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, “I would not think of executing such a murderous order; my section and my officers are not an organization of murderers. Anything but that.” What I probably said to Keitel was something about how difficult the matter was, or any evasive answer that I may have thought of.
DR. NELTE: If the Chief of the OKW had ordered such an action on his own initiative or on higher orders, this would, because of the high rank of General Weygand, have amounted to an act of state. You did not tell us yesterday whether after December 23, 1940 anything transpired in this matter, that is to say, whether the Chief of the OKW took up this question again.
LAHOUSEN: No, I did not say anything about that yesterday, but I frequently mentioned during the interrogations that after that the Chief of the OKW did nothing more about it. Canaris’ attitude made it obvious that nothing further had been heard of it, for in the hierarchy of commands which for me was authoritative, he would have had to transmit orders to me. On the other hand, the information which I received in the Giraud matter was authoritative.
DR. NELTE: We shall come to that presently. It is extraordinary that if an act of state, such as the murder of General Weygand, had been ordered, nothing more should have been heard of it. Can you explain this?
LAHOUSEN: I can only explain it in the light of the construction which not only I myself, but also the others, put on the matter at that time. The situation at that time was very agitated; events followed each other very rapidly and something happened all the time, and we assumed—I shall come back to why we assumed it—that this matter and the importance attached to it had been superseded by some more important military or political event, and that it had receded into the background.
DR. NELTE: Do you wish to say anything else?
LAHOUSEN: Yes. I wish to state that what I am saying now has a certain bearing on the inner development of the Giraud affair. We—that is, Canaris, myself, and the others—who knew about this when the matter started, had hoped that it would take the same course as the Weygand affair; that is, that the matter would be dropped. Whether the order had been given by Keitel, or Hitler or Himmler, it would have been shelved when it came to Canaris and to me. In our circles it would have been relatively easy to intercept it or to divert it. That was what we hoped when the Giraud affair came up, as we had seen what actually had happened in the Weygand affair. Whether that was right or wrong I cannot judge. This is the explanation.
DR. NELTE: For a less important matter your argument might be plausible, but in such an important matter as the Weygand case it does not seem to me to hold water. But even if it had been so, had the intention to do away with Weygand existed in any quarters and for any reason, how do you explain the fact that Weygand, who later was taken to Germany and housed in a villa, lived undisturbed and honored and met with no harm? It would have been understandable if the order to eliminate him had been seriously expressed in any quarters, that it should have been carried out on this occasion.
LAHOUSEN: I can only answer to this that the attitude towards personalities in public life, whether at home or abroad, varied a great deal. There were high personalities who at one moment were in great favor and thought of very highly, and at the next moment were to be found in a concentration camp.
DR. NELTE: Now regarding the Giraud case, you stated that Admiral Canaris said in your presence and the presence of others that General Giraud was to be done away with on orders from higher quarters.
LAHOUSEN: Yes. That it is so is borne out by the remark that Pieckenbrock made, and which I remember very well, that Herr Keitel should tell these things to Herr Hitler once and for all.
DR. NELTE: So according to the communication made to you by Admiral Canaris, it was not an order of Keitel’s but an order of Hitler’s.
LAHOUSEN: As far as we knew in the Abwehr office, it was Keitel who gave the order to Canaris. I can only assume this in view of an order Hitler made to this effect I do not know who actually gave this 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