HERMANN GOERING, resumed.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: with which you were presented were not minutes of a meeting of the Reichs Defense Counsel as such? take it, that the Reichs Defense Counsel never met? possession -- the minutes of the second session of the Reichs Defense Counsel. I should have siad just come to our translation. We haven't had it translated; we just discovered it among our great collection of documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Could Doctor Stahmer have a copy in English or not?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: We haven't even had a chance to get it into English. I don't know what it says except that it is the minutes of their meeting. BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Counsel held on the 23rd of June 1939? President General Fieldmarshal Goering. You will find that on page 1.
A I have never disputed that. It was never disputed. It was fixed by law. This deals with the second Reichs Defense Counsel, not the first one. Besides, I did't take part in this meeting; and I point out that on the left the offices are listed and which represent tives took part, and in my case it says "Minister President Fieldmarshal Goering", and as participant for him, on the right, "State Secretary Koerner and State Secretary Neumann." But it may be I have to read the document first in order to find out whether I took part personally.
Q Does it not say on page 1, directly under the place of meeting, "Chair man: Minister President Goering"?
Q Do you deny the authenticity of those minutes?
A I haven't read through it yet.
It seems to be an absolutely authentic copy of the minutes. I admit that. But here again we are dealing with a meeting not, such as I expressed myself in answering my counsel, of the Reichs Defense Counsel but a larger meeting in which any other officials participated, and the second council after 1938, the second Reichsvereteidigungs Council, not the secret one, which dated from 1933 to 1938.
Q In other words, in interpreting your testimony, we must under-
stand that when you say there was no meeting of the Reich Defense Council, you only mean that there were no meetings in which no other people were present?
A No, that is not correct. There were two Reich Defense Laws concerning Reich Defense Councils, which I tried to explain in my statements. The secret one, which had not been publicized, of 1933 to 1938, and the Reich Defense Council which later was created in 1938 and was transferred into the Ministerial Council in 1939, and that one held meetings anway beyond the number of its own remembers, the ban of secrecy? or No. It is hardt answer this question with Yes or No. I assert that the secret defense council. which had not been publicized, which consisted of ministers from 1933to 1938, never met. After 1938 a new Reich Defense Law created a new one. At that time it was clear that re-armament had already been publicized. This first one, which was called the secret one here, ha s never met, and the document of yesterday proved that. whether one of the very things that this meeting concerned itself with was not be lifting of the secrecy ban from the Reich Defense Law?
A No, that is not the way it reads here. If I may translate it, the last point of the discussion -- consequences resulting from the lifting of the secret protection of the Reich Defense Law, protection od secrecy, and measures to facilitate the working have already been taken care of on the 26th. The consequences resulting from the lifting of the secrecy ban. of the government were more radical than you, and would you state who those were? was in the beginning to remove them from political positions and other leading positions in the state,.THE PRESIDENT:
That is not a direct answer to the question. The question was that you said some members of the government were more radical towards Jews than you were, and would you tell us which of the members of the government were more radical then you were. A Excuse me, I did not understand the question to mean who, but wherein that more radical attitude was manifested. If you ask who, then I want to point out that these are Minister Goebbels and Himmler, primarily. Q Do you also include your co-defendant, Streicher; as more radical than you? A Yes, but he was not a member of the government. Q He was a gauleiter, was he not, for this very territory in which we sit? A That is correct, but he had hardly any or no influence at a in measures of the government. Q What about Heydrich? A Heydrich is then included in the list of the more radical ones to whom you refer? A That is right, yes. Q What about Bormann? A Bormann's activities in the more radical direction I could observe only during the later years. I do not know anything of his attitude in the beginning. Q Now, I want to review with you briefly what the Prosecution understands to be public acts taken by you in reference to the Jewish question. From the very beginning you regarded the elimination of the Jew from the economic life of Germany as one phase of the Four Year Plan under your jurisdiction, did you n A The elimination, yes, that is right in part, The eliminati as far as the large concerns were concerned because there continually disturbances were created by pointing out that the were large industries, also armament industries, still under Jewish directors or with Jewish shareholders,and that caused serious distrubances about the industries.
