the rear out of the house on my troops, then a court martial can settle the matter like that ectremely quickly, but if there is no evidence at all, then you can not act like that, but here we are concerned with immediate dealings or fighting against an attack.
Q Defendant Goering, let us put this question aside. I would like to point out once more that this directive issued by the headquarters of the armed forces was issued on 13 May 1941, which means that even at that time officers were given the right to shoot civilians practically on sight?
A Yes, but I deny that emphatically. This does not mention the giving of the right to the officer to shoot a man right away. Let us put this right. It says here--and I say once more--that it is attacks by hostile persons against the army, and then it says, "Where measures of that kind are necessary, then the suspicions elements are to be brought before the highest officer of the unit and he will decide what the disposition must be. In other words, it does not say that every officer can decide the fate of a civilian.
Q It is quite clear. The second document which I would like to quote here and question you about--Excuse me, please. The document is dated 1941 and has already been submitted as Number USSR 98.
A Just a moment. What was the date you mentioned?
Q 16 September 1941 is the date of the document. Point B of the document. I do not want to quote it. I am merely pointing it out to you. It states there that asa rule if a life of a German soldier is taken, then 150 communists should die for that. The method of the execution should put terror into the hearts of the population. I am not going to question you about the main substance of the document. That is quite clear and needs no clarification. I am merely interested in whether you did not know about this document either. department. The Air Force had very little to do with such matters. such a directive? particular date. Later on, I was informed -- and I would emphasize during the war, not here--that to start with five to ten was mentioned in that order originally and that the Fuehrer personally altered that to fifty to one hundred. The question is whether you have any evidence that the Air Force did in any place or any time use this, and that is not the case. That is all I can tell you about that.
Q I am asking you about something else. Do not ask me. I am asking you. Have your subordinates ever reported to you about this directive?
A No, but later on I heard about this document. At a later date.
Q What do you mean by "later date"? Please be more precise.
A I can not tell you that at the moment. It was sometime during the war, but now, on the strength of the fact that a figure which was originally five to ten had been altered by the Fuehrer personally to fifty to one hundred; that fact is what I heard.
Q For one German?
A I have just explained it to you. That is how I heard it. That was five to ten originally and the Fuehrer personally put a zero behind it. It was because of that fact that I learned about the whole matter.
Q You mean the Fuehrer added the zeros?
THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, do you think it is really necessary to go through these documents in such detail?
The
GENERAL RUDENKO: I am going to be through immediately, Mr. President. treatment of Soviet prisoners of war?
A I shall have to see them.
Q If you please. I mean, Mr President, the document which was already submitted to the Tribunal as USSR 338.
(A document was handed to the witness.) directive consists of applying weapons against the soviet prisoners of war. The application of the use of arms is considered legitimate, and when this happens the guards are not obliged to report on the subject. This document also speaks for itself.
A Just a minute. I have to read that first, It isn't quite clear to me. the directive with regard to the treatment of the Soviet prisoners of war, which states that if a prisoner of war tries to escape he must be shot immediately. No warning need be given. of war. and the guards are instructed to use their arms immediately. It also says that errors can arise in this connection.
Q Once more I want to say that the document speaks for itself. I am not asking about it; I want to know whether you knew about this directive. they were directed to these departments of mine which were concerned with prisoners of war. I do not know this document, and I don't know the one which contains an opinion of the department of foreign counter intelligence.
Q You did not know about this directive? All right. One other-- I mean 854-PS . already submitted, which talks about exterminating political workers. the air force did not have any camps with the Soviet prisoners of war. The air force only had those six camps in which the air force personnel of other powers were confined; in other words, it did not have any Soviet PW camps. the second man in command in Germany, you could not have known about these rather basic directives.
A I beg to apologize, if I may contradict you. The higher the office I held the less I would be concerned with orders dealing with prisoners of war, in fact, were orders meant for certain departments and not orders of the highest political or military significance.
If I had had much lower rank, then I might have had knowledge--much more knowledg-- of these orders. I am now looking at the document which you submitted to me--Department of Home Defense. It says on the left: Reference treatment of political and military Russian functionaries. That is the document I am looking at.
