By this comment, Keitel has associated himself in spirit with the order of his Führer. He has brought about the execution of numerous individuals, for an order to kill without control any one suspected of being a terrorist affects not only the terrorists but the innocent and affects the innocent more than the terrorists. Moreover, Keitel’s comment exceeds even Hitler’s own orders. Keitel applied Hitler’s stipulation—on Page 9 of your document book—to a hypothetical case which had not been foreseen, to wit:
“Acts committed by non-German civilians in occupied territories which endanger the security or readiness for battle, of the occupying power.”
This is on the general’s own initiative. It is a political act which has nothing to do with the conduct of war. It is a political act which compromises and involves him. It makes him participate in the development and extension of the Hitlerian policy; for it is the interpretation of an order from Hitler, within the spirit of the order perhaps, but beyond its scope.
Instructions were given to the Sipo and the SD to execute without judgment. These instructions were carried out. Document F-574 on Page 10 of your document book, submitted as Exhibit Number RF-393, is the testimony of a certain Goldberg, an adjutant to the Sicherheitspolizei in Chalon-sur-Saône before the liberation of that city. He was captured by the patriots and interrogated by the divisional commissioner, who was head of the regional judicial police officials at Dijon. The Defense will certainly not accuse us of having had him examined by a subordinate police officer. It was the chief himself of the judicial police officials for the Dijon region who interrogated this witness. The witness declared, Page 12:
“At the end of May 1944, without my having seen any written order on this subject, the Sicherheitspolizei of Chalon were given the right to pronounce capital punishment and to have the sentence executed without those concerned having appeared before a tribunal and without the case having been submitted for approval to the commander at Dijon. The chief of the SD in Chalon, that is Krüger, had all necessary authority to make such decisions. There was no opposition, so far as I know, on the part of the SD of Dijon. I therefore conclude that this procedure was regular and was the consequence of instructions which were not officially communicated to me but which emanated from higher authorities.”
Execution was carried out by members of the SD. Their names are given by the witness, but they are not of particular interest to this Tribunal, which is only concerned with the punishment of the principal criminals—those who gave the orders and from whom the orders emanated.
How were these orders applied in the various countries of the West? In Holland, according to the testimony found in the report given by the Dutch Government, Page 15, I quote:
“About 3 days after the attempt against Rauter—about 10 March 1945—I witnessed the execution of several Dutch patriots by the German ‘green’ police while I was working in the fields in Waltrop.”
This Dutch document is classified in the French file as Number F-224 (Document F-224 (a), Exhibit RF-277) and has been submitted to you in its entirety, but the specific passage to which I refer has not been read. The witness continues, on Page 16 of your document book:
“I spoke to an Oberwachtmeister of the ‘green’ police whose name is unknown to me, and he told me that this execution was in revenge for the attempt against Rauter. He told me also that hundreds of Dutch ‘terrorists’ had been executed for similar reasons.”