THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, if there are any passages in this document which have not been read and to which you attach importance, you may read them now and for the rest, all that the Tribunal think you ought to do is to ask the defendant what his reaction was or what happened at that meeting and if he can supplement the document as to what happened at the meeting, he is entitled to do so. The Tribunal doesn't intend to prevent you reading anything from the document which has not yet been read nor from getting from the witness anything which he says happened at the meeting.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I understood the witness to mean that he recalled the Study-Staff which the prosecution did not mention; this is how it happened, that the witness, since he knows the document, too, and at the same time, points it out that the Study-Staff was also mentioned in the document. I believe that can explain the misunderstanding. Perhaps I may read this sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
DR. SIEMERS: Under No. 3, towards the end of the document, it says: "To study weak points of the enemy, these studies must not be left to the general staff. Secrecy would no longer be guaranteed. The Fuehrer has therefore decided to order the formation of a small planning staff; containing representatives of the three parts of the Wehrmacht and the three commanders-in-chief and chiefs of the General Staff. The staff will keep the Fuehrer informed. The planning staff is responsible for the planning of operations and the decisions."
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, a passage is left out in the English translation. The copy I have before me says "These studies must not be left to the General Staffs; secrecy would no longer be guaranteed," and then it goes on "This staff mill keep the Fuehrer informed and will report to him." I know it is very important. Go on.
DR. SIEMERS: This paragraph about the planning staff in the High Command was submitted in the English. "The purpose of certain regulations concerns no one outside the staff; however great by the increases in the armaments of our adversaries, they must at sometime come to the end of their resources and ours will be greater. We can recruit (?) one hundred twenty thousand men in each age class. We shall not be forced into a war but we shall not be able to avoid one. This planning staff, in effect, eliminated the commanders-in-chief.
That was what Hitler wanted to achieve. If I am correctly informed, the rest has been read by the prosecution --the purpose and the principle of the order to keep everything secret, and at the end, that the shipbuilding program should not be changed,--the armament program to be postponed until 1943 or 1944. he have had to force any particular part of the navy armament? ially?
Q How many submarines did you have at this time?
A I can't say exactly, I think about twenty-six. were fifteen capable of sailing in the Atlantic? with Sir Neville Henderson on relations between Germany and England?
A Yes, a very short talk at an evening reception at the Fuehrer's, where I talked to Ambassador Henderson and Mr. von Neurath, and where the question was discussed -- it was brought up by me whether Eng land would accept Germany's offer to set the proportion of strength at one to three and hadn't welcomed it and would not draw certain conclusions from this proportion. Ambassador Henderson answered, when no one else had brought up this question, "Yes, that would be shown in the future when the colonial question was settled." I later reported this answer to the Fuehrer in order to use it to maintain a friendly policy toward England.
Q We are new at the summer of 1939. Grand Admiral, in the course of the summer, after the speech of 23 May 1939, did you talk to Hitler on the generally known war danger, and what did he tell you? brought up the question of England. I urged him in that connection and I tried to convince him that it would be possible to maintain a peace policy with England which he, himself, at the beginning of his government had instituted. He always reassured me that it remained his intention to carry on a peace policy with England and he always convinced me that there was no danger of a clash with England. In any case, at this time there was no such danger.
Q Now, I come to the third key document, Hitler's speech before the supreme commanders on 22August 1939, at the Obersalzburg -- 1014-PS and 798-PS. 1014-PS is US-30 and document book 10-A, page 269 and 798-PS is US-29, and document book 10-A, page 266. In this document 1014-PS which I have here in the original, in the form submitted by the prosecution, I should like to make a formal request. This No. 1014-PS is on page 194 in the German minutes, in the English minutes page 371. I object to the use of this document. I request that this document be stricken from the minutes of the meeting and for the following reasons.
THE PRESIDENT: What document are you speaking about now, 1014-PS?
DR. SIEMERS: In document book 10-A, page 269, US-30.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, what are your reasons?