Q Please look at the date of the directive--12th of May, 1941. Fuehrer's headquarters.
Q Paragraph 3 of the directive -- look at that. Political leaders among the troops are not to be considered prisoners of war but must be exterminated immediately. They must never be transported to the rear. Did you know about this directive? it bears the heading "Notes of a report by Wagemann", and that the distribution chart does not show any other department outside the department Home Defense, which I have mentioned. In other words, this is a note for the files of a report.
Q You mean to say then that you did not know about this directive?
A I say once more : This is the note of a report made by a certain department chief, and it is not an order, not a directive, but a record of a report.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not an answer to the question. You are telling us what it was, not whether you knew of it.
A No; I did not. It had been put before me as an order, and I wanted to point out that it isn't one. have been executed also by the units of the Luftwaffe.
A If ordered by the Fuehrer -- Yes; or if ordered by me, also. prisoners of war?
Q You do not remember them?
A We didn't have any camps with Soviet POW's in the air force. OKW, were they not issued even before the beginning of the war against the Soviet Union by way of preparing for that war? Does not this show that the German Government and the OKW had already made a plan for exterminating the Soviet population?
A No. That isn't proved by that at all. All the proof is that we thought of the fight against the Soviet Union as an extremely hard one, and that it was conducted because there were no conventions.
Q These rules of warfare are well known to us. Please tell me, do you know about Himmler's directives given in 1941 about exterminating millions of slavs? You heard about it from the witness right here in court. Do you remember about that?
A Yes. Firstly: This wasn't an order but a speech. Secondly: It was a statement of Zelewski. And thirdly: In all speeches Himmler made to his subordinate officers he insisted that the contents should be kept absolutely secret. In other words, this is a statement from a witness, according to what he has heard, and not an order. Consequently, I have no knowledge of that affair.
Q You did not know. All right. Tell me, in the German totalitarian state was there not a central directive center which meant Hitler and his immediate associates, including yourself? Thus, these directives must have been known not only to Himmler but to others. Himmler alone could not have issued directives about exterminating thirty million Slavs without discussing it or having received directives either from you or from Hitler. million Slavs. The witness said that he made a speech in which he said that thirty million Slavs should be destroyed. If Himmler would have in fact issued such an order, then he would have had to ask the Fuehrer and adhere to the Fuehrer's orders, and the Fuehrer would have told him immediately that that was impossible.
Q I did not talk about an order; I talked about a directive --an intention. You do admit or you state, rather, that Himmler could have issued directives without discussing them with Hitler? given, and I knowof no directive or order of that type that has been mentioned here.
Q Once more I shall repeat this question: Is it not true that the directives and the orders of the OKW with regard to treating the civilian populations and the prisoners of war in the occupied Soviet territories were part of the general directive about exterminating the Slavs?
This is what I want to know.
A Not at all. At no time has there been a directive originating from the Fuehrer or anybody I know referring to the destruction of the Slavs. zens in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union with the help of the security police -- the SD. Is it not true that these organs and their activities were the results of the plan prepared long in advance about exterminating both the Jews and other groups of Soviet citizens?
A No. Action groups were an internal matter which was kept extremely secret.
GENERAL RUDENKO: I shall have several other questions. Perhaps it is better to adjourn now and wait for the other questions.
THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think it will take, General Rudenko?
GENERAL RUDENKO: I think not more than another hour.
THE PRESIDENT: All these documents which you have been putting to the witness, as I have pointed out to you, are documents which have already been put in evidence and documents which seem to me to speak for themselves. I hope, therefore, that you will make your cross examination as short as you can. The Tribunal will now adjourn.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 22 March 1946 at 1000 hours).
DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for the Leadership Corps): Mr. President,
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of the document?
DR. SERVATIUS: D-728.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yesterday the translation of that document, D-728, was handed to me.
It is the document which yesterday was objected to
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: I request to have this re-translated, since this tion against the document.
On the first page of that document there lining the important points.
A thorough translation ought, therefore, of the original document.
I am fully aware of what the difficulties
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, the translation shall be checked by a
DR. SERVATIUS: May I ask to have a new translation made, since original already contains considerable mistakes?
We would have the
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly it shall be checked and re-translated.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then, may I make a second motion; namely, may we will ascertain that the author of this document does not have made by some one who was a foreigner.
I do not want to to into
THE PRESIDENT: I think you must certainly make a written
DR. SERVATIUS: I shall certainly hand it in in writing. BY GENERAL RUDENKO: on Poland was perpetrated after the bloody happenings in the town of Bromberg. events which, in addition to a large number of others, caused the so-called bloody Sunday at Blomberg.
Q Do you know that these events happened on 3 September 1939? I would have to have details about that. I merely quoted that as one example amongst a lot of others.
Q It is understandable. The attack was perpetrated on 1 September, and the events in the town of Bromberg, which you just mentioned to the Tribunal, happened on3 September 1939.
GENERAL RUDENKO: I would submit to the Tribunal the document and evidence from the Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, which is duly certified in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter. From this testimony it is clear that the events about which the defendant here is testifying happened on 3 September 1939. That is to say, on the third day after the attack by Germany on Poland.
THE PRESIDENT: You can put the document to the witness, if you want.
GENERAL RUDENKO: I have no German text. I have it in English and in Russian. I just received this document. It isdated 19 March, and I submit it to the Tribunal as evidence without doubt.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think this is the appropriate time to put documents in in that way.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: It must be translated into German, of course.
GENERAL RUDENKO: I have no German translation of this document.
THE PRESIDENT: It has to be translate, into German in order that defendant's counsel may see it.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Yes,sir, it will be done.
DR. STAHMER: Lawyer Stahner for the defendant Goering.
Mr. President, May I ask to have the document read--It seems to be a very short document-- so that we can gather what is contained therein?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Will you read it, General Rudenko?
GENERAL RUDENKO: I can read it into the record; it is not very long:
"Certificate based on the investigation performed by the Polish Legal Authority. The High Commission for the investigation of German crimes in Poland certifies that the so-called Bloody Sunday in the town of Mickdish (?) took place on the 3rd September, 1939, that is to say, three days after the time when Poland was subjected to the German attack.
"On the 3rd September 1939, at 1015 in the morning, the German forces attacked the Polish Army which was retreating from Micdish. Of the crumbling Polish retreating army 238 Polish soldiers perished and 258 Germans. After the entrance of the German Army into the town of Mickdish, they began mass execution, arrest, and deportation to concentration camps of Polish citizens, which were performed by the German authorities, the SS, and the Gestapo. There were 10,500 murdered and 30,000 who were exterminated in the camps.
"This Certificate appears as an official document of the Polish Government and is submitted to the International Military Tribunal in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter of the 8th of August 1945.
"Stephan Kurovski, a member of the High Commission for the investigation of German crimes in Poland." the Defendant Goering gave testimony happened after the attack by Germany on Poland.
THE WITNESS: I am not sure whether we are both referring to the same event.
BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q I am speaking about the events in the Town of Mickdish. you spoke about them.
A Maybe there were to such events, one Town of Bromberg.
I should like to know the following question: stigmatization of Soviet prisoners of war, and what do you think about that? air force was present, as I ascertain from the files. I am talking about-The orders are not quite clear. and citizens had to be used for hard labor and that they had to transport bombs that had not exploded? Do you know about that? Russians I have knowledge. Just how far civillians had been employed for that purpose I do not know. B ut it was possible. of Leningrad, Moscow, and other towns of the Soviet union? document which was read out yesterday, and maybe it is meant in the sense that the Finns in case of capture of Leningrad won't have use of such a big city. Of the destruction of Moscow I know nothing at all. July, 1941?
Q Did you speak about this same document? Regarding this statement. there were also official orders? whether they are correct or not and whether they were known to me.
Q I do not wish to submit these documents to you. They have already been submitted to the Tribunal. I am only interested in the fact of whether you were aware of these orders.
A I haven't received any order to destroy Leningrad or Moscow in the sense which you have indicated.
Q All right. You were only told about the very important happenings such as the annihilation of cities, and so forth?
been given to me directly.
"for that you will have to answer very dearly."
Do you remember this testimony of your witness? recollect at all. That was never said by that witness Bodenschatz. Please refer to the record of the session.
Q How did Bodenschatz say that? Do you remember his testimony?
Q Why? For the murders which had been perpetrated? I should like to put to you only one question in this connection and I should like you to reply directly to it. Were you in accord with this principals of the Master Race or were you not in accord with it? verbally or in writing. The differences between races of course I recognize indeed. this theory? superior to the other and should be destroyed by the Master Race. I have merely underlined the differences between races. or no, you disagree with it?
Q The next question: You have stated here at the Tribunal that you did not agree with Hitler regarding the question of Czechoslakia, the Jewish question, the question of war with the Soviet Union, the value of the theory of the Master Race, and the question of shooting of the British airman who were prisoners of war.
How would you explain that, having such serious differences you still thought it possible to collaborate with Hitler and to continue his policy?
A. That was not the way I worded my answer. Here, too, we must consider and separate the periods in phases of time. As to the attack against Russia, we were not concerned with basic differences but with differences of time.
Q. Excuse me; I don't want you to be lengthy on this theme. Will you reply directly?
A. All right. I can be of a different opinion from that of my supreme leader, and I can explain that opinion clearly. If the Supreme leader insists and maintains his opinion clearly. If the Supreme leader insists and maintains his opinion and I have sworn allegiance to him, then the discussion comes to an end, just as it is the case elsewhere and I don't think I need to be any more clear about that.
Q. You are not just a simple soldier, as you stated here; but you have presented yourself to be also a statesman.
A. You are absolutely right. I am not a simple soldier, and particularly because I am not a simple soldier but occupy a leading position I had to set an example for the attitude and adherence to an oath of allegiance. My attitude had to be an example for the ordinary soldier.
Q. In other words, you thought that, with the presence of these differences with Hitler, you had to be loyal to him and to collaborate with him
A. I have emphasized -- and I maintain -- that that is correct. My oath does not only hold good in good times but particularly when times are bad, although the Fuehrer had never threatened me or never told me that he was afraid for my health.
Q. If you thought it possible to cooperate with Hitler, as the second man in Germany, are you responsible for the organizing of gread murders of millions of innocent people independently, whether you knew about those facts or not? Tell me briefly, yes or no.
A. No, because I didn't know them or cause them.
Q. I should like to set out again whether you were informed of these facts or not.
A. If I don't know facts, then I can't be responsible for them.
Q. You had to know about these facts.
A. I shall be a little explicit about that.
Q. I should like to ask you to reply to me to this question: You had to know about these facts.
A. Why did I have to know about them? Either I know them or I don't know them. You cannot only ask me if I was negligent and failed to obtain knowledge.
Q. You ought to know better. Millions of Germans knew about the crimes which were being perpetrated, and you did not know about them?
A. Millions of Germans didn't know about them either. That is a statement which is by no means an established fact.
Q. The last two questions: You stated to the Tribunal that Hitler's Government brought Germany to life. Do you still think that it was so?
A. Until the beginning of the war, under all circumstances, yes. The collapse was due to the last war.
Q. As a result of which you brought Germany -- as a result of your politics -- to military and civilian destruction.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Chief Prosecutor for France wish to cross examine?
M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: I would like to answer to the desire expressed by the Tribunal and to abbreviate as much as possible the discussions of this trial. The French Prosecution has come to an agreement with Mr. Jackson and with Sir David and the questions brought up to Goering as a witness should only be those which are considered pertinent. The questions have been asked and we heard them, as far as it was possible to obtain from him anything except propaganda speeches. tailed. It has been able to use its freedom abundantly in the past twelve days and has not been able in any way to weaken the Prosecution accusation. The second man in German life has been able to pretend that he was in no way responsible for the war; that he knew nothing of the atrocities committed by the men that he was so proud of.
THE PRESIDENT: You will no doubt have the opportunity later to make comment, but the question that I ask you now is whether you wish to ask the witness definite questions.
M. DE RIBES: Mr. President, I have finished all that I wanted to say to you. After all the long discussions, the French Prosecution feels that nothing has been changed in the accusation which we brought forth previously. We have no further questions to ask the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer? BY DR. STAHMER:
Q. The British Prosecution has stated that the Hermann Goering Division during its use in Italy had received direct orders referring to the fight against the partisans. Is that statement correct?
A. No. The Hermann Goering Division was a ground division and was tactically attached to an army and army group. Consequently, it never received any orders directly from Berlin or my headquarters, which was not at the same location. In fact, no orders with tactical use could have reached it through these channels. I could not have given it any orders as to where it was to be used in the partisan fight and how. This concerns orders only which referred to materiel and equipment questions, and they were orders also which referred to certain orricers; not did the division report to me daily.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I didn't catch that. I am sorry, My Lord, I should have spoken earlier. I gather that these questions are directed to the Hermann Goering Division. The Defendant never dealt with that point when he was being examined in chief; and, therefore, I never dealt with it in cross examination, because the point had not been raised. It is therefore my position that it is quite inadmissible for the matter to be raised in re-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: You must remember, Sir David, that the practice in foreign countries isn't the same as the practice in the United States and in England; and although it is perfectly true that Dr. Stahmer, according to the rules of England at any rate, would not be able to raise this point in reexamination, we are directed by the Charter not to deal technically with any question of evidence. It may be you would have to ask him some questions thereafter in cross examination, although I hope that won't be necessary, in view of the evidence of the witness Kesselring.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL*FYFE: I considered that point, but I only wanted to make it clear that the Prosecution has not dealt with this point at all, because it hadn't been raised previously.
THE PRESIDENT: No; either in the examination or in the cross examination
SIR DAVID MAXWELL*FYFE: Or in the cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I had already noticed the point that the question hadn't been raised in the evidence of Hermann Goering.
DR. STAHMER: May I add an explanation and raise the point that I received that document only yesterday and consequently could not have referred to that question any earlier.
THE PRESIDENT: But, if my recollection is correct, the witness Fieldmarshal Kesselring raised this very point himself, and therefore the point was obvious and could have been raised in examination in chief, in which case it would have been of the Defendant Goering. It doesn't depend upon any particular document; it depends upon the evidence of the Fieldmarshal Kesselring, who said -- I think the word as it was translated was that he was by-passed between the division Hermann Goering and the Defendant Goering, although the division Hermann Goering was under his command. So it has nothing to do with any document.
DR. STAHMER: May the witness continue now, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
A. The division was under my command only as far as personnel was concerned -- commissioning of officers and equipment -- but not as far as tactical use was concerned. I did not receive daily reports but received them at irregular intervals regarding certain events -- losses, replacements, etc. That, on the whole, was all the connection I had with that division. For its use in battle, I could be have given any orders, since it was under the common of parts of the army.
Q. Did you receive a report regarding the events at Tivitella?
A. No, I did not receive that report. It wasn't until I heard the affidavit of a general of the army that I heard about it. The general who was commanding that division and who was also responsible for these matters is apparently now trying to push that responsibility on to the division, and because of the name of the division on to me.
Q. Your relationship to Hitler and the influence upon him has often been touched on during cross examination, and just now too. Could you just summarize the situation briefly and refer to the various periods, and are them any facts which are necessary to judge that relationship?
A. Already during the cross examination I have pointed out that you have to deal with a very long period here. In 1923, when I was an SA leader, my relationship was normal. Then there is a long interval -- 1931.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal: I seems to me in the interests of time highly objectionable to allow the witness now to summarize.
He was given the advantage of answering any questions he wanted as he went along. It seems to me that when he has covered a subject at least once -and as a matter of fact he covered this one four or five times in an address at nearly every question that would permit -- that that at least should bring us to the end of that subject. It was exhausted.
The matter of time here is a grave matter. By our calculation -- a careful calculation -- of the witnesses which have been allowed, this trial will now project into August. It doesn't seem that we should allow him to play this game both ways, to make his speeches during the cross examination and the to sum them up again afterwards.