This was the statement by Grand Admiral Doenitz. The personnel problem of the Allies is very serious; the losses of personnel are hitting the Allies especially hard, for one reason because they have few reserves and, on the other hand, -Q (Interposing): I don't want to interrupt you, but did he say anything about rescues at all?
You have told us about the Allied losses and how serious they were. heavy, first of all because they had no reserves and, for the second reason, that the training of seamen takes a long time, and he could not understand how, at this point, the boats -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Just a moment. I don't think we want to hear the whole of Admiral Doenitz' speech. "e want to hear the material parts of it.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: No, my Lord. BY COLONEL PHILLIMORE:
Q Now, you have dealt with the question of losses. Will you come to the crucial part of the speech, at the end, and deal with that? What did the Grand Admiral go on to say?
DR. THOMA: The testimony of the witness does not concern me directly, but I have certain problems that -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Just a moment. Will you state who you are and whom you appear for? You are Dr. Thoma, are you not?
DR. THOMA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And whom do you appear for?
DR. THOMA: Rosenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. THOMA: According to German law, and German criminal law, the witness has to tell everything that he knows about a matter. If he is asked about a speech by Grand Admiral Doenitz, then he may not -- at least according to German law -- enumerate those things to the Tribunal, which, according to the opinions of the Prosecution, are unfavorable to the Defendant. I believe that this basic principle should apply, that if a witness is questioned in these proceedings the same principle applies also.
THE PRESIDENT: This Tribunal is not governed by German law. I have already stated that the Tribunal does not desire to hear the whole of the speech of Admiral Doenitz. That is all.
DR. THOMA: I beg your pardon. I did not hear all of this explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: What I said was that the Tribunal is not bound by German law, and that I have already said that the Tribunal did not desire to hear from this witness all of Admiral Doenitz' speech.
this witness. Your intervention is therefore entirely unnecessary, BY COLONEL PHILLIMORE:
Q Now, will you deal with the crucial parts of the Grand Admiral's speech?
A Grand Admiral Doenitz continued his speech as follows: Under the given situation he could not understand how German U-boats, contrary to their own safety, would let the ships be saved; it would be absolutely working for the enemy, and these rescued crews would travel again on newer command ships.
Now, the total war at sea was to be instituted. The men -- the seamen -- were to be a target for the U-boats, as well as the ships, and through this it was to be made impossible for the Allies to use this personnel again on a new ship. On the other hand, it was to be expected that in America and the other allied countries a strike was to be expected, for already a part of the seamen did not want to go back to sea. would have heavy respercussions along those lines. If this line is considere harsh, we should also remember that our wives and our families at home were being bombed.
Q Now, about how many officers were present and heard that speech? give you an estimate. I would say roughly 120 officers,
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: My Lord, the witness is available for crossexamination.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the United States Prosecutor wish to ask any question?
(No response)
The Soviet Prosecutor?
(No response)
The French Prosecutor?
(No response).
Now, any of the defendants' counsel may cross-examine the witness.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you counsel for Doenitz?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I represent Grand Admiral Doenitz.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will understand that what I said to Dr. Thoma was not intended to interfere with your cross-examination; it was only intended to save time. The Tribunal did not desire to hear unimportant passages in the Defendant Doenitz' speech. Therefore, they did not want to hear them from this witness. However, you are at liberty to ask any questions that you please.
BY DR. KRANZBUEHLER:
Q You are that Peter Josef Heisig that you say you are?
Q On which boat were you, and who was your commander?
Q Were you successful?
Q Before you had ever sunk an enemy ship?
Q Which enemy weapon?
AA depth charge sunk us. Two Canadian frigates had sighted our U-boat and destroyed it through depth bombs. made on the 27th of November, and in an essential point. How did you come to this statement of the 27th of November? who were before a court-martial and who had been sentenced to death for the murder of shipwrecked sailors. had received reports that German sailors were accused of murder, and you felt yourself duty-bound to give the following affidavit.
Which report had you received, and when?
officers, the crew. At that time I was a prisoner of war in England and I heard news over the radio and from the papers that these officers were to be sentenced. Since I knew one of these accused officers, Lieutenant Hoffmann and since I had two or three times conversed with him on this subject, I felt duty-bound to come to his assistance through my testimony and to help him through my testimony. death sentence against Eck and Hoffmann had already been set?
A I do not know whether it was on the 27th of November. I know only that here I was told of the fact that the death sentence had been carried out. The date I cannot remember; I was in several hearings.
Q. Can you, after knowledge of these facts, state that in the speech given by Grand Admiral Doenitz that the point was made that shipwrecked sailors were to be shot?