DR. SIEMERS: The things which were mentioned in the other minutes are much greater here. This document is nothing but two pieces of paper headed "Second Speech by the Fuehrer, on 22 August 1939". The original has no heading, has no number, and no notice that it is secret; no signature, no date.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to look at the original. Yes, Dr. Siemers.
DR. SIEMERS: It has no date, no signature -- in the original in the folder, it has no indication of where the document comes from. It is headed "Second speech...", although it is certain that on this date Hitler made Hitler made only one speech, and it is hardly one and a half pages long.
THE PRESIDENT: When you say it has no date, it is part of the document itself which says that it is the second speech of the Fuehrer on the 22nd of August 1?39.
DR. SIEMERS: I said, Mr. President, it has a heading -
THE PRESIDENT: But it has no date.
DR. SIEMERS: It has no date as to when these notes were taken down. It has only the date of when the speech is supposed to have been made. Mr. President, on all documents which the prosecution submitted, you will find the date of the session and the date on which the minutes were set up; also the place where the minutes were set up, the name of the person who set it up, or reference that it is secret. It is certain that Hitler spoke for two and a half hours. I believe it is generally known that Hitler spoke very fast. It is quite out of the question that the minutes could be one and a half pages long, and if it is to give the meaning and the content to any extent, it is important. Then I should like to refer to another point. I will submit the original afterwards. I am no expert on handwriting but I notice that this document, which is also not signed, we do not know where it comes from, but it is a captured document.
THE PRESIDENT: You say we don't know where it has come from -- it is a captured document covered by the affidavit which was made with reference to all other captured documents.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes. I would be grateful to the prosecution, if in the case of such an important document, the prosecution would be so kind -- in order to settle the really accurate contents -- as to indicate exactly from where it originates. If it wasnot taken down by Schmundt or Hossbach or anyone and has no number, it is only loose pages,
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know whether the prosecution can do that but it seems to me to be rather late in the day to ask for it.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I don't know what the exact origin of this document is offhand but I expect that we could probably get some information before the Tribunal if the Tribunal wishes us to do so but as the President pointed out, it is a captured document and everything that counsel says about it seems to go to its weight rather than to its admissibility.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know where the document was found, if that is possible.
MR. DODD: I willmake an effort to find that out.
DR. SIEMERS: MR. President, Mr. Dodd just pointed out that my objection comes rather late. I believe I recall correctly that objections
THE PRESIDENT: I think it was I who pointed it out, not Mr. Dodd.
DR. SIEMERS: Excuse me. I believe I recall correctly that the defense on several occasions raised objection during the Prosecution's case, and they were told that all statements could be made during the defense case at a later time, during the case of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: I only meant that it might not be possible at this stage to find out exactly where the document came from, whereas if the question had been asked very much earlier in the trial, it might have been very much easier. That is allI meant. Have you anything more to add upon why, in your opinion, this document should be stricken from the record
DR. SIEMERS: Yes. I should like to point out, Mr. President, that I do not do it for formal reasons. It is a very important reason. by the Prosecution in the past. The words, "destruction of Poland in the foreground," "aim is removal of living forces, not arrival at a certain line"-- these words were not spoken, and such a war aim the German High commanders would not have agreed to. is genuine or not. version of this speech as mentioned in this court com, L-3, which is even worse than these and which was published by the world press. Wherever one spoke to anyone this grotesque, brutal speechwas brought up. For that reason it is in the interest of historical truth to ascertain whether Hitler in this horrible way spoke at this time. not use such words. For the reputation of the commanders who were present, this is of great significance.
Lot me Point out the next words. They say expressly, "Have no pity," "brutal attitude." Such words were not used. I will be in a position to prove this by another witness, General Admiral Boehm. this document from the records. I should like to point out that the document at many points is mentioned in the record. In case the Court wishes, I shall have to look for all the points. I have found only four or five in the Germanrecord. If necessary, I would have to give all the points in the English record. It was submitted on page 371.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't hink you need bother to do that. You are only now upon the question of whether the document should be stricken from the record. If it were to be stricken from the record, we could find out where it is.
