The Nuremberg Interviews (61 page)

Was it true that the French in general greeted the Germans enthusiastically? “No. I can’t say that. I know there were many propaganda stories, including newsreels, showing Frenchmen greeting German soldiers and waving their hands. I would characterize all that as untrue propaganda. The French were very correct — just as I would behave if I were invaded by a gentlemanly opponent. The French were cool but polite. In the mountains, of course, there were partisans, but I never had much trouble from them. I think they became active much later, when the Normandy invasion got a good start.

“I drove around France constantly during my stay there and discovered that although the French people in a certain town might be cool for the first two or three days, they later adopted a friendly attitude, which one might expect would exist between one civilized nation and another. In their favor I would say that in general, the French were never subordinate or ingratiating in their attitude.”

After he had completed his mission in the war against France and in the occupation of the French coast, he was transferred to Romania on January 1, 1941, where he began training Romanian soldiers for the war against Russia. I remarked that it would seem obvious, therefore, that he knew that the war against Russia had been planned that early. Did Kleist train these Romanian soldiers for a war against Russia? “I meant to say in case of a war against Russia because there were so many Russian divisions deployed along the Romanian border.” For the first time in the
interview Kleist seemed to be nettled and from that point on he appeared to choose his words more carefully and to be less free-spoken.

I asked him to continue the story of his military career. “Certainly, certainly. I have nothing to hide. I stayed in Romania until the beginning of March 1941, after which I went to Bulgaria because of the news that the British had landed in Greece. There was no fighting in Bulgaria — everything was on very friendly terms. Then on April 6, 1941, I was in charge of the march into Greece and Yugoslavia. In this war against Yugoslavia I commanded two corps. One of these corps was in Romania and consisted largely of ethnic Germans, and the other of similar composition from Bulgaria. On April 8 I assembled my army, and on April 12 took Belgrade. A serious battle occurred on the road near Sofia, and another fairly severe encounter against Yugoslav troops on the road near Belgrade.

“The actual march into Belgrade was peaceful and I had a fairly good time. On the way in I shot a few deer with Yugoslav hunters who were sympathetic to the German army because they were so opposed to the threat of the Reds. I left the country soon afterward to assume a more active command.

“I was then stationed in Silesia and had my own staff and my own army group until the middle of June. I was then attached to Army Group South under Field Marshal Rundstedt in his campaign in Russia. I was Rundstedt’s panzer expert and in charge of several corps of panzer units. In that year, among my other successes, was the capture of Rostov, which is near the big bend of the Dnieper, which is slightly north of the Crimea.

“In 1942 I had progressed farther than any other troops into Russia. I was actually in the Caucasus and closer to China than to Berlin. Then I reached the Caspian Sea and Stalingrad very well on my way back. The Russians came to within sixty kilometers of Rostov and there came a time when my only communication with the rear was in Rostov. My headquarters were located at that time six hundred and fifty kilometers within reach of Rostov. In January or February 1943, I received an order to retreat. I was in charge of the army group as the successor of Field Marshal List. Rundstedt was no longer in Russia but was commanding the battle in France again.

“The Russians were five times superior to us poor but brave Germans, both in numbers and in the superiority of their equipment. My immediate
commander was Hitler himself. Unfortunately, Hitler’s advice in those critical periods was invariably lousy.”

Had Kleist succeeded in retreating with most of his army? “I really had two armies at that time when the order for the retreat came. One of my armies I managed to bring back to the rear via Rostov. The other army, which I left in command of one of my leading generals, held the line until late in the summer of 1943 and then retreated with heavy casualties but without decimation. This was possible because the Russians stood at their back, north of the Crimea. The Russians advanced north of Crimea against the army group of Manstein, who was obliged to retreat. It was therefore necessary for me to follow Manstein’s withdrawal. Then the Crimea was cut off because Hitler refused to agree to a withdrawal of our troops in time from that region. In the winter and spring of 1943 and 1944 I slowly withdrew to the river which marked the boundary of Bessarabia and Romania. The Crimea was cut off behind our front and was in a state of siege by the Russians. On April 1, 1944, I went home.”

