The Nuremberg Interviews (59 page)

“My father was a philosopher. He was a wonderful man, an idealist and against war. He was a bookworm with no conception of politics or economics. He lived a life apart. I suppose that if he did express any political view, it would have been National Liberal — that is the party of Stresemann.” What would Kleist’s father think of National Socialism if he had been alive in January 1933? “There was no National Socialism then.” I said that I realized this, but nevertheless in retrospect and theoretically,
what did he think his father’s opinion would have been? “My father was like a Greek philosopher. He often said in Greek, ‘One man should be our kind, one should be our leader.’ But this was not meant in the sense of what happened in Germany under Hitler. The Greeks also had the term ‘tyranny.’ It was recognized that there were good tyrants as well as bad ones, but in general, most tyrants were hated by the Greeks. There is also the verse by Schiller, ‘To Dionysius, the tyrant, came the man with a dagger in his pocket.’ It’s very difficult for me to say what my father would have thought, but since he loved the Greeks and their philosophy, he would without doubt, therefore, have disapproved of Nazism. He would have understood that if one man is given special powers in an emergency, it might be all right; but he would not have approved of what Hitler became later, namely a tyrant.”

Was I correct, then, in my assumption that Kleist considered Hitler a tyrant? “Yes. Hitler developed into a tyrant. He became chancellor by democratic means but he then developed into a dictator. He was a tyrant in the sense of the old Greeks.”

Did Kleist agree with the American viewpoint, or perhaps any civilized viewpoint, that Hitler was a murderer? “One cannot deny that.” When did Kleist first come to that realization? “I knew nothing about the mass murders, the atrocities, the violations of military code, and so forth, or anything about Hitler’s murderous activities and orders until after the war, when I was imprisoned.”

Had not Kleist received orders from the chief of the OKW, Keitel — which were presented here in court as evidence against him — that were contrary to the international military code of ethics? Kleist gazed at the floor and pondered the question. “That is something rather complicated. I know what you are referring to. It is very complicated. I agree that Keitel was wrong in many of his directives, but I personally followed nothing but an honorable method of fighting and disregarded any directives that might violate human decency. I did this even when I fought in Russia, where the campaign was most violent. Furthermore, I am here as a witness for the general staff and army, and that is almost the crucial point of our defense. It is something that the prosecution will, without doubt, dwell on, and I must think this over rather carefully and talk to Manstein before I express any official opinion on Keitel’s orders.”

I said that I understood his position, but since this interview was quite unofficial, as far as the tribunal was concerned, and was not accessible to
the prosecution at any rate, could he tell me what he thought about the problem according to his own standard of values? Kleist dodged this question by saying, “I really can’t go into much detail about orders which might be construed as criminal because I am not a lawyer, and I can’t find the legal loopholes that a lawyer might be able to detect. If you want my own plain opinion about Keitel’s orders, I will tell you. They were the orders of a stupid follower of Hitler. I myself paid very little attention to them and I think any attempt to justify his orders would be a mistake on the part of those of us who are steeped in military tradition and good conduct. I trust you will not quote me on these observations. I knew Keitel fairly well and I think that he is a decent person. It was simply that Hitler wanted a weak general in that powerful position in order to be able to have complete control of him. If I had held Keitel’s position under Hitler, I wouldn’t have lasted two weeks.”

We returned to the subject of Kleist’s family history. He went on to describe his father in greater detail. “Father was quite an affectionate man but was always sick as a result of the lung infection incurred in the War of 1870. He lived a lonely life aside from his contact with the immediate family, and as I said before, he was a bookworm whose mind dealt not with reality but with books, the works of the old Greeks, and his family. Frankly, he was more absorbed in his books than in his children. We children only saw him at mealtimes, and occasionally he would take a walk with us.”

Did his father’s lung trouble make him irritable? “Not exactly, but he was always very careful of his health, and being with his children too much would tire his nerves. He was a man of extremely moderate habits, who drank one small glass of beer a day, did not smoke in the time I remember him, although I recall he told me that as a young man he smoked one or two cigars a day.” Did he consider that his father had a quite different personality from his own? “Oh, yes, indeed. I am more like my mother. My mother is still alive, although she is ninety.

“It’s a remarkable thing, but at ninety Mother is still a good housekeeper, active, lively, and possessed of all her faculties. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen Mother in five years. She lived in a small town near Hamburg, whereas my wife lived in Silesia. During the war, if I did take a short furlough, I naturally went to visit my wife. My mother unfortunately broke her hipbone in 1942. It was placed in a cast and a nail inserted, and she is now able to get around well, even to walk up and
down stairs. She doesn’t look her age except for a shrunken mouth because she has lost all her teeth. Her memory is perfect.”

Kleist himself was a man of medium height, reddish brown complexion, thin auburn hair, stocky build, and an alert, ingratiating, smiling manner. He did not appear to be sixty-four but looked more like a man in his early fifties. He said that it interested him greatly about this “legend” that I mentioned to him earlier that his family was among the richest landowners in Germany. “All my immediate relatives, I must repeat, were poor. For the most part, my relatives were officers and officials. In earlier generations they were mostly farmers. I did get a letter recently from someone who said that there was a woman by the name of Kleist in Washington, D.C., and he wanted me to write to her to find out if we were related. I heard that she was extremely wealthy. Perhaps the author of that book you mentioned met the Kleist in Washington. I know that she talked about me since I have been in captivity and so we must be related. I want to send her the family files, which would be better in America than over here, in view of the fact that all of us have lost our homes and houses and are in a state of bankruptcy.”

Kleist had one sister, aged fifty-seven, married, and whose husband was alive. This sister had one son, aged twenty-four, who was at present in Russian captivity. “I was always on the best of terms with my sister. My mother lived with this sister for many years, ever since the death of my father. My brother-in-law has been a district magistrate since 1917. He joined the Nazi Party soon after 1933, not because of conviction but because it was the only way for him to retain his official position. After the war he was arrested automatically but immediately released.

“My sister is more like my father. She is less active than my mother and more of a recluse. Father had a greater liking for his daughter, whereas Mother was more fond of me. My sister could never keep house because ever since Mother came to live with her, Mother did everything. Mother still does everything in my sister’s household.” Did his sister’s husband get along well with his mother-in-law? “Oh, yes, I think so. I saw them every few years for a short visit and there was no particular discord. I think that it is my sister’s way to let others run her life, and therefore, it is no fault of my mother’s that she does everything in my sister’s home.” Kleist smiled as if he had thought of something humorous. “Besides, my mother would be a little difficult to repress if she once made up her mind that she was going to make dinner.”

We discussed Kleist’s own children and family. I asked him which of his children he felt closest to, and so forth. “My older boy is strangely closed up, almost impolite at times, and therefore has had it more difficult in life. For that reason my older son has given me more aggravation than the younger one. Nevertheless, I love both my sons, the older as much as the younger one.

“My two sons have two quite different personalities. The older son developed at a later age and had to overcome many of his own fears. I believe that in his inner self my older son was against leaders or authority in general. He has an independent streak. He refused to be led and he never wanted to listen to the experiences of his elders.” Was his son a good soldier? “In a way he was a very good soldier, not in time of peace but during combat. He was certainly not cut out to be a peacetime soldier and would not have remained with the army after the war was over. His education and training was that of a professional soldier, but he would have quit this military career, I am sure.” Why did his son become a career soldier? “We lived among soldiers because I was a professional officer and so it seemed natural that he become one also. I think that he always had the idea of using the army as a means of touring the world. I know, because he told me frequently that he wanted to become attached to the secret service, or be a military attaché in order to travel and see the world. At the time he joined the army, of course, such things didn’t exist.”

Would Kleist consider himself a strict father? What were his ideas on rearing children? Kleist smiled and said, “Unfortunately, I was never very strict. My wife often told me that if I had given my older boy a beating once in a while he would have been better off. I myself never used physical punishment on either of my two sons. My wife always said to me that my heart would break if I struck them. But they are not ungrateful, and we are a very close family.

“I always said if my children are ever pushed out into the world because they lost their parents, they should have something to reflect upon and to look back on happily — that is, good parents and a good home.” Did Kleist feel that he would like to be a grandfather? “Yes. I have wanted grandchildren for a long time. But unfortunately it did not take place, because of the war and because neither of my sons had the opportunity to marry.”

I asked him why he was here in the Nuremberg prison — had he been
arrested automatically, was he charged with war crimes, or had he volunteered or been requested as a witness for the general staff? “I was in a POW camp in England and I came to the Nuremberg prison voluntarily as a witness for the army. Recently I was discharged from the German army while in this prison and was informed that I am on the so-called war criminal list number seven. I haven’t the faintest idea of what war crime I could have committed. The main thing is that I have a clear conscience. It was my understanding that I was to return to England at once. I know that the English authorities wrote a letter to the Nuremberg tribunal that Rundstedt and others including myself should be returned to England when our usefulness here was terminated. That letter arrived from England after we had been here for three or four days. Dr. Hans Laternser, the counsel for the general staff, received a letter from the general secretary of the tribunal in which it stated that if we were not needed here, we should be returned to England. I don’t know what’s the matter with that fellow Laternser! Manstein has assigned us each sections upon which we were to work, and each of us has completed his section and more. All of this material was given to Manstein, who, in turn, delivered it to Dr. Laternser, and it has been in his hands for weeks. Now we sit around doing nothing, except for Manstein, who has in a way assumed the responsibility for the defense of the general staff and the army. I know that the general secretary of the tribunal warned Laternser twice that he was keeping us here too long and that we should be returned to England. It seems to me that Laternser can’t make up his mind whether I should remain here to testify personally or whether an affidavit of mine will suffice.”

I asked Kleist what he thought of Laternser. “He’s not a very superior counsel. In the beginning I thought he was a real dummy. After yesterday’s conversation with him, however, I feel that he is catching on and is improving. I never did understand lawyers anyway, and I suppose, in view of his reputation as a well-known German defense counsel, he is competent.” Did Kleist feel that Laternser was very intelligent? “It’s not for me to say whether he is intelligent or not. I have often thought about the meaning of intelligence. Frankly, I believe intelligence is not an entity but a composite of various adaptabilities. I think that lawyers in general are sharp but not extraordinarily intelligent because they think in certain prescribed lines, and are, therefore, not very adaptable. It would be a great advantage if we had a German soldier as defense counsel
for the general staff — a man who in addition to being acquainted with military matters was also a legal expert. Of course, offhand, I can’t think of any particular individual who would meet those requirements, since most of our military judges were also dummies, who had failed as officers in the field and who were, therefore, assigned to the legal department of the army. I can name a dozen of them, some of them with the rank of general. To return to Laternser, however, I would say that in view of the fact that he was so ignorant of military matters, at first he swam and almost drowned in all the material which Manstein and the rest of us here in Nuremberg submitted. Laternser didn’t know the difference between the high command and a sergeant. It was as strange as if I were to be called to give a talk about the atom bomb.”

I cautiously asked Kleist what Manstein had assigned to him and in general what the nature of his testimony in defense of the general staff would be. Kleist smiled craftily, and replied with an attitude as if to say, “Wouldn’t you like to know?” He did say, however, “I am answering certain questions that Manstein is devising and we divided these questions among us. Certain of us, like Halder, Brauchitsch, Westphal, Wilhelm List, Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb, Rundstedt, Guenther Blumentritt, and so on, will each take the responsibility for answering certain charges and explaining certain aspects of a military situation.”