day in the cross examination your preparations that you were supposed to have made in this connection were held against you.
DR. SIEMERS: I now come to document c 189, which is USA 44. I beg to apologize for troubling the Tribunal in that I am asking them, if possible, to look at the document again. It is contained in document book Raeder No. 10 page 14, and, incidentally, Sir David re-submitted it yesterday. BY DR. SIEMERS: "against Britain". There under Figure 2 it says, "The C. in C. expresses the opinion that later on the fleet must anyhow be developed to oppose England and that, therefore, from 1936 onward, the largest ships must be armed with 35 cm. guns like the "King George" class." Would this mean that in connection with this remark, you were using the plans of Britain in connection with the "King George" class?
THE PRESIDENT: The reference came through wrong. It came through to me 10, page 14. It is not 10, page 14.
DR. SIEMERS: My Lord, I find it on page 66. I beg to apologize. Is my figure correct now? In my English document book it was on page 14, but--
THE PRESIDENT: It is 66 or 68 in my copy.
DR. SIEMERS: And from there, Mr. President, I have just quoted Figure 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. BY DR. SIEMERS: that you were considering the 35 cm. guns used in connection with the "King George" class by the British Admiralty? nearly as possible which of the larger calibre of guns was being used by other navies. I said yesterday that, to start with, we would be using the French gunboats as a sample, but later on we discovered that the British went up to 35 cm., and I must rely on figures that were actually existing for a possible war and one always went as high as possible.
Q Would I be right, therefore, If I said that the expression "against Britain" in this connection and grammatically according to German language usage is not correct and that it should have said "with reference to England"?
A Yes, it should have said "with reference to England". I said yesterday that it would be quite contradictory if just before the conclusion of the pact I were to say something like that.
THE PRESIDENT: That was fully gone into in cross examination, and the defendant stated his explanation of the words used. BY DR. SIEMERS:
Q From document C 190 Sir David has put something to you. It is the conversation on 2 November 1934 aboard the "Emden" which took place between you an Hitler. He told that you in a conference between you and Goering and Hitler said that he considered the expansion of the navy in the planned manner an absolute life necessity since war could not be conducted unless the navy were to safeguard the ore imports from Scandinavia. It was said that this should be understood to mean that the navy was planning for a war and was to look after the or imports, and that this was an aggressive plan. Are you of the opinion that the British navy was not planned to safeguard imports to England or for the event of war and was not equipped accordingly?
Q Six submarines are mentioned in this document. Considering that figure may I ask you to tell me the number of submarines that Germany should have in order to conduct an aggressive war? that.
DR. SIEMERS: From a document. Mr. President, which was yesterday submit D 806, I want to quote, apart from the second paragraph which has been quoted, the first paragraph and put it to the witness. It is D 806, GB 462, submitted yesterday toward the middle of the day. BY DR. SIEMERS:
Q There it says, "Reference: Submarine Construction Program. On 27 October 1936 decision made regarding the exploitation of the still available U-boat tonnage according to the fleet agreement 1935 and regarding the immediate ordering of new construction of U-41 to U-51."
ines which recording to the fleet agreement of 1935 you were entitled to?
about Austria and Czechoslovakia. Since that subject has been gone into in detail, I shall confind myself to just one question: Hitler? Were you especially asked for your advice in foreign political matters by him? tasks, unless you consider the duties which I had to fulfill in Bulgaria and Hungary after my resignation. intentions of aggression against Czechoslovakia at that time. I think the question ought to be whether there were intentions for an aggressive war.
In connection with that, you have been asked about Goering's threat of bombardment of Prague, and you quite rightly admitted that such a bombing would be a threat. Sir David, of course, cited it as being near to aggressive war, but in order to be quite clear, I want you to tell the Tribunal when you learned of this planned bombing. conversation. I heard no announcement and I knew nothing else of it.
Q So that before the occupation you knew nothing of it? altogether.
DR. SIEMERS: Then there is the document C-100, Mr. President. It was presented yesterday under the number GB-464.
THE PRESIDENT: I have it as No. 463.
DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon; 463. BY DR. SIEMERS:
Q From that document I want to quote to you from page 10. It is page 6 of the attached document. I want to put the following sentence to you. I quote:
"Fuehrer asks whether there were any special wishes of the Navy with reference to bases on Dutch-Belgian Coast. Commander in Chief Navy says no since bases are within reach of British coast and are therefore useless as submarine bases."
Was that your opinion regarding the question?
THE PRESIDENT: Where, exactly, are you reading from? Your pages aren't the same as ours. With reference to the Roman numerals, for instance Sir David quoted from Paragraph IV.
