Source: Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression. Volume VIII. USGPO, Washington, 1946/pp.647-653. Document UK-81

Leopold Buerkner, being first duly sworn according to law, deposes and says :

1. I was a Vice-Admiral in the German Navy and a member of the OKW from June 1938 until the end of the war. My position was Chef der Abteilung Ausland (Chief of the Section of Foreign Affairs) in the Amt Ausland Abwehr (Bureau of Foreign Affairs and Intelligence) of which Admiral Canaris was the Chief. My section was directly under Admiral Canaris from June 1938 to January 1944, after that it was directly under Colonel General Jodl, and was one of four of equal status under him. My section was changed to an Amtsgruppe in 1942 with four sections. The other three sections were directed, respectively, by Colonel Pieckenbrock (Abwehr l-Intelligence Collecting Section), Colonel von Lahousen (Abwehr 2-Commando Activity), and Colonel von Bentivegny (Abwehr 3-Counter Intelligence).

2. There were four subsections in the Section of Foreign Affairs and later on, in the Amtsgruppe (groups) there were four sections and a headquarters staff, the latter was charged with interior administration of the section later on the groups.

a. Within the first section there were two subsections, the first of which furnished the Foreign Office and other agencies with information on the military situation and the second of which was concerned with international law.

b. The second section was concerned with liaison with the Foreign Office and dealt in the foreign affairs which concerned the armed forces. Within this section there were three subsections, the first of which informed the armed forces of the current foreign political situation, the second of which was in charge of protocol for the armed forces, and the third of which gathered news published by foreign and German news agencies.

c. The third section was the attache section of the Army. Among its duties were to take care of foreign military attaches in Berlin and the German military attaches in foreign countries and to prepare the protocol for the Army.

d. The fourth section was 'responsible for the reading and examining of foreign publications and extracting therefrom anything that might be of technical and military value to the armed forces.

3. During the entire time that my Amtsgruppe was under Admiral Canaris there was a conference (called a "Kolonne") each morning at 10:00 conducted by Admiral Canaris and his Chief of Staff Colonel, later Brigadier General, Oster, who was subsequently executed with Admiral Canaris, with the heads of the four sections, namely, Colonel Pieckenbrock, Colonel von Lahousen, Colonel von Bentivegny and myself. At these meetings each section head gave a short report on the activities of his section and received orders from Admiral Canaris, and on these occasions orders or directives which had been given to Admiral Canaris or to any of the section heads were frequently discussed. In these discussions Admiral Canaris consistently objected to any orders or directives that were clearly in contravention of existing international law or the Geneva or Hague Conventions and stated that he would do all in his power to avoid their execution. All the section heads at the meetings agreed with him.

4. The chief of the international law subsection was at first Major Dr Tafel and then after about 1941, it was Colonel Oxe, an Air Force officer and former police officer. Under them were the following: Professor Schmitz, who died in 1943 as the result of a ski accident; Count Moltke, who was hanged after the 20th July 1944 attempt on Hitler's life ; Major Reichel, Captain von Haften, who also was executed after the 20 July 1944 attempt on Hitler's life; and Counsellor von Pfuhl. While I personally am not a jurist by training, I have dealt with questions of international law, particularly the Geneva and Hague Conventions, for a number of years and I consider that I am more versed therein than the average officer. Moreover, all of the above-named persons, with the exception of Colonel Oxe and Captain von Haften (the latter was in that subsection for only a few months), were trained jurists and were versed in the field of international law. Some of them, particularly Professor Schmitz and Count Moltke, were authorities on international, law.

5. The international law subsection was charged with the duty, among others, of giving opinions on orders or directives of the OKW as to whether there were any doubts as to their conformity with international law, particularly the Geneva and Hague Conventions. These opinions were transmitted through me to Admiral Canaris, either in writing or orally, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they were thereafter transmitted by Admiral Canaris through official channels to Field Marshal Keitel or Colonel General Jodl, or the Operational Staff of the OKW. I am convinced that Admiral Canaris transmitted these opinions because he was opposed in principle to the issuance of any orders or directives which were not in conformity with international law, particularly the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

6. I remember opinions prepared by the international law sub-section on orders and directives of the OKW as to their conformity with international law, particularly the Geneva and Hague Conventions. These opinions were with respect to the following:

a. During the early part of the war, my international law subsection gave several opinions on the problem of hostages. These opinions were to the effect that the status of the hostage problem under international law was in doubt, but that hostages should not be taken because of this doubt. Later, during the second half of 1942, Count Moltke, one of my special advisors in the international law subsection, proposed to me that he make a general study of the problem of hostages as he knew that all of us, especially Admiral Canaris and myself and the members of the international law subsection, were searching for material in order to straighten out this matter. At my direction Count Moltke undertook trips to Norway, Denmark, Holland, and Paris, and also sent another officer, Captain von Haften, to Belgium and likewise to Paris. The result of this study (which was that the taking of hostages had no practical value) was set forth in a memorandum submitted to Admiral Canaris through me.

b. Admiral Canaris informed me in the Spring of 1941 that political functionaries and commissars of the Russian Army who became German prisoners of war were to be killed. I therefore know the contents of * * * [a memorandum on that subject] dated 12 May 1941, as a matter on which an opinion was rendered, at the request of Admiral Canaris, by the International law subsection of my section. This opinion was to the effect that the proposal was contrary to international law.

c. Admiral Canaris informed me in the Summer of 1942 that Russian prisoners of war were to be branded on the left buttocks with a "V". I know the contents of * * * [a memorandum on that subject] dated 3 August 1942, as the matter on which, after consideration, an opinion was rendered at the request of Admiral Canaris by the international law subsection of my section. This opinion was to the effect that the matter was contrary to international law. I learned later that such an order was never executed.

d. Admiral Canaris informed me in October of 1942 that British and American commando troops who were captured while engaged on sabotage or espionage activities were to be killed. I know the contents of Document 498-PS, dated 18 October 1942, as a matter on which, after consideration, an opinion was rendered, at the request of Admiral Canaris, by the international law subsection of my Amtsgruppe. This opinion was to the effect that the matter was contrary to the letter and spirit of international law, particularly the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

e. In the Spring of 1942, after the Dieppe raid by British troops, an order was issued by Hitler that a given number of British soldiers and officers who were captured during that raid were to be shackled. I know the contents of * * * [a memorandum on that subject] dated 21 August 1943 and * * * [a memorandum on that subject] dated 27 October 1943, as the matter on which, after consideration, an opinion was rendered at the request of Admiral Canaris, by the international law subsection of my Amtsgruppe. This opinion, in which the legal department of the Foreign Office concurred, was to the effect that even if the British had violated the Geneva Convention first by shackling German prisoners of war, as had been reported, for the Germans to institute reprisals was contrary to that Convention. I personally did all in my power to have this order withdrawn, as did Admiral Canaris, but we were unsuccessful. I heard that the Fuehrer was adamant in his refusal to withdraw the order. I then, on my own initiative, proposed to Brigadier General von Graevenitz, then chief of the prisoner of war section of the OKW, that if the order was not to be withdrawn, that the shackles at least should consist of a cord at least four feet long (which wouId permit every freedom of movement) and that the shackles should be placed on the British prisoners of war only for a few hours each day. I understand that the length of the cord used for shackling these prisoners was made longer but that my second suggestion, to shackle them only for a few hours each day, was not adhered to.

f. In the early part of 1945 I heard that Hitler intended to cease being a party to the Geneva Convention. I know the contents of Document C-158, dated 19 February 1945, as the matter on which I personally, after consideration, with the assistance of the international law subsection of my Amtsgruppe, rendered an opinion to the effect that the matter was contrary to the letter and spirit of international law and the Geneva Convention itself. I heard later that Hitler gave up his intention.

