A That is what I am stating, particularly because that is true; these things were kept a secret from me. I am even of the opinion that not even the Fuehrer did not know approximately the extent of the things that were going on. matters extremely secret. We never heard figures or any details of that kind.
Q But, Witness, haven't you accessto the foreign press, the press department in your Ministry, to foreign broadcasts? You see, there is evidence that altogether, when you take the Jews and other people, something like 10,000,000 people have been done to death in cold bleed, apart from those killed in battle. Something like 10,000,000 people. Do you say that you never saw or heard from the foreign press, in broadcasts, that this was going on? I am concerned. Secondly, during the entire period of the war I did not read any foreign press, since I considered that they would contain nothing but propaganda. Thirdly, I was actually entitled to listen to foreign broadcasting stations but never used then, because, again, I did not want to listen to that/propaganda. Nor did I listen to propaganda in the country. time -- and that is something that I can prove -- listen to a foreign broadcasting station.
Q You told Mr. Justice Jackson that there were various representatives in Eastern territories, and you have seen the films of the concentration camps, haven't you, since this trial started? You knew there were millions of garments, millions of shoes, 20,952 kilograms of gold wedding rings, 35 wagen-loads of furs -- all that stuff which those people who were exterminated at Maidanek or Auschwitz left behind them. Did nobody tell you, under the development of the four-year plan, or anyone else, that they were getting all these amounts of human material? Do you remember we heard from the Polish-Jewish Gentlemen who gave evidence that all he got back from his family, of his wife and mother and daughter, I think, were their identity cards?
His work was to gather up clothes. He told us that so thorough were the henchmen of your friend Himmler that the women took five minutes extra to kill because they had to have their out with which to make mattresses. Was nothing ever told to you about this accretion to German material, which came from the effects of these people who were murdered?
A No, and how do you imagine the situation? I was laying down a large scale directive for German economy and that did not mean that the manufacture of mattresses from women's hair on the use of old shoes came into my sphere of activity. I leave the figure as questionable. But I should like to object to the reference you used, my "friend Himmler."
Q Well, I will say, "your enemy Himmler", or simply "Himmler". You know when I mean, don't you?
Q Now, I just want to remind you of one other point: On the 14th of April, 1943, the Defendant Sauckel wrote to Hitler -- 407-VPS. U.S. Exhibit 228 "I have the honor to report to you that 3,638,056 new foreign workers have been added to the German war economy between April 1st last year and March 31st of this year. Besides the foreign civilian workers, another 16,022,892 prisoners of war are employed in the German economy." Now listen to this, "Out of 5,000,000 foreign workers who have arrived in Germany not even 200,000 came voluntarily."
That is from the minutes of the Central Planning Board on the 1st of March.
Do you say that you, in your position in the state and as the great architect of German economy, didn't know that you were getting for your economy 4,800,000 foreign workers who were forced to come? Do you tell the Tribunal that?
A I have never told the Tribunal that. I have said that I know exactly and for certain that these workmen were brought in not always voluntarily, but whether the figure 200,000 is correct, is something I don't know; but I don't believe it, either. There were more volunteers, which nevertheless doesn't alter the fact that workers were forced to come to the Reich. That is something I have not denied.
of workers were forced to come to the Reich and work there?
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, would you like to adjourn now?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: Yes, sir.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours) BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE:
the Fuehrer? May I repeat your words:
"The Chief influence on the Fuehrer, if I may mention influence on the Fuehrer at all, was up until the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942, and that influence was I. Then my influence gradually decreased up until 1943, and from 1943 on it decreased speedily. All in all, I do not believe any one had anywhere near the influence on the Fuehrer that I had beyond or outside of myself."
Thatis your view on the matter? loyalty to the Fuehrer was unshaken, is that right? the murder of these fifty young flying officers at Stalag Luft No. 3? I am here only to emphasize that I kept my loyalty and pledge to him even then, for I believe in keeping your oath in good days, but it is infinitely more hard to keep your pledge in hard days. the Fuehrer as strongly and as sharply as I did in this matter and told him my view. Then for months, no conversation took place between the Fuehrer and myself because of that. happening with regard to concentration camps, the treatment of Jews, and the treatment of people who were working, must he not?
know about these details in concentration camps as they were pictured here. As much as I know him, I do not believe that he was advised.