Is that all you wish to say?
DR. SIEMERS: One question to Grand Admiral Raeder. BY DR. SIEMERS:
Q The words which I just read, "brutal attitude," "elimination of living forces" -- were these words used in Hitler's speech at that time?
A In my opinion, no. I believe that the version which General Admiral Boehm submitted on the afternoon of the same day he wrote it down is the version nearest to the truth.
DR. SIEMERS: High Tribunal, in order to achieve clarity on this question, I submit as Raeder Exhibit Number 27, Document Book 2, page 144, an orderly reproduction of this speech.
THE WITNESS: May I have Document Book II?
DR. SIEMERS: The manuscript of General Admiral Hermann Boehm. General Admiral Boehm was present at Hitler's speech on 22August, 1939, at the Obersalzberg. He made the notes during the speech. He transcribed them in the present form on the same evening -- that is, on 22August, 1939 -in the Vier Jahreszeiten Hotel in Munich, I have certified the correctness of the copy.
The original is in the handwriting of General Admiral Boehm.
Boehm has been called by me as a witness for various other questions. He will confirm that the speech was made in in this form as I have submitted here. A comparison of the two documents show that the words, "brutal attitude," are not contained in this speech. It shows further -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: (Interposing) Surely this part of Dr. Siemers' argument must go to weight. He has said that a comparison of the two documents shows such and such. I have just looked at the end of Admiral Boehm's affidavit, and it contains, I should argue, every vital thought that is contained in Document 1014. But whether it does or not, that is a matter of weight, surely. decide the admissibility of the document. As I say, on that I should have a great deal to say by comparing the documents in detail. That is not before the Tribunal now.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The Tribunal was only wanting to hear whatever Dr. Seimers has got to say upon the subject.
DR. SIEMERS: A comparison of the document with 798-PS, also the longer and better version which the Prosecution submitted -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Dr. Siemers, as Sir David Maxwell Fyffe has just pointed out, a more comparison of the two or three documents doesn't help us as to its admissibility. We know the facts about the document. It is a document in German, captured among German documents.
DR. SIEMERS: I understand. I made the statement only in order to show that I am not raising objections for formal reasons but because the thing is actually of great importance.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, you will be able to urge that when you make your speech in criticism of the document as to its weight. You will be able to point out that it doesn't bear comparison with a more full document taken down by Admiral Boehm or with the other document.
DR. SIEMERS: To explain my formal request, I refer to my statement on the formal character of the document which I submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
(A recess was taken)
THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel the prosecution understand that the Tribunal wishes to have information as to where that document was found?
SIR DAVID MAXWELLFYFE: Yes, My Lord; we will do our best to get it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and also the other document, 798.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, if Your Lordship pleases. BY DR. SIEMERS: version, to you. You have read the speech in this version. Is this reproduction correct on the whole, in your recollection?
A Yes. In my opinion, this version is that one which corresponds most closely to reality. I remember especially that Hitler devoted a large part of his position to the point that England and France would not intervene, and he also cited the reasons for their non-intervention. I was missing just that point, in its entirety, in the other reproductions of the speech.
Q In the version of the speech in US-29 it says, verbatim: "I am only afraid that at the last moment some dog will give me some plan of arbitration. Were those words used in the speech at that time?
A In my recollection, certainly not. The Fuehrer was not accustomed to using words like that in speeches which he made to the generals. had, from that time, decided to attack. I am asking you to give us the impression, briefly, which the speech made on you at the time. Tell me also why, despite this speech -- that is, this version -- you remained as Commander-in-Vhief of the Navy. and tremendously tense. The fact is, however, that Hitler, in his speech, put great stress on two f acts: first, to prove that France and England would not intervene; and second, that Mr. von Ribbentrop, the Foreign Minister, left for Moscow on the same day to sign a pact there, as we were told. Thes things filled not only me, but other listeners as well, with the strong hope that here again a large political play was present on the part of Hitler and that in the end he would be successful insolving this problem in a peaceful way.