DR. SIEMERS: I beg to apologize, Mr. President, but the German copy is very difficult to read. My copy consists of seven pages, and then there is an attached document regarding the report to the Fuehrer on the 6th of November 1939.
THE PRESIDENT: You have got Roman numerals in it, haven't you? Haven? you got the passage that Sir David read, Paragraph IV?
DR. SIEMERS: I can't see any Roman numerals here, I'm afraid, but I will have a look at the English text.
THE PRESIDENT: It is in the English text. It is on page 5, No. IV:
"Decision of the Fuehrer is made in favor of a western offensive beginning very shortly..." and so on.
DR. SIEMERS: Apparently, Mr. President, Hr. Elwyn Jones is right. He says that the part which I have just been reading wasn't contained in the English translation, but it is part of the photostat copy of the original. The English translation only contains the first part of the document, and not that report to the Fuehrer of November 1939.
THE PRESIDENT: You had better read it then.
DR. SIEMERS: Very well. It is Figure 6 of that enclosure:
"Fuehrer asks Commander in Chief Navy whether special wishes of Navy exist regarding bases on Dutch-Belgian coast. Commander in Chief Navy says no, since bases are within reach of the British coase and are therefore useless as submarine bases." BY DR. SIEMERS:
Q According to this, Mr. Witness, you were not in favor of an occupation of Belgian and Dutch bases, nor did you in any way occupy yourself with this question. as the Navy was concerned, could not offer any useful bases since all forces would be within reach of the British.
That is why I was disinterested in Belgium and such places. Oslo Embassy, expressing the view that the danger of a British occupation of Norway was hardly very great, and that such actions were only being taken by Germany.
I have only one question on that. Did the Embassy in Oslo, that is to say Brauer, know the information that Admiral Canaris was supplying to you?
A I can't tell you that on my part. I was never in direct contact with Dr. Brauer, only with the naval attache, but I must add that Dr. Brauer had only been in Oslo for a comparatively short period, and that apparently he wasn't as well informed as he should have been. Also, statements by Norwegian ministers weren't properly appreciated by him.
Q Wasn't there an order from Hitler that the Foreign Office should not be informed regarding plans concerning Norway? Reich Foreign Minister himself was informed very late.
Q In other words, the Ambassador could not have had Canaris' information through military sources.
Q Then there were several documents, D-844 and D-845. It was put to you from those that there was no danger in Scandinavia. Was the information that you received at the time different?
THE PRESIDENT: All this was gone into yesterday, and the witness gave the same answer.
DR. SIEMERS: I believe that the following has to be mentioned though. BY DR. SIEMERS: in the territorial waters off Norway? have taken place a few days earlier.
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing); Dr. Siemers, the only purpose of re-examination is to bring out matters which are favorable to your client which have not been raised in cross examination, that is to say, to explain anything which has not been given in cross examination. He has given his account in cross examination. It is no good putting it to him again in re-examination, We have heard it.
DR. SIEMERS: I think that on this particular point there was one explanation missing. BY DR. SIEMERS: 1936, and how the legal situation regarding submarine warfare would have been influenced, which is a somewhat difficult question, and it is difficult to answer it in two seconds, You have mentioned aircraft. Can't you supplement your statement?
A Yes, because I had forgotten the most important point. At that time there was strong opposition against me, and the important point is that the sighting of ships at sea by aircraft was something quite new and had been developed very efficiently. Location was developed very rapidly during the war, Submarines could very quickly be located and very quickly hunted.
Dietmann, may I, with the Tribunal's permission, make a formal application? In this affidavit, there is the following sentence:
THE PRESIDENT: Dietmann, you mean?
DR. SIEMERS: GB-474
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dietmann's affidavit.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, Dietmann's affidavit. There is the sentence, the last sentence which was read yesterday: "It is my personal opinion that the highest formation of the Navy in Kiel and other locations in Germany had knowledge of these dreadful things."
THE PRESIDENT: Had knowledge or must have had? It seems to me it is in the translation "must have had knowledge."
DR. SIEMERS: Yes. I haven't got the German and I don't know how the original is worded. I only have the English translation. It isn't quite clear to me how the German version was worded
THE PRESIDENT: Is the document put in/the original Germa or is it put in in the English? The deposition is in German presumably.
DR. SIEMERS: I presume that originally the statement was in German. The copy I have states that this is a translation and of course it is English but I haven't seen the German original.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, there must have been a German copy for the witness yesterday. I don't know whether or not it is the original. I didn't see it but I assume it was.