Q I am not asking about details; I am asking about the murder of four or five million people. Are you suggesting that nobody in Germany, except Himmler and perhaps Kaltenbrunner, knew about that? figures. I am of the opinion then and now.
Q Now, you remember how Mr. Dahlerus described the relations between you and Hitler on Page 53 of his book:
"From the very beginning of our conversation, I resented his manner toward Goering, his most intimate friend and comrade from the years of struggle. His desire to dominate was explicable, but to require such obsequious humility as Goering now exhibited from his closest collaborator seemed to me most repulsive and unprepossessing."
Is that how you had to behave with Hitler?
A I did not have to act that way. I did not act that way. Those are the utterances made by Dahlerus, made after the war. If Germany had won the war, this picture would certainly have been different.
Q Mr. Dahlerus was your witness, though.
A I did not ask him about his opinion in such matters. I asked him only about facts that existed between me and the British Government, in which capacity he served as a courier.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, on Tuesday of last week, the as to his character and reputation.
He therefore, in my character and reputation.
In accordance with the English practice, I make my submission and ask the Court's permission to pub it in.
DR. STAHMER: Attorney for the defendant Goering. Regarding the
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have to put it in cross examination to give the defendant the chance of answering.
The defendant Raeder can
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to look at the document
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is the English translation. I will show Dr. Stahmer the German.
DR. STAHMER: I would like to point out one further thing, Mr. President.
The document shows no date. We do not know when and
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is signed by the defendant Raeder.
DR. STAHMER: When and where it was drawn up. The signature of
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The date is in Raeder's handwriting, as is the signature; the 27th of July, I think it is, 1945. Each page of the document is signed by the defendant Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you said the defendant has put his character in evidence through Bodenschatz?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship will remember he was asked by Doctor Stahmer, "Will you now tell me about the defendant's social relations?" and then he proceeded to give an account of his character and his kindness and other qualities at that time; and I notice that Doctor Stahmer has just included as an exhibit still further evidence as to character in the form of a statement by one Hermann Winter.
THE PRESIDENT: Wouldn't it have been appropriate if the document was to have been put in evidence to have put it to Bodenschatz, who was giving the evidence?
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE; But, My Lord, the rule is that if the defendant puts his character in issue, he is entitled to be cross-examined on his character and his general reputation, and of course it as permissible to call a witness to speak as to his general reputation.
DR. STAHMER: May I make the following remark? I did not use Bodenschatz to clear the character of Goering. I wanted to question him about certain facts and incidents, and Bodenschatz may have drawn certain conclusions. According to my opinion, it would have been relevant to make all these reservations while Bodenschatz was present. If his testimony is to be used to show that Goering spoke an untruth, to prove that, the document should have been used during Bodenschatz's testimony, at which time we would have been able to question Bodenschatz.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He may prefer that Bodenschatz be brought back and it be put to him, but I think I am entitled to put it to the defendant who called the evidence as to his character and reputation.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(There was a recess.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal rules that at the present stage, this document cannot be used in cross examination.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: If your Honor please, I understand that your Lordship will leave open the question for further argument, whether it can be used for the Defendant Raeder and the witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: I am much obliged. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: in your opinion, did not know about-- broadly, or was ignorant about the question of concentration camps and the Jews. I would like you to look at Document D-736. That is an account of a discussion between the Fuehrer and the Hungarian Regent Horthy on the 17th of April 1943, and if you would look at page 4, do you see the passage just after " Nurnberg and Furth"?
A Just a moment: I should like to read through it very quickly to discover its identity.
Q Certainly.