Therefore, I saw no reason to resign my office at that moment. I would have considered a step like that pure desertion.
DR. SIEMERS: May it please the High Tribunal, in this connection I would like to submit my two documents, Raeder Exhibit 28 and 29, and I ask tha the High Tribunal kindly take judicial notice without my quoting from these documents. BY DR. SIEMERS: through this document -
SIR DAVID MAXWELLFYFE: My Lord, the documents to which Dr. Siemers has just referred -- Raeder's documents numbers 28 and 29 -- the first is a memorandum of General Gamelin and the second is a letter from General Weygand to General Gamelin of the 9th of September 1939. documents as being irrelevant, and, My Lord, the prosecution maintains that objection.
I don't wish to interrupt Dr. Siemer's examination any more than is necessary. If at the moment he is merely asking the Tribunal to take judici notice of the documents and does not intend to use them, it would probably be convenient, in order not to interrupr the examination in chief, that I should merely indicate formally that we are maintaining cur objection to the document
THE PRESIDENT: Is the position that they were allowed to be translated and put in the document book, but no further order of the Tribunal has been given?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: No further order has been given and therefore, My Lord, it is still open to us to object, as I understand the position.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, perhaps we had better deal with it now then.
SIR DAVID MAXWELLFYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.
DR. SIEMERS: May I make a few remarks on this point?
THE PRESIDENT: Well certainly, but we had better hear the objection first, hadn't we? And then we will hear you afterwards.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, Mr. President, as you wish. This is a rather forma point.
I believe that Sir David erred slightly in referring to document number 28. There was no objection to this document, Your Honor; only against 29 was there an objection by the prosecution.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My friend is quite right; we did not object to the translation of 28. However, My Lord, it falls into the same category as 29, and I would still raise an objection. made an objection before.
My Lord, number 28 is a letter from General Gamelin to M. Deladier, on the 1st of September, 1939, in which General Gamelin gives his views as to the problem of the neutrality of Belgium and Luxembourg, and contrasts that view with the view of the French Government. General Gamelin is in itself intrinsically too remote from the issues of this trial to be of any relevance or probative value.
this was a document which, as I understand from Dr. Siemers' verification on page 158, is taken from the White Book of the German Foreign Office, from the secret files of the French General staff, which could not have been captured until sometime after June 1940. Therefore, as a secondary reason, it can have no relevance to any opinion formed by the defendant Raeder in September of 1939. a letter from General Weygand who was then the Commander in Chief of the French Army in the Levant, to General Gamelin. it describes a plan which General Weygand had in mind with regard to possible operations in Greece. My Lord, nothing came of these operations before June 1940, when an armistice was made Marshal Petain on behalf of part of the French people, although not, of course, of the whole, and it can have no relevance to October 1940 when Greece was invaded by Italy or to the position at the end of 1940 and the beginning of 1941 when the invasion of Greece begins to be considered in the German directives and operational orders which have been put in before the Tribunal. applies, that it was also a captured document which could not have been captured before June 1940, and therefore it can have no relevance to this defendant's state of mind in August or September of 1939. list of the documents to which objections will be made, and there are one or two additions which my French and Soviet colleagues have asked me to make, and I will deal with them when they arise. that there are four geographical groups of documents as opposed to the groups under which they are arranged here, whi the Tribunal will have to consider.
One is formed by documents relating to the Low Countries The second, which is Group on the list which I have just put before the Tribunal, deals with Norway. A third deals with Greece, of which No. 29 is an exampl and a fourth is Group E in the list which I have just put in, dealing with tentative proposals and suggestions made by various military figures with regard to the oil fields in the Caucasus or operations on the Danube. with regard to Documents 28 and 29 will apply generally to these groups, and I thought that I ought to draw the Tribunal's attenti to that fact. I addition, my friend Colonel Pokrovsky has intimated to me some special objections which he will have to certain documents on which he can assist the Tribunal himself who they arise. objectionable in themselves, and I draw the Tribunal's attention to the fact that they are also typically objectionable as belonging to certain groups. page 8788, and your Lordship said, "The question of their admissibility will be decided after they have been translated.