A. No; we gathered that from the order, that total war was to be carried on against ships and men, and traceable to the bombings. And we believed and we talked about this on the way back. We were convinced that Admiral Doenitz meant that. He did not speak clearly; he did not express himself clearly.
Q. Did you speak with any of your superiors at this school about this point?
A. On the same day I left school, but I con remember that one of my superiors, whose name I cannot remember -- and in which connection I had this conversation I don't recall -- we did speak about this same topic and we were told or advised that only officers were to be at the bridge of the ship in order to destroy shipwrecked sailors, if this possibility should arise, and if it should be advisable.
Q. One of your superiors told you that?
A. Yes, but I cannot remember the connection or where. I was taught much by superiors, and on many things.
Q. Was it at school?
A. No; I left school the same day.
Q. At school were you kept up on the orders of war?
A. Yes, we were advised.
Q. In these orders was there one word that shipwrecked sailors were to be shot or that their rescue materials were to be destroyed?
A. Those things were not covered, but I believe there was an innuendo by Rollmann, and we believed that a short time prior to that there was a general order that rescue measures were prohibited and that, on the other hand, radical measures of naval war were to be token. That is, it was to be carried on in a harsher manner.
Q. In the prohibition of rescue measures, do you see the same as the shooting of shipwrecked sailors?
Please answer my question. Do you see the same?
A. No.
Q. Thank you.
DR. KRANSBUEHLER: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, I am afraid the Tribunal will have to adjourn now, and I have an announcement to make. You may cross-examine tomorrow.
DR. THOMA: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: As I have already said, the Tribunal will not sit in open session this afternoon. tions which are alleged to be criminal under Article 9 of the Charter, and this is the announcement: upon it by Article 9 of the Charter. the named organizations shall be permitted to appear in accordance with Article 9, without considering the exact nature of the case presented for the Prosecution. stage of the trial, with many thousands of applications being made, the case for the Prosecution should be defined with more precision than appears in the Indictment. to invite argument from the counsel for the Prosecution and for the Defense, at the conclusion of the case by all prosecutors, in regard to the questions hereinafter set forth.
The question which need further consideration are as follows:
1. The Charter does not define a criminal organization, and it is therefore necessary to examine the tests of criminality which must be applied and to decide the nature of the evidence to be admitted, they were conscripted into the organization, or that they were ignorant of the criminal purposes of the organization, or that they were innocent of any unlawful acts.
to rebut the charge of the criminal character of the organization, or whether such evidence ought more properly to be received at the subsequent trials under Article 10 of the Charter, when the organizations have been declared criminal, if the Tribunal so decides.
2. The question of the precise time within which the named organization is said to have been criminal is vital to the decision of the Tribunal. it is intended to adhere to the limits of time set out in the Indictment.
3. The Tribunal desires to know whether, in the light of the evidence, any class of persons included within the named organizations should be excluded from the scope of the declaration, and which, if any.
In the indictment of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party, the Prosecution have reserved the right to request that Politische Leiter of subordinate grades or ranks, or of other types or classes, be exempted from further proceedings without prejudice to other proceedings or actions against them.
Is it the intention of the Prosecution to make any such request? If so, it should be done now.
4. The Tribunal would be glad if the Prosecution would also:
(a) Summarize in respect of each named organization the elements which in their opinion justify the charge of being a criminal organization.
(b) Indicate what acts on the part of individual defendants, indicted in this trial-in the sense used in Article 9 of the Charter-justify declaring the groups or organizations, of which they are members, to be criminal organizations.
(c) Submit in writing a summary of proposed findings of fact as to each organization, with respect to which a finding of criminality is asked. that it is not socking to interfere with the undoubted right of the Prosecution to present its case in its own way, in the light of the full knowledge of all the documents and facts which it possesses; but the duty of the Tribunal under Article 9 of the Charter makes it essential at this time to have the case clearly and precisely defined. to defense counsel in writing.
The Tribunal will now adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(whereupon at 1305 hours the hearing of the Tribunal adjourned, to reconvene at 1000 hours 15 January, 1946) Military Tribunal, in the matter of:
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other Counsel for the Defense wish to cross-examine this witness (referring to Peter-Joseph Heisig, interrogated the day previous)?
(There was no response).
Then, Colonel Phillimore, do you wish to re-examine?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: No, my Lord, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can go.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: Before I call my second witness, Karl-Heinz Moehle, an affidavit by him is the next document on the document book. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q What is your name?
Q Will you repeat this oath: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
THE PRESIDENT: You can sit down, if you wish. BY COLONEL PHILLIMORE: Navy?
Q Did you serve in the German Navy since 1930?
Q Will you tell the Tribunal what decorations you hold? Iron Cross First Class, the Ritter Cross, and the German Cross in Silver. the 21st of July, 1945?
A Yes, sir.
affidavit.
A (Looking at paper) Yes, this is my affidavit, sworn to.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: I put that document in, which is 382 PS, and it becomes GB 202.
Q In the autumn of 1942 were you head: of the Fifth U-Boat Flotilla?
Q Were you stationed at Kiel?
Q How long did you hold that appointment altogether?
Q Was that from June 1941, until the capitulation?
Q What were your duties as Commander of that Flotilla? to be sent to the front, and giving them the orders as well as necessary equipment. the orders? orders and knowing the latest orders of the U-Boat Command.
Q Had you any responsibility in explaining the orders? If there were any ambiguities I used to clarify these ambiguities through the Command itself.
Q Did you personally see Commanders before they went out on patrol? briefing.
Q I will go back, if I may, for two or three questions. Did you personally see Commanders before they went out on patrol? in a briefing session at my office.
Q And what did that briefing session consist of? Were there any questions on the orders?
equipment, fitting out, were discussed with the Commander at that session. Also, the Commanders had an opportunity at the briefing to clarify any ambiguities which might have existed in their minds. Admiral Doenitz's headquarters for briefing? on that the U-Boat Commander had transferred his command post from Paris to Berlin.
A Yes, sir; in September, 1942, I received a message for the Commanders at sea, and it dealt with that question. already put in as GB 199
THE PRESIDENT: what other number has it?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: It is D 630.
Q Is that the order you are referring to?
A Yes, that is the order? that order? was given from recollection?
Q Now, after you got that order did you go to Admiral Doenitz's headquarters?
A Yes, at my next visit at headquarters. I there spoke to Corvette Captain Kuppisch who was in charge, and took the opportunity to discuss that order with him.
Q Will you tell the Tribunal what was said at that meeting? contained in that order -- or I might say, lack of clarity -- should be cleared up and defined. He explained the order on that occasion by two illustrations.
The first example was that of a U-Boat in the Bay of Biscay. It was sailing onpatrol when it sighted a raft carrying survivors of a B ritish plane. The Commander had an opportunity to rescue this airplane crew, but it was considered perfectly useless to rescue them and bring them home, especially as they were from an enemy airplane. He avoided the raft by making a wife circle and continued on his mission. After he returned from his mission he reported this incident to the flag officer of U-Boats and he was thereupon reproached by the staff, for the reason that if he was unable to bring these specialists home it would have been the right thing to do to fight this crew, as it could be expected that in less than twenty-four hours the raft would be found and rescued by British reconnaissance planes,
Q I don't quite get what you said would have been the correct action to take. You were saying the correct thing to do would have been -fight them, as it could be expected that this airplane crew would be found and rescued in a short time by British reconnaissance planes and it could be that in the meantime they could be on another mission and destroy one or two German boats. The second example -
Q Did he give you any second example?
A Yes, sir. The second example I am going to recount now. Example 2. great quantity of tonnage sunk -- I don't recollect the exact number -had been sunk in the shallow waters off the American coast. In these sinkings the crews were for the greater part rescued, because of the proximity of land.
That was exceedingly regrettable, as the merchant marine not only required tonnage but also crews, and these crews were able in the meantime to man newly built ships.
Q You have told us about the ambiguity of the order. Are you familiar with the way Admiral Doenitz worded his orders?
A I don't quite understand the question. worded his orders?
A Yes. In my opinion, the order -- it had been necessary only to read the reference -- the reference is made again or pointed out again that rescue measures should not be taken for reasons of U-Boat safety. In this way the order wuld have been worded -- if only rescue measures had been forbidden. measures it would have been sufficient to refer to the previous order?
Q Was that previous order also marked "top secret"?
A I don't remember that exactly.
Q What was the propaganda at the time with regard to crews? difficulties -
THE PRESIDENT: The question as to the propaganda at a certain time is far too wide a question.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: If your Honor pleases, I don't press it. Tribunal what you understood this order to mean? prohibited, that on the other hand it was desirable that in the case of sinkings of merchantmen there be no survivors. went to Admiral Doenitz's headquarters? of the Flag Officer U-boats, but these visits took place rather frequently in order to discuss also other questions and in order to have the opportunity to get information on ideas of the U-boat command and to keep abreast with developments, as I had to transmit them to the commanders.
Q Now, did you brief commanders on this order? commanders without any commentary. In some few instances commanders have inquired of me what the order meant. In such cases I gave the commander the lead inquiry. I have read to him the two examples. However, I pointed out that the Flag Officer U-boat could not officially give him such an order, and that he had to act according to his own conscience.
Q Do you remember an order about rescue ships?
Q Can you say what was the date of that order?
