from you what Keitel actually said to you. When speaking to you or in your presence, did he use the expression “dispose of” or “eliminate”?

      LAHOUSEN: I cannot remember the expression he used, but it was perfectly clear what it was all about. Whatever it was, it was not a question of sparing Giraud’s life or imprisoning him. They had had the opportunity to do that while he was in occupied territory.

      DR. NELTE: That is what I want to speak about now. You are familiar with the fact that after Giraud’s flight and his return to Unoccupied France, a conference took place in Occupied France.

      LAHOUSEN: Yes, I heard of that.

      DR. NELTE: Ambassador Abetz had a talk with General Giraud which dealt with the question of his voluntary return to confinement. You know that?

      LAHOUSEN: Yes, I heard of that.

      DR. NELTE: Then you probably also know that at that time the local military commander immediately called up the Führer’s headquarters by way of Paris. It was believed that an important communication was to be made; namely, that Giraud was in Occupied France and could be taken prisoner?

      LAHOUSEN: I know about this in its broad outline.

      DR. NELTE: Then you know also that the OKW—that is to say in this case, Keitel—then decided that this should not happen.

      LAHOUSEN: No, that I do not know.

      DR. NELTE: But you do know that General Giraud returned to Unoccupied France without having been harmed?

      LAHOUSEN: Yes, I do know that.

      DR. NELTE: Well, in that case, the answer to my previous question is self-apparent.

      LAHOUSEN: I speak the truth when I say I do not know. I could not have known unless they had talked about it in my presence.

      DR. NELTE: Well, it is so, and the facts prove it to be so. Did you know that General Giraud’s family lived in Occupied France?

      LAHOUSEN: No, I did not know that.

      DR. NELTE: I thought the Abwehr division was entrusted with surveillance of this region?

      LAHOUSEN: No, you are mistaken—certainly not my department. I do not know whether another department was in charge of that.

      DR. NELTE: The question was asked simply to prove that the family did not suffer because General Giraud escaped and later refused to return to captivity. I have one more question which you may be able to answer.

      LAHOUSEN: I beg your pardon. May I return, please, to the question of Giraud?

      DR. NELTE: This question also has to do with General Giraud.

      LAHOUSEN: Very well.

      DR. NELTE: Do you know that one day your chief, Canaris, received by special courier a letter from Giraud in which Giraud asked whether he might return to France? Do you know that?

      LAHOUSEN: No. No, I do not know about it. Perhaps I was not in Berlin at the time. I was not always in Berlin.

      DR. NELTE: I am aware of that. I thought it might be mentioned in the diary.

      LAHOUSEN: No, I did not keep the diary. I simply made additions to it so far as my particular department was concerned, but I was not familiar with the diary in its entirety.

      DR. NELTE: Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now for 10 minutes.

      [A recess was taken.]

      FLOTTENRICHTER OTTO KRANZBUEHLER (Counsel for Defendant Dönitz): I would like to make a motion in connection with the technical side of the proceedings. In the course of the proceedings, many German witnesses will be heard. It is important that the Tribunal should know exactly what the witnesses say. During the hearing of this witness I have tried to compare what the witness actually said with the English translation. I think I can state that in many essential points the translation did not entirely correspond to the statement of the witness. I would, therefore, like to suggest that German stenographers take down directly the statements of the witness in German so that Defense Counsel will have an opportunity of comparing what the witness actually says with the English translation and, if necessary, of making an application for the correction of the translation. That is all.

      THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr. Justice Jackson.

      MR. JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON (Chief of Counsel for the United States): I just want to inform the Court and Counsel, in connection with the observation that has just been made, that that has been anticipated and that every statement of the witness is recorded in German, so that if any question arises, if Counsel addresses a motion to it, the testimony can be verified.

      THE PRESIDENT: Is that German record available to Defendants’ Counsel?

      MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I don’t think it is. It is not, so far as I know. It would not be available unless there were some occasion for it.

      THE PRESIDENT: It is transcribed, I suppose?

      MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I don’t know how far that process is carried. I will consult the technicians and advise about it, but I know that it is preserved. The extent of my knowledge now is that it is preserved in such a form that, if СКАЧАТЬ