7. The opinions of my international law subsection to the effect that certain orders and directives were contrary to the letter and spirit of international law, particularly the Geneva and Hague Conventions have been hereinbefore mentioned. In addition, there were a number of other orders and directives discussed at the regular morning meetings between Canaris and his section heads where it was the opinion of all present that such orders were contrary to the letter and spirit of international law, particularly the Geneva and Hague Conventions, although no formal opinions thereon were requested from my international law subsection. I believe that Admiral Canaris also transmitted these opinions to Field Marshal Keitel or Colonel General Jodl, or the Operations Staff of the OKW. These opinions were with respect to the following :

a. I believe that Admiral Canaris informed his section heads in May 1941 that severe measures were to be taken against the Russian civilian population. I also believe that the contents of Document 886-PS, dated 13 May 1941, is the matter to which he referred. Admiral Canaris and all of the section heads were agreed that these severe measures were contrary to the letter and spirit of international law.

b. Admiral Canaris informed his section heads in July 1941 that all the inmates of prisoner of war camps who were Rus-sians were to be investigated by the SIPO and SD for the purpose of ascertaining all political, criminal, or some otherwise undesirable elements among them, including Jews. Thereafter, these prisoners were to be surrendered to the SD. I recognize the contents of Document 502-PS, dated 1'7 July 1941, as the matter to which Admiral Canaris referred. Admiral Canaris and all of the section heads were agreed that the matter was contrary to the letter and spirit of international law.

c. Admiral Canaris informed his section heads in September 1941 that general rules for the handling of Russian prisoners of war were to be issued, wherein it was set forth, among other things, that these Russian prisoners of war were not to be considered as the usual prisoners of war, and that more severe measures were to be taken against them than was permitted by international law, particularly the Geneva and Hague Conventions. I know the contents of Document 1519-PS, dated 30 September 1941, as the matter to which Admiral Canaris referred.

8. I recall that in September of 1942, while at dinner in Paris with Admiral Canaris and another officer whose name I cannot now remember, Colonel von Lahousen arrived by plane from Berlin and joined us at the table. (I remember the incident because I made very few trips during the war and I had asked Admiral Canaris to accompany him on this particular trip.) Colonel von Lahousen, immediately upon joining us at dinner, said, in effect, to Admiral Canaris, in my presence, that a very awkward situation had arisen. Colonel von Lahousen had been asked by Field Marshal Keitel what the situation was regarding the execution of the order transmitted to him by Keitel to do away with the French General Giraud. That was the first I had heard of such an order. Admiral Canaris appeared to think over Colonel von Lahousen's words and then said, in effect, that the matter had been in order for some time and that he would report to Field Marshal Keitel that he had told Heydrich that he (Heydrich) should deal with it. At that time, Heydrich, former head of the RSHA, was dead. It is my opinion that Admiral Canaris concocted the story (that the matter of executing General Giraud had been turned over to Heydrich) because Admiral Canaris knew that Heydrich was dead and that this would be a means of avoiding the carrying out of the order, to which Admiral Canaris was opposed on principle.

9. I further recall that toward the end of 1940 at one of the regular morning meetings between Admiral Canaris and the section heads, Admiral Canaris stated that an oral order had been transmitted to him by Field Marshal Keitel to do away with the French General Weygand, and that Colonel von Lahousen would assume the carrying out of the order. All the persons present expressed abhorrence about this order, and I recall a statement of, I believe, Colonel von Lahousen's to the effect that they were not murderers but soldiers, and that the execution of such an order was out of the question. Admiral Canaris was then asked by, I believe, Colonel Pieckenbrock, to go downstairs to Field Marshal Keitel and tell him that we are not a murder organization, we are soldiers. I am convinced that Admiral Canaris found a means to avoid executing the order.

10. I believe that some of the opinions which were requested by Admiral Canaris of my international law subsection, for example, that relating to the shackling of British prisoners of war, were originally requested by Field Marshal Keitel, Colonel General Jodl or the Operational Staff of OKW in order that they would have material at their disposal with which to counteract orders which were inspired by Hitler or the Nazi Party and that were in contravention of international law, particularly the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

I declare herewith that the above statements are given under oath and are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that they have been made voluntarily and without coercion.

[signed] Leopold Buerkner
LEOPOLD BUERKNER

Sworn to and signed before me on 22 January 1946 in Nurnberg, Germany.
[signed] Smith W. Brookhart, Jr.
SMITH W. BROOKHART. JR.,
Lt Colonel, IGD