Q Page 4 - GB 283. You say, "After the admission of Nurnberg and Fuerth, Hitler goes on to say the Jews did not ever possess organizational value. In spite of the fears which he, theFuehrer, had heard repeatedly in Germany, everything continued to go its normal way without the Jews. Where the Jews were left to themselves, as for instance in Poland, the most terrible demands prevailed. In Poland, this state of affairs had been formerly cleared up. If the Jews there did not want to work, they were shot. If they could not work, they had to be treated as one treats those who are affected with tuberculosis bacilli with which other healthy bodies would not associate. This was not true. If one remembers, even the creatures of nature who are affected must be eliminated so that no harm can be caused by them. Why should the beasts be spared more? Nations who do not rid themselves of Jews will perish. One of the most forceful examples of this is the Persians, who now lead a pitiful existence as Armenians." and which concerns a conference which you had on the 6th of August, 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you part from this page, is there not a passage that is important? It is about 10 lines down, I think, in themiddle of the line . . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Your Honor is correct. This is in regard to Admiral Horthy's counter question as to what he should do with the Jews now that he could not kill them off, but to get rid of them by degrees or take them to concentration camps. Those who had no other jobs . . . I am very grateful, my lord.
THE WITNESS: I do not know this document. and on page 143, if you will turn to it, you get on to the question of butter. If you will look where it says:
"Reichsmarshal Goering: How much butter do you deliver? 30,000 tons?"
Do you see that?
A- Yes.
Q And then Lohse, who is in the conference, says, "Yes", and you say, "Do you also deliver to Wehrmacht units," and then Lohse says, "I can answer that too. There are only a few Jews left whereas tens of thousands have been disposed of, but I can tell you that the civilian population gets, on your orders, 15% less than the Germans." I call your attention to the statement that "there are only a few Jews left whereas tens of thousands have been disposed of." Do you still say, in the face of these documents, that neither Hitler or yourself knew that the Jews were being exterminated?
A This should be understood. From this you cannot conclude that they have been killed. It is not my remark, but the remark of Lohse. On that question I also answered. The Jews were only left in smaller numbers. From this remark you cannot conclude that they were killed. It could also mean that they were removed. what you meant by "there are only a few Jews left, whereas tens of thousands have been disposed of."
A They were still living there. That's how you should understand that. what Ribbentrop said, that the Jews must be exterminated or taken to concentration camps. Hitler said that the Jews must work or be shot. That was in April, 1943. Do you still say that neither Hitler or you knew of this policy to exterminate the Jews?
Q Will you please answer my question. Do you still say that neither Hitler or you knew of the policy to exterminate the Jews? As far as I am concerned, I have said that even approximately, I did not know to what degree this thing took place. that aimed at the extermination of the Jews?
A No, not liquidation of the Jews. I only knew that there had been cases in that respect and that certain perpetrations had taken place.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Thank you.
BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q If I understand you, Mr. Goering, you said that all the basic decisions concerning foreign, political, and military matters were taken by Hitler alone? Individually?
A Yes, certainly. Also that he was the Fuehrer.
Q Should I understand that Hitler took those decisions without listening to the opinions of specialists who studied the question and the intelligence material concerned with these matters?
A That was different in various cases. In certain individual cases he certainly had evidence which was brought to him without which the experts could know for certain. In other cases, he probably expressed to the advisorsthat he intended to do something and what he demanded from them to be given. decision of serious matters, Hitler used the analysis and published material given to him by his close assistants who advised him according to their speciality. Is that correct? these things. associates of Hitler's on the subject of the airforce?
Q And on the question of economics? country?
A They were different. It depended on what question came up for discussion and it depended on how far the Fuehrer wanted to know about those things. On those would depend whom he would call for advice and consultation. associates? I, myself, and another close associate was -- perhaps it is the wrong word -Dr. Goebbels. Then, of course, you have got to consider the time. It differed during the 20 years, and in the end, to a very considerable degree. It was Bormann during the time of 1933 and 1934 , and shortly before the end, it was Himmler also, in certain instances and among certain questions. And if the Fuehrer was considering certain specific questions, then he would, of course, as it is the custom in every Government, call on that person who know most about the question and obtain the information from him.
in the field of foreign politics? the political decisions of the most important nature, were taken by himself after careful consideration, and he then conveyed them to ids officers. In very few cases only could there be a discussion through me and the necessary execution of policy took place between the foreign office and the ministry.
Q The defendant Ribbentrop? not make foreign policy.
Q And along strat egic questions, who advised Hitler?
A There were several people. As far as the sphere of influence is concerned, and when strategic questions were brought up, it concerned the three supreme commanders and chiefs of staffs, and particularly the leaders of the armed forces. consultants? matters was the chief of the leadership staff, Colonel General Jodl, and as far as the military administrative questions were concerned, the supreme commanders, of whom I was one, Raedar, and later Doenitz for the Navy. The other representatives of the Army did not take part. functionally, could we come to the conclusion that the purpose of thenature with regard to any question as regards any commendations made by Hitler's leading associates--did they have considerable influence on Hitler's final decisions? you are referring to the military subject, then the situation was . . .
Q No, I mean all spheres. All considerations of questions such as economies, interior politics, foreign policy, military and strategic questions. I mean all questions. I mean, if we approach the subject not theoretically, but functionally, did their recommendations have any considerable influence on Hitler's final decisions? That is what I mean.
A Partly, yes. It would partially depend on whether it would be right to the Fuehrer.
Q That's clear. Let's go on to the next question. Just whendid you begin preparing plans for the German military invasion against the Soviet Union in accordance with the plan Barbarossa. Just precisely when? carried out by my general staff after we received the first Fuehrer's order in that direction. That was in November.
Q In 1940?
A In 1940. But as far as we are concerned, we were not only concerned with Russia, but with all those countries who were not already involved with the war but could eventually be in the war.
Q All right. Was that in November 1940, when Germany was preparing to attack Russia? Plans were already being prepared for this attack with your participation? plan for the possible transfer of political balance had been worked out.
Q I ask you to reply to this question briefly, yes or no. I think it is possible to reply to the question briefly. attack on the Soviet Union, plans were already prepared, with your participation, for the attack on the Soviet Union. Can you reply to this briefly? there is no ambiguity at all here. How much time did it take for the Plan Barbarossa to be prepared? you to answer with regard to all phases of the Plan Barbarossa. pretty quickly. Barbarossa? confusion. I can't give you the exact date, but I have answered your question. As far as the air force was concerned, it happened comparatively quickly; as far as the army was concerned, it probably took longer. several months in advance of the attack itself, and that you, as chief of German aviation and Reichsmarshal, participated directly in preparation of the attack.
A May I divide your numerous questions. Firstly -
Q There were not too many questions asked at once. Excuse me please. You have admitted that in November 1940 the plan Barbarossa was prepared and developed.
A That's right. you, as chief of German aviation and Reichsmarshal, participated in plans for the attack months ahead of theirbeing put into effect. I asked you to reply to the last part of the question.
You admit that as chief of German aviation and Reichsmarshal you participated directly in preparations for the attack on the Soviet Union? Do you admit that? attack, first of all, within the limits given by the Fuehrer, that Soviet Russia was adopting a dangerous attitude; that from the beginning the certainty of an attack was not discussed, and that is contained in the directives of November 1940; of no importance here. That is a title and not a rag. already prepared in November 1940? detail before the Tribunal that we do not have to talk too much about the Plan Barbarossa, which is quite clear. I shall go on to the next question: consisted of invading and seizing Soviet territory up to the Ural Mountains and connecting it with the German Reich, including Crimea, the Caucasus; subjugation by Germany of the Ukraine, of Byelorussia, and of other regions of the Soviet Union? Do you admit that such were the objectives of that plan?
Q You do not admit that. Don't you remember that at the conference in Hitler's headquarters on the 16th of June 1941, at which you were present, as well as Bormann, Keitel, Rosenberg and others, Hitler stated the objectives of the attack against the Soviet Union in just the terms in which I have stated them? This was shown by the document submitted to the Tribunal. Have you forgotten that document? Have you forgotten about that?
A I can (remember the document exactly, and I can roughly remember the discussion at the conference. I said that this document written down by Bormann appears to me extremely exaggerated regarding these demands. At any rate, at the beginning of the war, such demands had not been discussed, nor had they before.
Q But you do admit that there are minutes of such a conference?
A I admit that because I have seen it. It was a document prepared by Bormann. participated in this conference. record. were formulated? I shall remind you of various parts of the minutes. It is not necessary to read all the minutes.
You would like a copy of the minutes of the meeting?
Q If you please. You would like to read the document?
Q Page 2, second paragraph, point 2, about Crimes:
"We emphasize" -- do you find the place? Have you got it?
A Just a moment. I haven't found it yet. Yes, I've got it.
Q "We emphasize ", states this point 2, "that we are bringing liberation to Crimea. Crimea must be liberated of all strangers, especially populated by the Germans. Also, Western Galicia must become a province of the German Reich."
Have you found that place?
Q "A province of the Reich," it says. last part. It says here:
"The Fuehrer stresses the fact that these parts must become provinces of the Reich."
Have you found the place, "The Fuehrer stresses the fact"?
A You mean the very last bit?
Q That's right.
A "Finally, it is ordered..."?
A "The Fuehrer orders...."?
Q That's right, "The Fuehrer orders that the Baltic countries as well must become provinces of the Reich." Then, it goes on, "The provinces of the Reich must also include Crimea, with its adjoining regions. These adjoining regions must be as big as possible. The Fuehrer says that about the Ukrainians, but that has no connection."
Go on further; skip one paragraph.
"The Fuehrer stresses that the Volga territory as well must become a province of the Reich , as well as the Baku Province which must become a military colony of the Reich. Eastern Karelia must also be included. However, in view of the large supplies of nickel available, regions where this is found must also be included. Great caution must be exercised in joining up with Finland and absorbing the Leningrad region into the Reich. The Fuehrer would like to have Leningrad razed altogether."
Haven't you found the place about Leningrad and Finland? on the 16th of June 1941, three weeks after Germany attacked the Soviet Union. You do not deny that such minutes exist, do you?
A You said three days, didn't you?
the 22ndof May, and the conference took place at Hitler's headquarters on the 16th of June at 15 hours, I think.
A That is quite right. I have emphasized it all alone, but the record of this thing isn't right.
Q And who took the minutes of the meeting?
Q What was the point of Bormann's taking the minutes incorrectly? As far as Crimea is concerned, it is correct.
Q Well, let's be a little more precise. Germany wanted the Crimea to become a region of the empire, correct? the war. The same applies to the free Balkan countries whichhad previously been taken by Russia. They, too, were to go to Germany.
Q Pardon me. You say that with regard to the Crimea, the question arose even before the war, that is, the question of trying to acquire Crimea for the Reich. How far ahead of the beginning of the war was that? He did not mention such territorial aims, but he did aim at them. At that time, if you read that record, I myself considered the question premature and I refrained from discussing anything but practical matters during that conference.
Q I still would like to be a little more precise. You state that with regard to the Crimea, there was some question about making the Crimea a region of the Reich? about those, too?
Q All right. With regard to the Caucasus, there was talk about annexing the Caucasus also?
A It was never mentioned that that should become German. We merely discussed the strongest German economic influence in that sphere.
Q So the Caucasus could be called a concession of the Reich? a victorious peace. You can see Iran that record that it would be quite mad to discuss a few days after a war broke out, matters on which Bormann stated his opinion long before we knew what the outcome of the war would be. and the colonies there? were discussed which you couldn't discuss in practice at that time at all. You might have talked about territory which you occupied, and the administration, that is all. these questions were discussed at the conference; they were posed there. You don't deny that, do you? record here.
Q I would like to draw just one conclusion. It seems obvious that even then, at that conference, plans of seizing the territories were discussed in accordance with the plan prepared months ago. That is correct, isn't it? permit me that I do emphasize -- that in connection with this record attribute these unlimited discussions to the fact that during the lengthy discussion of all these problems, it says:
"The Reichsmarshal underlined all the important points of view which must be exclusively decisive for us, namely, securing of the food supplies, economic system, and the securing of highways and communications."