I asked Kleist what occasioned his retirement at that time. “Well, on December 1, 1943, I told Hitler to give up his supreme command. On March 29, 1944, I again had a very severe argument with Hitler and I had the impression that it was more the people around Hitler than Hitler himself who said that I was an inconvenient subordinate. Hitler himself told me when I said good-bye to him that he could find no fault with me as a soldier. Hitler said many friendly things to me. He said that he had very few people who were capable of leading an operational war. He advised me to take a rest because I had worked so hard and he implied that I would be asked to serve again. I really think that the reason for my going home at that time was that I always told Hitler my frank opinions.”

What did Kleist think of Hitler during the last few years? “I think that Hitler was more of a problem for a psychiatrist than for a general.”

Had Kleist himself, in his own contacts with Hitler, recognized any abnormalities? “No. I knew his loud manner, his habit of striking a table with his fist, his temper tantrums, and all that. I’m just a plain soldier and not given to analyzing temperaments. He was the chief of state and I accepted that as enough. I thought that the features I just mentioned were part of Hitler’s temperament and therefore not remarkable. I have a good deal of temperament myself — in fact, twice as much as Hitler.
When Hitler shouted to me, I shouted twice as loud. I am no psychiatrist and I couldn’t understand that Hitler really was an abnormal character. If you nailed him down, Hitler became quiet or even silent. If you talked for two hours and you thought that finally you had convinced him of something, he began where you had started just as if you had never said a word.

“It is interesting but it was tragic. If you receive a military order you must obey. That is where the big difference between a military and a political order comes in. One can sabotage a political order but to disobey a military command is treason.”

I asked Kleist who were the guilty ones for the trouble the Nazis created. “I can’t really tell because whatever I say is only an assumption. For example, from June 1942 until the end of 1944, I was at the front every single day. I flew back to visit Hitler for an hour perhaps on many occasions but I never stayed long enough to apprise myself of the great picture of what was going on. Today if I should make a judgment, I would declare the guilty ones to be Hitler, Heydrich, Himmler, and as I have heard here, Bormann. Hitler was always suspicious of the generals from the very first, and this suspicion increased as time went on.”

Did Kleist feel that political leaders such as Goering, Goebbels, Ribbentrop, and others were also guilty? “In my opinion, Ribbentrop had nothing to say and very little influence. As far as Goering is concerned, he is now on the defendants’ bench and it is hard for me to say anything against a man who is being tried for his life. Secondly, Goering was completely under the suggestive, hypnotic power of Hitler, so Goering, too, had little influence. Goebbels was the cleverest of the lot, but unfortunately his bad influence became clear to me only after the end of the war.”

I asked Kleist of his opinion concerning the persecution of churches, the extermination of Jews, the killing of partisans, and the other atrocities committed by the Nazis. “I feel strongest about the persecution of the churches. In fact, when I went away for the first time, on February 5, 1938, it was partly because I fought for the churches and was opposed to the National Socialist attitude toward them. As far as the Jews — I can only say that some of my best friends were Jews. I think that expresses in a nutshell my feelings about the matter. I grew up in a small city in north Friesland, where we lived in a small two-family house. It was a sort of duplex home. Our neighbors were a Jewish family of a very respectable
and honorable type. The father of this family was an old Jewish teacher and was either a rabbi or a preacher. He had two children who were about the same ages as my sister and myself. During my whole childhood I played with these children and we were like members of the same family. When the Jewish Eastertime came, we visited our Jewish neighbors and ate matzos and sugar.

“Our other neighbor was a Jewish cattle dealer. I used to ride his horses across the meadows. I first learned to ride horseback that way. I could go on with endless examples of Jewish friends and neighbors.

“The neighbors of my in-laws in Hanover were Jewish bankers by the name of Meyer. There was constant contact between my in-laws and the Meyer family. Until 1928 I always kept up a friendly, intimate, neighborly contact with the Meyers. After 1928 I left Hanover and so my contact with them came to a natural end.

“What I have told you characterizes my attitude toward the churches and the Jews. There are bad Christians and bad Jews. When I was brought to this prison, I told Rundstedt that Nuremberg gives me the second great humiliation of my life. The first time was when the Nuremberg Laws were proclaimed and I was forced to listen to them.”
⁵

Had Kleist ever taken any public stand against the Nuremberg Laws? “There was no opportunity. I was invited to Nuremberg at that time because of a military exhibition. The military guests, myself included, were ordered to attend a Reichstag session in a theater in Nuremberg during a party day. I sat there with my mouth open and heard the Nuremberg Laws proclaimed. I couldn’t speak against these laws because I was just a part of the audience.

“In Silesia when someone asked me for help, especially Jews, I always did as much as I could. In Breslau a lawyer who was the representative of the Jews in that city often came to me and asked me for help.”

Did Kleist know of the mass murder of Jews that took place from the year 1941 until the end of the war? “No. I have stated under oath that I knew nothing about it. In the winter of 1941 to 1942 I heard rumors at the front that Jews were being deported in order to be assembled somewhere. Then I heard of a pogrom in Lemberg, which was eight hundred kilometers behind my front. It was reported at that time to me that the Poles or Russians were responsible for it. Then I heard that Jews were being shot in masses in Bessarabia, which was one thousand kilometers away. I had never been there. We were told that the Romanians did it, and I thought this was the case until I came here.

“In the year 1944 there was the massacre of Jews in Kishinev, and again I was told that the Romanians had done it. I noticed that a certain part of the city of Kishinev was destroyed. I asked the Romanians what had happened and they told me that this destroyed section of the city had consisted of Jewish homes which the Jews themselves burned down. I must confess that I didn’t believe it because it was too ridiculous. But I never knew any reliable facts about Germans being responsible for these atrocities.

“In January 1943, when I took over the army group, I heard that Jews were to be murdered in my territory. I immediately called for the Higher SS and police chief, whose name was Gerret Korsemann, who incidentally was not under my command.
⁶
I told him what I had heard. I told him that I would not tolerate any actions against the Jews. He assured me that he had not taken steps against the Jews, nor did he have orders to do so.”

And was this so? “At that time I heard nothing more about it. Now in the Russian documents it is said that Jews were murdered in an area that would have been under Korsemann and in my territory. But these documents are undated. I don’t think, since that time, that any Jews were murdered anymore in my area.”

Had Kleist been emotionally upset about these things at the time he heard the rumors? “How could I be? I just learned of these things now. To me at that time they were just rumors. Of course, when I heard such rumors I was outraged, but when I was assured that they were only rumors, or that non-Germans had done these beastly things, I was pacified.”

Had he ever heard of Auschwitz? “No. I heard of it only after the war. Of all the concentration camps, I knew only about Dachau and Oranienburg. Perhaps it sounds as if I wanted to hide something, but I can say it under oath. There were friends and relatives of mine in concentration camps.” Why? “For political reasons. I don’t know exactly. Some of them might have made critical remarks about the regime, and had been sentenced to periods of six weeks’ internment. Two cousins of mine were shot later on because of complicity with the
Attentat
of July 20, 1944.” We discussed many other things, among them his personal worldview. “I am a religious Christian. I believe that I am an upstanding, decent man, and I think I tried never to do any injustice to anyone in my life. I feel that one has to think the best of every man until the contrary is proven.”

What did Kleist think of the leadership principle? “I spoke to you
about it the other day. By education and tradition I am a constitutional monarchist. I mean I would prefer a monarchy as it exists in England. My main reason for this belief is that in case of the death of the leader, there is no unrest and the oldest son or other relative takes the throne.

“I am also in favor of the leadership principle whereby a leader is elected by the people — but not a dictatorship. Hitler had the favor of the people to the last but he had destroyed the people and all of us, and had done away with every form of freedom of speech, press, radio, and life in general. Actually, it was just the workmen who believed in Hitler. The so-called bourgeois were always hated by Hitler and the Nazi press and were distrusted by the workers. On July 20, 1944, I was in my home. I saw how the workers assembled to defend Hitler and how they threw suspicion on all bourgeois people including persons like myself.