Q Now, do I understand that you want the Tribunal to believe t that all you were concerned about was the big Jewish enterprises. That is the way you want to be understood? A I was not at first disturbed by the small stores. Q When did you become disturbed with the small stores? A When trade had to be limited, then it was pointed out that this vould be done first by closing the Jewish stores. Q Now, let us go through the public acts which you performed on the Jewish question. First, di you proclaim the Nurnberglaws? A As President of the Reichstag, yes, I have already stated that. Q What date was that? A 1935, I believe, in Nurnberg in September. Q That was thebeginning of the legal measured taken against the Jews, was it not? A That was a legal measure. Q That was the first of the legal measures taken by your government against the Jews, was it not? A No, I believe that the elimination from various phases of civil employment was before. Q When was that? A I could not state the exact date, but I believe that happene in 1933. Q Then on the first day of December 1936, you promulgated an a making a death penal-ty for Germans to transfer property abroad or leave it abroad; the property of a culprit to be forteited to the state, and the People's Court given jurisdiction to prosecut did qou not? A That is correct, the act to protect foreign currency. That i to say, whoever without the permission of the government established an account in a foreign country without permission of the government. Q The, your third public act was on 22 April 1939 when you published penalties for veiling the character of a jewish enterprise within the Reich was it not?
A Yes.
Q Then on 28 July 1939, you Hermann Goering, published certain prescriptions on the competence of the courts to handle those matters by the decree, did you not? A Prease, would you kindly read the law to me? I do not know i Q I will not take time reading it. Do you deny that you published Reichsgesetzblatt Law, 1939, found on page 1370, referring to the competence of the courts to handle penalties against the law? If you do not remember, say so. A Yet, I say that I can not remember the law. If it was in the Reichsgesetzblatt and has my name under it, of course, it is so, but I do not remember the contents. Q Now, on 26 April 1938 you, under the Four Year Plan, publish a decree providing for the registration of Jewish property and provided that Jews inside and outside Germany must register their property, did younot? A I assume so. I do not remember it any more, but if you have the decree there and if it is signed by me, there can not be any doubt. Q On 26 April 1938 you published a decree under the Four Year Plan, did you not, that alle acts of disposal of Jewish enterpris required the permission of the authoritiers? A That I remember. Q Then you published on 12 November 1938 a decree also under the Four Year Plan, imposind a fine of a billion marks for statement on all Jews? A I have already axplained that, that all the decrees of that time were signed by me, and I assumed responsibility for them. Q Well I am asking you if you did not sign that decree. I am going to ask you some further questions about it later. A Yes.
Q Then on the 12th of November, 1938, you also signed a decree that, under the Four Year Plan, all damage caused to Jewish property by the riots of 1938 must be repaired immediately by the Jews, and at their own expense, and their insurance claims were forfeited to the Reich.
Did you personally sign that law? A A similar law I signed. Whether it was exactly the same as you have just read, I could not say. Q You don't disagree that that was the substance of the law, do you? A Yes. Q And on the 12th of November 1938, did you not also personally sign a decree, also under the Four Year Plan, that Jews may not own retail stores or engage indpendently in handicrafts or offer goods or services for sale at markets, fairs, or exhibitions, or the leaders of enterprises or members of cooperatives. Do you recall all of that? A Yes. Those are all parts of the decrees for the elimination of Jewry from economic life. Q Then, on the 21 st of February, 1939, you personally signed decree, did you not, that the Jews must surrender all objects of precious metals and jewels purchased to the public office within two weeks? A I do not remember that, but I am sure, without doubt, that that is correct. Q I refer to Volume I of the Reichsgesetzblatt, 1939, page 282. You have no recollection of that? A I do not have the Reichsgesetzblatt in front om now, but if there is a decree there in the Reichsgesetzblatt or a law signed by my name, then I have signed that law and decreed it. Q Did you not also, on the 3rd of March, 1939, sign a further decree concerning the period within which items of jewellery must be surrendered by Jews-- Reichsgesetzblat, Volume I, 1939, page 387?
A I assume taht was the decree of execution concerning the decree mentioned before.