M. DUBOST: May it please the Tribunal, I could ask the Tribunal for an opportunity to associate myself publicly with the declaration just made by Sir David, and to propose a few examples which will show the amount of attention which can be given to the documents in question. document published in the German White Book No. 5, under No. 8. This document gives an account of a French prisoner of war, who, so it would seem, was in Belgium since the 15th of April. However, the German White Book gives neither the name of this prisoner nor an indication which would permit the identification of his unit, nor any declarations or indications which would enable us to identify these things.
quality of authenticity.
The Defense is asking that No. 102 be taken into a ccount by the Tribunal. in what manner these documents have been assembled by the German authorities. I would say, first of all, referring to that document No. 102, that the French Delegation has referred to the text published in the German White Book. We have read it with attention. This document is only a preparatory order in view of defensive preparations organized by the Belgians on the Franco-Belgian frontier, facing in the direction of France. We have consulted the Belgian military authorities. This order was a manifestation of the Belgian Government to defend Belgium's neutrality and all its frontiers. document any communication between the staffs of Brussels, London, and Paris, or to show any infringement of neutrality. Affairs in the introduction of the German White Book, page 11 of the French text, has deluded the German defense counsel. The official commentator affirms, on the one hand, that the expression "The Allied Forces used in this document means French and British troops, whereas in reality it is a regular expression used by the Belgians to describe those of their troops that are in liaison with other units of their own army.
The German commentator says, and I quote:
"The general line Tournai, Saint Ghislain, and Binche, is partly in Belgium and partly in French territory. localities are in Belgian territory and they are all at least several times 10 kilometers away from the Franco-Belgian frontier, and in places, 60 kilometers from the French frontier.
I ask the Tribunal to excuse this interruption. I thought it was necessary to give a typical example on the value of the proofs, which is reduced by their production of the German White Book.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal thinks the most convenient course would be to hear your argument now upon these documents, not only upon 28 and 29, but upon the other documents specified in Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe's list, and then the Tribunal would consider these documents after the adjournment and would give its decision tomorrow morning.
DR. SIEMERS: May it please the High Tribunal; I should be very grateful indeed if it would be possible to proceed in a manner a little different. I should like to call attention to the fact that a rather lengthy debate, regarding argument has already taken place, and the decision of the court, I believe, followed. I believe if at this point I comment upon all the documents, a great deal of time will be lost thereby, since the connection and the coherence of the documents will be shown by itself during my presentation of evidence if I now deal with a list submitted by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. In order to show my reasons, I would have to give these reasons which will be shown in the regular course of testimony later on. documents in the order given in the document book was to save time, and then objections would arise one by one as the documents are presented.
THE PRESIDENT: I know; but there are a very great number of documents. The Tribunal will have to hear an argument upon each document, if we do what you suggest, reading the list of Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. There are 30 or 40 documents, I suppose.
DR. SIEMERS: Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe has already stated that he will be guided according to different geographical groups. Therefore, there will not be objections according to each document, but rather towards each group of documents and each conflict of questions; for instance, an objection in the Norway case against all Norwegian documents, or in the Greek case against all Greek documents. testimony I shall have dealt with Greece and Norway already, whereas if I do so now, I shall have to say everything twice. But I shall be guided by the decision of the High Tribunal. way.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I only want to say one word on procedure.
I did hope that Dr. Siemers and I had already occupied sufficient of the Tribunal's time in arguing this point, because, of course, the arguments as to relevancy must be the same. Whether they are so obviously irrelevant as not to be translatable, or whether they are inadmissable, at any rate, my arguments were the same. And I did not intend to repeat the argument Which I made before the Tribunal.
Dr. Siemers already assisted the Tribunal for an hour and a half on this point which we discussed it before, and I hoped that if I stated; as I did state, that I have maintained the points which I put before the Tribunal in my previous argument, that Dr. Siemers might be able on this occasion to shorten matters and to say that he relied on the -- if I may say so -- very full argument which the Tribunal had on the other occasion. That is why I thought it night be convenient if we dealt with them now and put this problem out of the need for further consideration.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal think that you must argue these questions now, and they hope that you will argue them shortly, as your arguments have already been heard in favor of them. But we think that you must argue them now and not argue each individual document as it comes up; and they will consider the Hatter. They have already these documents, but they will consider the matter again and decide the matter tonight.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: MyLord, in as much as the Tribunal decided to have Dr. Siemers argue on the point that was expressed by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe and other prosecutors, I think it is my duty to name three documents to which our prosecution objects. But two of them -- I have in mind Nos. 70 and 88 -- have been already included by my friend Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, into the list which was given to the Tribunal. So all I have to do now is to name three other numbers, so that Dr. Siemers would have it easier in answring all together. I name Numbers 13, 27 and 83.
No. 13 is a record of a report of Captain Lohmann. There is an idea expressed in this report which I cannot call other than a propaganda idea of a typical Nazi. The idea is the aim of the Red Army is world revolution, and that the Red Army is really trying to incite world revolution. That is Document 13, the affidavit of Captain Lohmann.
I consider that it would not be proper if such nightmares and politically harmful ideas were reflected in the documents which are to be admitted by the Tribunal.
My second objection is in connection with the Document No. 27. This is a record which was made by a voluntary reporter of the crimes of Hitler. The Tribunal already rejected Dr. Siemer's application to include two documents pertaining to the same questions; and the Tribunal emphasized that the Tribunal does not wish to compare the authenticity of different documents pertaining to or dealing with the same question. among documents that were admitted two records dealing with Hitler's address in Obersalzburg, therefore there is no necessity to admit the third record of his speech, in as much as in this third version there are altogether slanderous and calumnous remarks in reply to the Armed forces of the Soviet Union and the leaders of the Soviet Union. the Soviet State would ever agree to such remarks included in the record.
The thir d document is No. 83. Document 83 is an excerpt from the White Book. As the veracity of the German book has already been mentioned by Dr. du Best, I consider them as material that cannot be relied upon, and in particular in regard to the document 83. There are several remarks which have absolutely no political basis, and are a type of declamation; that is, pertaining to the relationship between the Soviet Union and Finland. Tribunal to exclude Document 83 from the list of documents that were presented.
Furthermore, it is absolutely clear this document is irrelevant. That is all I want to say.
DR. SIEMERS: May it please the High Tribunal, now when it comes to the document or documents I would like to say now we are disputing about documents which in the original debate by documents which took place on the 1st of May, these documents were not mentioned then.
I had believed, however, that I could have counted on this fact: That at least those documents which at that time were not objected to, that I could consider those as granted me. Now, however, I can see that those documents which were not discussed at that time at all are under dispute now. It is extraordinary.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks you are entirely in error in that under it's observation a document which hasn't been translated cannot be finally passed on by the Prosecution or by the Tribunal, and the fact the Prosecution doesn't object to it at that stage doesn't prevent them from objecting at a later stage when it has been translated.
DR. SIEMERS: There has been some documents about which I was told that the Prosecution wouldn't object, and then, I believed, of course, that that would be the final point and at the same time -
THE PRESIDENT: Maybe I didn't make myself clear. What I said was that the Prosecution in objecting or in not objecting to a document before it is translated, cannot bind themselves not to object to it after it is translated. Is that clear?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes.
Therefore, I shall take these documents one by one. First of all I would like to start with those documents ----
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal will not listen to these document taken one by one. If they can be treated in groups they must be treated in groups. They have been treated in groups by Sir David and I am not saying you must adhere exactly to the same groups but the Tribunal does not propose to hear each document one by one.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I want to discuss those documents. To begin with there are some things which are not clear and were objected to by Colonel Pokrovsky. I did not realise Colonel Pokrovsky mentioned the documents in groups I believe he mentioned five and three of them in detail, and I believe sinceI do not understand everything I can deal with these documents one by one. However, I shall beglad to start with the group as laid down by Sir David. Shall I start with groups, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: When you said you were going to deal with the documents one by one, you meant all the documents one by one?
DR. SIEMERS: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You can deal with Colonel Pokrovsky first.
DR. SIEMERS: Right. Very well. Colonel Pokrovsky as his first document objected to No. 13. This document deals with a document dating back to the year 1935. Certainly Colonel Pokrovsky cannot object to the contents of this document, but how a document can be calssed as irrelevant just because a certain sentence allegedly contains propaganda, that is a point that is not quite clean to me. I do believe I could find instances in other documents, documents which have been submitted during these past six months, I could find sentences which might be interpreted along the lines of propaganda, and I cannot quite picture that should be an objection, and I would like to mention the fact that the High Tribunal quite at the beginning of the proceedings, when we were dealing with Austria, the High Tribunal injected an objection made by the defense regarding a letter. The defense objected because the author of the letter might have been heard as a witness. Thereupon, the High Tribunal, and certainly with right, decided the letter was a document. The only question was the probative value of this letter, and in connection with this I should like to mention that a lecture at a University which is set down in writing is a document. The lecture deals with the naval agreement, and I believe that this shows the relevancy.
THE PRESIDENT: Haven't you made your point on No. 13? You said the majority of the thing is clearly relevant, and only one sentence is alleged to be propaganda, and, therefore, the document should not be struck out. Isn't that your point?
DR. SIEMERS: No, Your Honor, what I am saying is that it is a document which is in connection with the evidence used inthis proceeding, and I donot see how the Soviet Prosecution can dispute it, because it was a lecture given in 1935. I cannot quite understand the use of the word "propaganda" by Colonel Pokrovsky in connection with this document.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't understand what you sayin the least. I thought I put the point you made. I thought you made it clear that the document in itself was relevant and could not be rejected because it contained one sentence which was alleged propaganda. That is your point and I shall want it stated in onr or two sentences and the Tribunal will consider it. I don't see why the time of the Tribunal should be taken up with a long argument about something else.
DR. SIEMERS: Colonel Pokrovsky, in his second objection, if I understood him correctly, cited Document No. 27 and objected to it. In this instance we are concerned with the speech of Hitler at the Obersalzberg under date of 22 August, 1932. I shall try to understand -
THE PRESIDENT: '39 wasn't it, isn't it 1939?
DR. SIEMERS: It is Raeder Exhibit No. 27.
(Interpreter's Note) Your Honor, he said 1932, but I believe he means 1939.
DR. SIEMERS: It is Raeder Exhibit No. 27. It is very hard for me to comment on this document since I don't quite understand the objection put forth by Colonel Pokrovsky.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection was that there was no necessity for a third record of the speech. There were two records which you objected to and he said there was no necessity for a third.
DR. SIEMERS: I would like to add to that then, Your Honor, that then the Soviet Delegation does not agree with the Delegation of the United States in the record at that time. The Representative of the American Delegation said that if any one had a better version of that speech, to please present it. Therefore, I agree with the opinion of the American Prosecution and I believe on the whole that not a word about the relevancy of a speech which was made shortly before the outbreak of the war is necessary.
Document No. 83 is the third document objected to by Colonel Pokrovsky. This contains the sixth session of the High Council at the 28 March, 1940, and there was a draft for decision. It has the heading "Top Secret". In this document the Supreme Council, that is, the Constituents of the Allied leadership agreed that the French and British Governments on Monday, the 1 April, would tender a note to the Norwegian Government. This note is then given according to its contents, and there is a reference to the attitude of vital interests, and it says there then the position of the neutrals would be considered by the Allies as one contrary to the vital interest, and that a reaction accordingly would result.
Under Figure I (c) of this Document, it says: