[_Turning to the defendant._] Do you find Section 2, Paragraph 4? That
is:
“Now I have just received a teleprint from Field Marshal Keitel,
asking for a regulation to be issued, making members of the
personnel, and, if necessary their relatives, collectively
responsible for cases of sabotage occurring in their
establishments (joint responsibility of relatives). This demand
serves a purpose and promises success only if I am actually
allowed to perform executions by firing squads. If this is not
possible, such a decree would have exactly the opposite effect.”
Opposite the word “if I am actually allowed to perform executions by
firing squads” there is the pencil note from you, “Yes, that is best.”
So that is a third example where I suggest that you, yourself, are
approving and encouraging the shooting of next of kin for the act of
some member of their family. What do you say to that, your own pencil
mark?
KEITEL: I did make that marginal note. An order given in this matter was
different. A reply was given which was different. I wrote that note.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is what I wanted to know. Why did you write
this remark, “Yes, that is best,” approving of a firing squad for
relatives of people who had committed some occupation offense in Norway?
Why did you think it was best that there should be a firing squad for
the relations? Why?
KEITEL: It was not done and no order to that effect was given. A
different order was given.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is not what I am asking, and I shall give
you one more chance of answering it. Why did you put your pencil on that
document, “Yes, that is best”?
KEITEL: I am no longer in a position to explain that today, in view of
the fact that I see hundreds of documents daily. I wrote it and I admit
it now.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Of course, unless it means something entirely
different from what you have written, it meant that you approved it
yourself and thought the best course was that the relations should be
shot by a firing squad.