Tapping Hitler's Generals

BASSENGE: How long did the trial of each individual last on the average?

KIRCHHEIM: In the case of TROTT ZU SOLZ it lasted nearly three hours. One had the impression that it was being conducted absolutely correctly, but that was very simple because everything was proved against him.

In our Court of Honour it was KEITEL who opened the proceedings. He outlined the case quite briefly, then either KALTENBRUNNER[481] or the SS-Gruppenführer MÜLLER[482] appeared as prosecuting counsel and said to us: The charges are based on these and these facts, admitted’–I was not present at any sentence at which guilt had not been admitted. That was read out to us. PFUHLSTEIN (PW) however maintains that it was in part simply cooked. That is possible, but I must say that we did not reckon with this possibility; KALTENBRUNNER gave me the impression of an absolutely decent man. Then questions could be asked, and then we voted in order of seniority, that’s to say starting with the youngest. In the case of ROMMEL’s Chief of Staff, for instance, I, as most junior officer present, immediately voted against the attitude adopted by KEITEL in his introductory speech and said: ‘No, he is above suspicion.’ Although that wasn’t quite the case, as he had heard about the plot and reported it to ROMMEL. But ROMMEL hadn’t passed the information on.

BASSENGE: ROMMEL knew about it.

KIRCHHEIM: We don’t know that. Suddenly I got the dreadful thought: ‘If ROMMEL didn’t pass it on then he, too, must be implicated. Could ROMMEL have had anything to do with it?’

BASSENGE: Most of us here think that he did.

KIRCHHEIM: I think so too now. If one had only asked the question: ‘How much time had lapsed in between?’, that would have forced the prosecuting counsel to delve deeper into the question: ‘Maybe ROMMEL himself is the one to blame?’ However, all I said was: ‘In view of ROMMEL’s character, SPEIDEL was compelled to assume that the information would not be withheld by ROMMEL. If that information was not passed through ordinary channels, it is quite possible that, taking into account ROMMEL’s close relations with the FÜHRER, he may have informed him of it in some other way.’ Anyway, I cast my vote for ‘not guilty’, but I was out-voted. Naturally, even though I regard myself as released from my oath of secrecy, I can no longer say who voted for and who against.[483]

BASSENGE: How many were there present?

KIRCHHEIM: Five ‘Generals’.

BASSENGE: Any from the GAF?

KIRCHHEIM: No. It’s possible that there may have been someone from the GAF, acting as deputy, at some time or other, but there was no-one from either the Navy or the GAF present at the three sessions I attended. KEITEL was always present, RUNDSTEDT and GUDERIAN were there twice. Permanent members were: RUNDSTEDT, GUDERIAN, the deputy commander of WIESBADEN, SCHROTH, SPECHT, KEITEL. SPECHT was, I think, ‘Generalleutnant’ in the Personnel Branch and has now become deputy GOC somewhere. KRIEBEL and I were the two deputy members.

Document 167

CSDIC (UK), GRGG 296

Report on information obtained from Senior Officers (PW) on 6–9 May 45 [TNA, WO 208/4177]

KIRCHHEIM: Now, gentlemen, I wanted to speak to you of my experiences as a member of the Court of Honour.[484] I am glad to have the opportunity, for so many false opinions have been spread about the activity of the Court of Honour that it is the duty of every member of this Court of Honour to clear matters up where he can.