A I don't remember the exact date. However, I think the order was given at the same time as the order of September 19, 1942.
COL. PHILLIMORE: May the witness see the document D-663 which I put in yesterday?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
COL. PHILLIMORE: It is the German copy of the document that I am showing him;
the original is being held.
THE WITNESS (After examining document): Yes, sir, I recognize that order. "Atlantic" No. 56. According to my recollection, this order was issued previously than the Operational Order 54. It covers the general radius of instructions.
THE PRESIDENT: Col. Phillimore, is that order in the index here?
COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, My Lord, that is the document 663, which I put in yesterday as GB-200. If it is ommitted from the index, your Lordship will remember it is the document we just received, as I explained yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Where does it come in?
COL. PHILLIMORE: It comes in after D-6630.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Your Lordship will remember the order; it deals with rescue ships attached to convoys, and it was on the last sentence that I replied.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I only wanted to get the words of it.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, sir. My Lord, I have the original here now if it is thought necessary that the witness should see it, but he has seen a copy.
Q Do you remember an order about entries in logs?
A Yes, sir. At the time, the exact date I don't remember, it had been ordered that sinkings and other acts which were in contravention of international conventions should not be entered in the log but should be reported orally after return to the home port. case?
A Yes, sir; because when I was taken prisoner it was claimed that I was the author of these orders, and I don't want to have this charge connected with my name.
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, the witness is available for examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any counsel for any defendant wish to ask the witness any questions?
DR. OTTO KRANZBUEHLER (Counsel for Admiral Doenitz): I am Dr. Kranzbuehler, counsel for Doenitz.
Q Corvette Captain Moehle, since when have you been in the U-boat arm?
Q Do you know personally Grand Admiral Doenitz?
Q Since when?
Q Do you see him here in this room?
Q Where? be spoken to by his subordinates?
Q Have you been commander on a U-boat yourself on missions?
Q From when to when?
Q How many ships did you sink? have you fired at the survivors?
Q Did you have an order to do that?
Q Was it dangerous to the U-boat? Had the danger passed after the attack by the U-boat?
Q Why not? position to send a radio message with its position, and therefore in a last minute is able to get other ships onto the spot.
ing comes before rescuing? in which the rescuing was prohibited if there was danger to your own boat? been put down. It was ordered that the safety of your own boat was your main concern.
Q Was it ordered only once, or on several instances?
A That I can't say. quence of an incident in which German U-boats, contrary to orders, had undertaken rescue measures?
Q And the U-boats were then attacked by Allied aircraft? comprise the destruction of rescue facilities and of its crews? they made an inquiry, and they themselves could draw that conclusion from those two examples. survivors? Just a second, I shall read to you a sentence of the order. I read from the document D-630: "1. No attempt of any kind must be made at rescuing members of ships sunk, and this includes picking up persons in the water and putting them in lifeboats, righting capsized lifeboats and handing over food and water. These are absolutely forbidden."
Do you see it in this sentence?
Q "All rescue measures contradict the primitive demands of warfare that ships and crews should be destroyed."
Do you see that in this sentence? wrecked sailors?
Q In the order, at the end of the sentence: "Be harsh". Have you seen that sentence there for the first time?
A. No.
Q. Was that sentence used by the Flag Officer U-boats in order to harden the commanders and their crews against themselves?
A. Yes
Q. You have discussed that order with Corvette Captain Kuppisch?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember that really, exactly and correctly?
A. As far as I can rely upon my recollection after such a long time.
Q. Where did that conference take place?
A. At the staff of the Flag Officer U-boats, probably in Paris.
Q. What position did Kuppisch occupy at the time?
A. As far as I can remember, he was the man in charge of enemy convoys, but I couldn't say that with any definiteness.
Q. The superior officer of Kuppisch was Hessler?
A. As to the superior, one couldn't say that; Hessler was on the same level as Kuppisch.
Q. Was Kuppisch's superior Admiral Goth?
A. Yes, in his activity as Chief of Staff.
Q. Have you spoken to Hessler or Admiral Goth or with the Grand Admiral himself? Have you discussed the interpretation to be given to that order?
A. Whether it was with Hessler, I do not remember, but certainly not with Goth or the Grand Admiral himself.
Q. You said Capt. Kuppisch had told you of the opinion which was prevalent at the staff as far as the attitude of the flotilla chiefs was concerned?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he tell you that that was the opinion of the Grand Amiral himself?
A. I don't remember that. It is too far back. It was for us, the chiefs of the flotillas, of course, a matter of course, that if a responsible member of the staff uttered an opinion, that that was the official opinion of the Flag Officer U-boats. Normally such conferences took place if the other mem bers of the staff didn't want to bind themselves and couldn't give a responsible answer.