LAHOUSEN: Yes, at this conference I did not represent only my section, but the whole Amt Ausland Abwehr, that is to say—for general questions of international law and military political questions, that is, those questions which to the greatest extent generally concerned foreign countries, and the intelligence sections. Department III which dealt with espionage was practically interested—because after all, the officers affiliated with it were in the prisoner-of-war camps. Naturally, from the point of view of my section it was important to be informed about those matters—and that my section was only interested within the frame of the entire problem, that people should not be killed off, but treated decently, quite apart from any of the other considerations which were mentioned.
DR. NELTE: You said yesterday that the prisoner-of-war camps in the operations zone of the Eastern sector were under the OKW. Is that correct?
LAHOUSEN: Yes, what I said about prisoner-of-war camps yesterday I knew from the conference with Reinecke, and not from any knowledge of the orders themselves, which I had neither seen nor read. At this conference I was able to obtain a clear idea of the prisoner-of-war question owing to the presence of Reinecke, the chief of the prisoner-of-war department, who represented his own department and the OKW, and I repeated everything I remembered about this.
DR. NELTE: What I was really asking was about the limitation of the jurisdictions.
LAHOUSEN: Yes.
DR. NELTE: Do you know that in the Army Operational Zone the army on operations was responsible for the care of prisoners of war?
LAHOUSEN: Yes.
DR. NELTE: And that the OKW became responsible for their care only when the prisoners of war arrived in Germany?
LAHOUSEN: Yes, I repeated what I knew about the matter at the time from what I had heard. This was that the General Staff of the Army had made all preparations to bring these people back, and Hitler then authorized the OKW to hold this up, and the OKW was then held responsible by the General Staff for the consequences. What happened after that I do not know and have no right to judge. I can only repeat what I saw and heard.
DR. NELTE: I thought that yesterday you expressed the conjecture that the prisoners were not brought back owing to an order from Hitler.
LAHOUSEN: I did not express a conjecture. I simply repeated what I heard at the time and what I know. It might, of course, have been wrong.
DR. NELTE: Heard from whom?
LAHOUSEN: I heard this from the people with whom I was in daily contact, that is, at the daily situation conferences, at which Canaris, the department chiefs, and other people who came there to report were present. I heard it there, and a great deal was said about this matter. I have always made this clear since my first interrogation. I told Reinecke to his face that what he himself said about this question at the time . . .
DR. NELTE: That has nothing to do with my question.
LAHOUSEN: I understand your question perfectly. I only want to make it quite clear how I came yesterday to say what I did—to examine how far this applies according to the actual, organizational and other divisions . . .
DR. NELTE: But you know that in principle the OKW had charge of prisoners of war only in Germany?
LAHOUSEN: There is no question about that.
DR. NELTE: How could it happen that the Abwehr office adopted the attitude you defined yesterday regarding the question of enemy commando activities? You were supposed to deal with these things from the German side, but you—that is, your department—were not officially concerned with the handling of these things?
LAHOUSEN: No, not immediately concerned. The Amt Ausland had something to do with these things because somehow it received intelligence of any order that was under consideration, even before it was put into shape, and certainly as soon as it was drawn up. The order in question had, of course, a bearing on an essential point of international law, and the Ausland section of the Abwehr department—or rather the “Sachbearbeiter” (expert) as he was called—was naturally concerned with it. As a matter of fact, my department was directly concerned with these things for reasons which I have already explained, because it might turn out that persons for whom I was responsible might be directly affected.
DR. NELTE: Did the department which dealt with international law in the Amt Ausland Abwehr ever put its official attitude in writing?
LAHOUSEN: As I pointed out yesterday, I wrote a contribution on the subject, from the point of view of my section, which was transmitted to Canaris and was to be part of the long document. I only learned what use was made of it from what Bürckner said at the time, and which was that his department passed the thing on in this manner, either in writing or verbally, as a protest or counter remonstrance, at any rate pointing out the dangers. This happened a second time, and again I cannot say in what form, whether verbally or in writing or vice versa—the first time in writing and then verbally—after executions had already taken place, and because I had again started to make myself heard because of the executions that had already taken place. That was the logical development.
DR. NELTE: You also said something yesterday about putting a distinguishing mark on Russian prisoners by branding. Did it become known to you that such a scheme, as brought out in this question, was cancelled by a telephoned order from the Chief of the OKW, who had gone to the Führer’s headquarters for this purpose, and that it was only because of a regrettable, a terrible misunderstanding, that a few copies of this order were issued?
LAHOUSEN: No, I do not know about this, because, generally speaking, I only heard of the things which happened in the Amt Ausland Abwehr, that is, from Canaris’ section downwards, if I was directly concerned with them. What happened on the higher levels, that is, from Canaris upwards, was and could only be known to me if I was in some way connected with it.
DR. NELTE: You yourself did not see the order?
LAHOUSEN: Which order are you referring to?
DR. NELTE: The one concerning the branding of Russian prisoners.
LAHOUSEN: No. As in the case of the Commando Order and others, I attended only the very lively discussion of this question, and with regard to the branding of Russian prisoners I remember Canaris mentioning that a doctor had furnished a written report on how this could be done most efficiently.
DR. NELTE: You stated yesterday that Admiral Canaris had said that the Defendant Keitel had given the order to do away with General Weygand?
LAHOUSEN: Yes.
DR. NELTE: The Defendant Keitel denies that. He now asks whether you ever saw any document or written proof of this order. He wants to know the origin of any statement which concerned General Weygand.
LAHOUSEN: This order was not given in writing, but it came to me because I was supposed to put it into execution, that is, not I, but my department. It came up through Canaris, in that circle which I have so often described, and which means that it was known only to a few. I was brought into the matter through a talk which Canaris gave at Keitel’s office in the OKW and at which I was present. Keitel had already addressed me on the matter. I recorded this in my personal notes and I mentioned the date. After all, such a thing was not an everyday occurrence, at least not to me. It was 23 December 1940.
DR. NELTE: Do you not remember the actual wording of the question that Defendant Keitel was supposed to have asked?
LAHOUSEN: Of course I cannot remember the precise wording; the incident happened too long ago. I remember the gist very well. What he meant was, “What has been done in this matter? How do things stand?”
DR. NELTE: You said yesterday that you gave an evasive answer.
LAHOUSEN: I said yesterday that I could not remember exactly how I worded my answer but I certainly did not say what I had said in the presence of Canaris, namely,