A law sometimes requires regulations of execution as a consequence of the law. Seen together, this is just one measure. Q Did you not also sign personally a decree under the Four Year Plan of the 17th of September, 1940, odering the sequestrat of Jewish property in Poland.? A Yes. I stated that once before. In that part of Poland, if I may point that out, which had been previously a old German province. It was to return to Germany. Q Did you not also, on the 30 th day of November 1940, personal sign a decree which provided that the Jews should receive no compensation for damages caused by enemy attacks or by German forces, and did you not sign that in the capacity of President of the Reich Defense Council? I refer to Reichsgesetzblatt, Volume I, 1940, page 1517. A If you have it there before you, then it must be correct. Q You have no recollection of that.? A Not concerning all details of law and decrees. That is impossible. Q Then, it was you, was it not, who signed, on the 31st day of July, 1941, a decree asking Himmler and the chief of security police and the SS Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich to make the plans for the complete solution of the Jewish question? A No, that is not correct. This decree I know very well. Q I ask to have you shown document 710, US-509. THE PRESIDENT: Is that 710-PS? MR JUSTICE JACKSON: 710-OS, your Honor.
(A document was handed to the witness.) That document is signed by you, is it not? A That is correct. Q And it is addressed to the chief of the security Police and the security service and to SS gruppenfuehrer Heydrich, isn't it?
A That is also correct.
difficulty about the translation of this, you correct me if am wrong:
"Completing the task that was assigned to you on the 24th of January, 1939" -
A That is a mistake already. It says, "In completion of the task with has been transferred to you," not as it was translated to
Q Very well, I will accept that. " Which dealt with arriving Jewish question in the German Sphere of influence in Europe.
" Am I correct so far?
Q Give us your translation of it?
A May I read it as it is written here? " In completion of the in the way of organization and material matters."
Now comes the decisive word which had been mistranslated:
"For a collective solution," not" for a final solution."
"For an entire, a collective solution of the Jewish question within the area of German influence in Europe.
As far as here the "That is to say, a t a time when no war had started or was to be expected.
point out that date.
Q Yes. Well, I just didn't want it to appear that it was a part of the instrument.
The last that is contained in the instrument is:
" I charge you furthermore to send me, before long, an over-all plan concerning the organizational, factual and material measures necessary for the accomplishment of the desired solution of the Jewish question." Heydrich and Himmler? would have anything to do with it. That can be seen from the first part of the letter, the last sentence.
Q Let's have no misunderstanding about this translation, now. This letter itself we directed to the chief of the security police and the security service and SS Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich. We are right about that, are we not? that. with the decree of the 24th of January, 1939, that is to say Himmler, respecttively, had received the task of emigration of Jews. Therefore, this was the central office concerned with regard to all the material and economic consequences. I had to turn to that office which was charged with that task.
Q Yes. And you ordered all other governmental agencies to cooperate with the security police and the SS in the final of the Jewish question didn't you? Heydrich was SS Gruppenfuehrer. He had nothing directly to do with it, because it was sent to chief of the security police -- mentioning his rank as SS Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich. to do with the case?
A I have to explain that. If I write to the supreme commander of the army, then I write to the supreme commander of the army, Colonel-General or Fieldmarshal von Brauchitsch, for instence. And if I write to the chief of the security police, SS Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich. That was his rank and his title. However, that had nothing to do with the mentioning of the SS.
Q Now, at the time that you issued this order you had received com-
plete reports as to the 1938 riots and Heydrich's port in then, hadn't you? the information about it at that time -- only the report by Heydrich about the riots which I had demanded.
Q All right. Now we will show you Exhibit No. 3058 PS, in evidence as U.S. Exhibit 508.
(A document was handed to the witness) 11 November 1938, was it not? persons for looting, the destruction of 815 shops, 171 dwellings set on fire or destroyed, and what those indicated only a fraction of the actual damage caused? 191 synagogues were set on fire, and another 76 completely destroyed; in addition, 11 parish halls, comentary chapels. and similar buildings were set on fire, and 3 more completely destroyed; 20,000 Jews were arrested; also, 7 aryans and 3 foreigners. The latter were arrested for their own safety. 36 Deaths were reported, and these seriously injured were also numbered at 36. Those killed and injured are Jews. One Jews is still missing. The Jews killed include 1 Polish national. and those injured include 2 Poles. you not?
A That is correct. That is th report which I have mentioned which I had requested from the police, because I wanted to know what had happened up to then.
Q Exactly. And the note was make at the top of it. "The General Fieldmarshal has been informed no steps are to be taken," was it not?
A That is not correct in this way: It says here, " General Fieldmarshal has been informed no steps are to be taken from any other office," because I myself wanted to take them.
Q Now, you know that that isn't true, don't you, that those steps were to be taken by any other office? I put is ti you squarely whether you are telling this Tribunal when you say that no steps were to be taken by anyone else, whether you are telling this Tribunal the truth.
done, because I pointed out I am going to take care of it personally, because with this report I want straight to the Fuehrer.
Q All right. Did you receive a report from the chief Party adjutant of the Nazi Party, dated Munich, the 13th of February, 1939, of the Party proceedings about these matters?
A That is correct. Much later I received that report.
Q And at the time you appointed -- I withdraw the question. It is obvious from the dates of the documents. You acknowledged the receipt of that document, did you not, to Party member Buch? ceedings taken by the court of the Party, were they not?
A Not quit; some were brought before the court. Taht is in the report also.
Q I ask that he shown the report,which is document 3063-PS. It is not in evidence. Since the document apparently hasn't been brought here, I will ask you from your recollection.
Q I thought so.
Q Yes, it has been kept from you. Now, in the first place, the Pary court reported that it was probably understood -- I quote -- "by all of the Party leaders present, from oral instructions of the Reich Propaganda Director, that the Party should not appear outwardly as the originator of the demonstrations but in reality should organize and execute them." Was that the report of the Party court? lished that the propaganda Chief Goebbels has given these directives. My I ask, we are dealing with a report of the days ofMarch or maybe April?
A Yes, that is correct; that is the result of investigation after the incidents.
Q That is right. Now, as a result of the riots, did the court, the Party court not also report this to you: "The Supreme Party Court has reserved for itself the investigation of the killings, severe mistreatment and moral crimes and that it would request the Fehrer to squash proceedings against any persons that the Parry court did not find guilty of excesses." leaders of the Party?
A The Party court changed. I cannot say just now, without having the document, who was the Party court at that time. I just see the document. where the report says "Gauleiters ans Group leaders of the branches served as jurors at the trials and decisions." Party Court were always taken from these categories according to their importance. I only wanted to express I did not know which names were participating. Did they not?Number I was a moral crime and race violation by one of the members of the Party and he was expelled.Is that right? A And turned over to the penal court. That is what it says in t last sentence.
Q That is right. Another Party member, Number 2 case, was suspected of race violation and was expelled from the Nazi Party
A: For suspicion of race violation and turned over to the State Court.
Q Yes; and number 2, Gustav, was expelled from the Party and SA for theft. Right? also on suspicion of race violation; turned over to the State Court. the grounds of moral crimes against a Jewess and they are now held in protective custody. Right?
A Expelled from the NSDAP, taken into protective custody; those have also been turned over to the civil courts later and to the penal courts. I know that very well. a man, a Party member and SA member, who was given a warning and sentenced to three years, deprivation of ability to hold public office because of disciplinary violation; namely, killing, of the Jewish couple Selig, contrary to orders. Is that right? tence of three years, deprivation of ability to hold office because of shooting a sixteen year old Jew, contrary to orders after completion of the drive. Is that right? proceedings were suspended or minor punishments pronounced, and I will not go through those in detail but it is a fact that only minor punishments were proounced for the killing of Jews by the Supreme Court of the Party, were they not?
Q I call your attention to this language in regard to cases 3 to 16.
Q Nine, Ibelieve it is. The supreme Party Court asks the Fuehrer to squash the proceedings in the State Criminal Courts. suppress. A penal proceeding can be "niedergeschlagen" In German that is something different. It is not the same thing as suppress it is. What does beating down a proceeding mean, does it mean that it has ended? office which has authority to do it; that is to say, the Fuehrer can do that. The Cabinet at any time could resolve to suppress, that is, to beat down a proceeding -- suppressing it would have been illegal. That is the juridical expression in Germany, "niedergeschlagen."
Q And one further question. It was also reported to you. Was it not in that report -- I refer to page 11 -- "The public down to the last man realizes that political drives, like these of the 9th of November, were organized and directed by the Party, whether this is admitted or not. When all the synagogues burned down in one night, it must have been organized in some way and only have been organized by the Party." That also was in the report of the Supreme Party Court, was it not?
A I did not find it yet. It is not the same page as mine.
Q Let us find it and not have any mistake about it. Page 11. I would think it would be at the very bottom of page ten, perhaps, were it starts.
Q Did I give a reasonably correct translation of it?
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to brak off? before we break off, one moment; You will offer in evidence these which are not already in evidence?
MR JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, they should be, your Honor, I will do that.
THE PRESIDENT:I think 3575-PS may have been offered yesterday, and not strictly offered in evidence, and 3063-PS today, and one other document the number of which I haven't got.
Mr. JUSTICE JACKSON: I appreciate very much your calling my attention to it.
(A recess was taken until 1545 hours.)
DR. HORN (Counsel for the defendant Ribbentrop):
Mr. President.......
INTERPRETER: I am sorry, but I'm not getting this at all.
THE PRESIDENT: The interpreter is saying that she could not hear. Will you please repeat what you said.
DR. HORN: I ask you, your Honor, to permit the defendant von Ribbentrop to be absent from tomorrow's session, as there are many matters that I have to discuss with him, so that I may have my material ready, and I request your permission.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, your suggestion as I understand it, is that the defendant Ribbentrop should be absent from tomorrow morning's sitting in order that you may consult with him in reference with the preparation of his defense. Is that right?
DR. HORN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has no objection to that course being taken privided that you make some arrangement whereby another defense counsel may be present in court in your absence from court if any questions arise. The Tribunal does not wish that you use your absence from court as an objection to something which may have arisen in your absence, you understand that, don't you?
DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President, and I give you my assurance that I will not use an objection of that nature and shall ask one of my colleagues to act in my behalf.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has no objection to your taking that course of action, but of course you realize that the trial cannot be held up by any delay which might be caused in the future by the fact that you were not present.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, the purpose of my request is such that it will help me to avoid future delays.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I quite understand that. I was only saying that in allowing you to do this, which is perfectly reasonable, the Tribunal is merely indicating they will not grant future delays which might occur.
DR. HORN: I understand that and I wish to tank you.
BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON:
quotes a speech of yours delivered at Essen on the 11th of March 1933, including the following -- and I refresh your recollection by calling it to your attention:
"I am told that I must employ the police. Certainly I shall employ the police, and quite ruthlessly, whenever the German people are hurt, but I refuse the motion that the police are protective troops for Jewish stores. No, the police protect whoever comes into Germany legitimately, but it does not exist for the purpose of protecting usurers."
Did you say that? that or that in substance? the speech. Before I answer, I would like to ask whether you have quite finished with the other document that was submitted to me previously. I gave no explanation and will ask my Counsel to have me questioned later on in regard to that document. you called a meeting on the 12th of November and ordered all officials concerned to be present, and that the Fuehrer had inisted on Goebbels being present.
AAll the leaders of the economical "resorts" or departments. Goebbels?
A Those present were, as fas as I recall, for reporting purposes: The Chief of the Secret Police, the Minister of Economy, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of the Interior -
Q Will you please name them by name so we won't have any mistake about who was who at that time.
A I can quote only from memory. Present were, to report all events: The Leader of the Secret Police for Berlin, Heydrich, Minister of the Interior, Dr.Frick; Dr.Goebbels you have mentioned already; the Minister of Economy, Funk; Finance Minister,Count Schwerin Kresick; from the Eastern Province, Fischboeck for the Ostmark. although there may be a few others who were there too. was also present, was he not ? which are in evidence as US Exhibit 261, being document 1816-PS, have you not, in your interrogation ? misunderstanding aobut the translations.
You opened the meeting with this statement, as I read it: "Gentlemen" -- I think perhaps you had better identify this meeting. This is the meeting held on the 12th day of November 1938 at the office of the Reichsministry forAir. That is correct, is it not ?
Q You opened the meeting: "Gentlemen, today's meeting is of a decisive natuere. I have received a letter written on the Fuehrer's orders by the Stableiter of the Fuehrer's Deputy Bormann, requesting that the Jewish question be now, once for all, coordinated and solved one way or another". Is that correct ?
Q Further down, I find this: