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:
"Any attempt by the Soviet Union in obtaining from Norway a position on the Atlantic Coast would be contrary to the vital interests of the Allies, and would provoke that appropriate reaction."
THE PRESIDENT: You don't need to read the document, do you? I mean you can tell us what the substance of it is. It appears it is an objection as to any further attack upon Finland and would be considered by the Allies to be contrary to their vital interests. That is all.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, this word "vital interests" is a decisive one. I do not wish, as the prosecution seems to think, to bring an objection. I want to show only how, according to International Law, our position was, and at the same time There Grand Admiral Raeder had certain processes of thought regarding Norway, Greece and so forth, at the same time the Allied Agencies had the scene thoughts, and they were basing their thoughts on the same idea, the International Law, which was established by Kellog, and that was the right of self-preservation, and that this right was maintained, and I can show my point only through these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: The point made against you by Sir David was that the document could not have come into the hands of the German authorities until after the fall of France.
DR. SIEMERS: Now, I shall deal with the groups as designated by Sir Dav:
Sir David laid down certain basic expositions and clarifi-
cations. Regarding Document Numbers 28 and 29 he mentioned specifically and pointed out that in one case these were the thoughts of General Gaelin and in the other case thoughts of General Weygand and that these thought processes were not known to the Germans at that time since these documents were not in our hands at that time. The latter point is correct. Processes of thought and the plan to occupy Greece, to destroy Romanian oil wells, those thoughts were known to the Germans, and through their Intelligence the Prosecution had data -- did not present the dada of the German O.K.W. which show these reports. Since I do not have these data I believe it would be well if I have the possibility, to quote the known facts which were known to Germany at the time and to prove the facts that way, since I have not other May of proving these facts that it is so easy for the Prosecution to take from documents which I need for the presentation of my case. And I can understand that, but the Prosecution must also understand the fact that I must insist that those documents which are definite proof for plans should remain at my disposal. Grand Admiral Raeder has been accused that an aggressive war was a criminal war of aggression, and that the planning of the occupation of Greece was to be considered as such. Document Number 29 shows that General Weygand and General Gamelin on the 9th of September 39 concerned themselves with the planning for the occupation of neutral Saloniki. In this is the case I cannot understand how that on the German side German Admiral Raeder would be accused that a year and half later he also concerned himself with such plans. I do believe therefore that these and similar documents should be granted me, for only from them can the military planning and the value of the military planning, or the objectionable side, that is, the criminal side of the planning -- be seen and understood. The stratigic thinking of the defendant can be understood only if one knows approximately what strategic thinking was carried on at the same time by the opposition ; the strategic reasoning of Grand Admiral Raeder isn't in a vacuum, but it depends on those reports andintelligence reports which he received about the strategic planning of the oppostion, of the enemy.
It is a mutual effect and this idea of the muttual effect -- cause and effect -- is necessary for a complete understanding, therefore, in connection with this very essential point of view, to grant me these documents, since as I have already stated the other day that I do not Know just how in these grave accusations regarding Norway I can carry on my defense at all if all of my documents be stricken. I do believe that I Have been understood correctly that I do not assert that we knew these documents. I am saying that Germany knew the contents of these documents, and I believe it is sufficient for me to state that fact.
66, Group A. This Document Number 66 is the expert opinion of Dr. Mosler, an expert at international law, about the aspect of the Norwegian campaign as seen in the light of international law. I would have my doubts about rejecting this official report, for a refusal of this document would force me to set forth the trend of thought detailed point by point, and I believe that for the High Tribunal, for the Prosecution and for me it is much easier if in this connection I may in general bring those -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This is a document which is a matter of legal argument. If the Tribunal think it would be of any assistance to have the argument in documentary form, I would willingly withdraw my objection to that. That is on quite a different project than the other one, and I want to help in any way I can As I am before the microphone:
I did mention that there were two other documents that fall into the same group. Number 34 falls into Group 3 and Number 48 into the Group E.
DR. SIEMERS: May it please the High Tribunal, I do not wish to dispute Number 66, I just wanted to ease the situation for everyone. And further documents are 101 to 107 in this group. These are documents. I cannot say that this is a unified group. One document deals with Norway, the other deals with Belgium, the third deals with the Danube. The unity of this group escapes me. As a matter of basic principle those documents have this point in common, that, as I have already stated, a planning was present in the Allied general staff as well as in the German, and all were based on the international law tenet of self-preservation; and in order to be brief at this point I should like to refer to Document 66 particularly, and to save time I ask that the citations, the quotations which I will quote from 66, be the reasons dealing with the right of self-preservation. I am referring to the quotations on Page 3 and Page 4 of this expert report, that the legal evaluation is made very clear herein, and it is set forth very clearly in this expert report that as far as the question of occupation is concerned -- occupation of Norway, that is -- we are not concerned with that, but if the Allies had as a matter of fact landed in Norway, the question was only whether such a plan actually existed -- that we are not concerned with, the fact whether Norway agreed or did not agree.
The danger of a change ofneutrality according to inter national law prescribes the right to use preventative measures or to attack on your own accord; and this basic tenet according to the entire literature which is quoted in this document, has been maintained. And in my speech later on I will refer to this point. specially. Document 107 is not concerned with the Reichs books like the other documents are. 107 is an affidavit by Schreiber. Schreiber was the Naval attache from October 1939 onward and he had this post at Oslo. From the beginning I have said that I needed Schreiber as a witness. In the meantime, I dispensed with Schreiber because even though we tried for weeks, we could not find him. I discussed this matter with Sir David and with Colonel Phillimore. I was advised in this matter that there should be no objection on this formal point since Schreiber suddenly and of his own accord reappeared again.
If, as the prosecution wishes, this piece of evidence is taken from me - -
and by that I mean the affidavit of Scheiber about the Intelligence reports which Grand Admiral Raeder received from Oslo and, beyond that, the documents from which the authenticity of these Intelligence reports may be shown, then I have no means of proof for this entire question at all. Schreiber was at Oslo during the entire period of occupation and he can testify as to the behavior of the Navy; he can testify as to the efforts of Grand Admiral Raeder in connection with the regrettable civil administration. They talked about this and ha can testify on that point. Therefore, I am asking the High Tribunal to grant this affidavit to me or, on the other hand, to grant Schreiber as a witness so he can testify before the Court. This latter course, however, would take up more time. I have tried to limit my evidence to such a decree that I believe in the entire span of fifteen years with which we are dealing in the case of Defendant Raeder such an affidavit should be granted me. already made. The group seems to be rather Heterodox, but I believe they are all documents taken from the White Book. That is, the same trend of thought still applies.
THE PRESIDENT: I think Sir David recognized that there was a certain decree of lack of identity in these groups but he suggested that they all fill into geographical groups, one group the Low Countries, one group Norway, one group Greece, and one group the Caucasus and the Danube, which agrees with "E". That is what he said. Couldn't you deal with them in those geographical groups?
DR. SIEMERS: Very well. I have already briefly mentioned Greece and would like to say briefly in this case that there was a double accusation raised: 'One, that neutral ships had been sunk - that is neutral Greek ships; and a second accusation of the aggressive war against Greece and by that the occupation of all Greece. the Greek merchantmen I would like to say only that in this case the action and demeanor of the Defendant seems justified in that when he received Intelligence reports, which are in accord with the documents which were found a month later in France, the same reports were received by Raeder when he told his point to Hitler.
I would like to prove that these reports which came to him through the Intelligence Service were actual facts, and the same applies to the oil regions where plans existed to destroy Roumanian oil wells; and, furthermore there was a plan to destroy the Caucasian oil wells.
Both of these plans were with the ideal of damaging the enemy, first of all German, and in the second case Russia, because at that time Russia was friendly with Germany. These plans are and this is shown by the document - - in the same form as all other documents presented by the prosecution. These documents as well, in their entirety, are top secrets; they are personal, confidential. They had these labels; just as the prosecution has always said, why did you do everything secretly, that to us seemed suspicious. These documents contain an instance of a strategic planning idea as do the documents presented by the prosecution. That is something which arises from the nature of war and which is not meant to be an accusation on my part, and it should not be construed as an accusation against Grand Admiral Raeder by the prosecution.
Then the group of the Ribbentrop documents follows. I can say only that which I said the other day, and as I glance at it cursorily now, the documents in the Ribbentrop document book are not as complete as they are here. Therefore, I believe it is important to take the documents with their complete content and to investigate them with the point of view of Raeder rather than the point of view of Ribbentrop. That perhaps may have taken place as the High Tribunal suggested the other day. Then I believe, however, it is no objection to be used by the prosecution, to say that these were Ribbentrop documents and in the case of Ribbentrop they were partially admitted and partially rejected, for some which were granted Ribbentrop were refused me.
Then we turn to Group "E" and that is tuque quo (??) I believe I have already said sufficient on that point the other day. I dispute it again and I can not understand why the prosecution will not agree with me on that. I do not with to object. I am not saying tu quoque *---* . I am saying only that there is strategic planning which is carried on in every war and there are tenets in international law which applied to the Allies as well as to us; and these foreign political possibilities of comparison, I beg they be granted me.
for me to define my position and comments in such a brief period of time on about forty documents, and I am asking the High Tribunal to facilitate my work by not refusing these documents to me.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will carefully consider these documents and your arguments.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 17 May 1946, at 1000 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal have given careful and prolonged attention to the consideration of the documents offered by Dr. Siemers on behalf of the Defendant Raeder; and they, therefore, do not wish the documents which they propose to admit to be read, because they have already read them all.
Document 74 is denied.
who made that document.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle) That is Admiral Boehme.
THE PRESIDENT: Admiral Boehme, yes.
Have I gone too quickly for you, Dr. Siemers? You have the last few?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, I heard everything.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, yesterday afternoon the Tribunal asked that we ascertain the origins, if possible, of document 1014 PS. Some question was rais about it by Dr. Siemers, It is U. .A. Exhibit No. 30. to submit concerning this document. all concerning this same speech made at Obersalzberg on the 22nd of August, 193 They were offered in evidence by Mr. Alderman of the American staff on the 26th day of November, 1945.
I should like to point out that L-3, to which Dr. Siemers made reference yesterday, was offered only for identification, as the record shows, for the proceedings of that day on the 26th of November, and has received the mark U.S. Exhibit No. 28 for identification only. Mr. Aldermann pointed out, as appears i the record, that he was not offering it in evidence, that it was a paper which came into our hands originally through the services of a newspaperman, and that later on, the documents 798 PS and 1014 PS were found among captured documents.