THE PRESIDENT: It isn't the case that the deposition was made in German, then translated into English and then translated back into German, was it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that is why I assume it was the original. I am sorry it was made. I haven't got the original document in front of me but I assume that was so. I will find out in a moment for you.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. What is the point, Dr. Siemers.
DR. SIEMERS: I believe that this sentence should be struck from the document.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean, you are asking to have it struc out or what?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you have to say, Sir David
SIR DAVID MAXELL FYFE: My Lord, the witness sets out fully the fact in the preceding paragraph of the affidavit and then it is true that he introduces the sentence "By my personal opinion..." but the gist of the statement is that from these fact which I have stated"...the highest formations of the Navy in Kiel and in other places in Germany must have had knowledge of these terrible conditions."---a man who has been working in that detachment of the German navy and knows the communication between that detachment and the headquarters, is in a position to say whether headquarters would have knowledge from the facts he has stated. In his inference, that has a greater probative value than the inference which the Court can draw. The objection to the statement of a matter of opinion is where the witness gives his opinion on a matter on which the court is equally capable of drawing its opinion from the same facts but the importance of that statement is that he is saying "working in the bow and being familiar with the chain of command and communications," and I say that anyone at Kiel must have been able to learn from these facts what was going on at these places -- so that is the narrow point, whether his special knowledge entitles him to express a view which the Court, without that special knowledge, would not be in a position to draw.
THE PRESIDENT: But ought he not theoretically to state all the facts and if he does state all the facts, then the Tribunal will be in the same position as he is to form a judgment and it is for the Tribunal to form the judgment.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that is exactly the point to which I was addressing my argument, that there is an additional fact, that because he was working there, was part of the chain of naval command and he is speaking of the knowledge of the naval command from the point of view of somebody who was work ing in it and therefore he has on that point his opinion as to the sources of knowledge, and the necessity of constructive knowledge is an additional fact.
My Lord, the state of a man's mind and the expression of his knowledge may be a fact in certain circumstances just as much as it is a fact, as it is stated, as Lord Broyne once put it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if the state of his knowledge is directly relevant to an issue.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord, that is the point here.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a form of export evidence.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, in a sense, it is not as your Lordship says in a form, it is not in a usual form, but it is the evidence of somebody who has special knowledge. My Lord, it is a well-known distinction, for example, in the laws of LIBEL between the persons who have expert knowledge and the public at large and, my Lord, the opinion of someone with a special knowledge of the facts must, my Lord, have probative value within Article 19 of the Charter. My Lord, if the provision is that this Tribunal is not bound by the technical rules of evidence as to mean anything at all, I submit it should cover the expression of opinion on a point such as this; that is, the ability to have knowledge, which is given by somebody who is in a special position to state such an opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a very small point, Sir David, and we have to decide the matter and form our own opinion about it, and this man isn't here for the purpose of being cross-examined for anything of that sort.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: No, that is so my Lord but, of course that, with respect, cuts both ways. Here he gives an affidavit and part of it as the basis, leads up to that conclusion. I should respectfully submit that that conclusion is a statement of fact --- but, if your Lordship says so, the time will come when we can ask your Lordship to draw that conclusion as a matter of argument ourselves but, my Lord, on the general position, the only reason that I have occupied even this much of the Tribunal's time is that Article 19 is an important matter in view of the prosecution and, therefore, we have to argue against it being whittled down.
It is the only reason that I take up the Tribunal's time.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I just draw your attention to one point. Sir David has just been mentioning the well-known legal difference. That is just what I want to make my argument on, the differen ce between fats and opinions. Here opinion is mentioned and please note that the following sentence does even go further there; there, the witness is coming to a legal opinion and he is stating who is responsible; therefore, he is passing some sort of judgment. Furthermore, please, will you consider that this is quite a minor official who, after all, can't possibly make such far-reaching statements, saying that higher formations in Kiel and some other places, quite generally expressed in Germany, had knowledge of something or other.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, before the Tribunal adjourn, might I make a correction and an apology? My Lord, I thought that a copy in German had been put to the witness yesterday, of this affidavit and apparently it was a copy in English. The original affidavit was sent off on the 6th of May; it was verified over the telephone by Colonel Phillimore and it has not yet arrived; an English copy was sent and has been processed and the original will be put in as soon as it arrives. My Lord, I thought we had the original but apparently it has not yet arrived, but it is an English document put to the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you let Dr. Siemers see the original as soon as it arrives?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has carefully considered Dr. Siemers' application and it has decided that the passage to which he objects and which he asks the Tribunal to strike out in the affidavit of Walter Kurt Dietmann shell not be struck out, in view of Article 19 of the Charter.
The passage contains an opinion only, and the Tribunal will consider that opinion in relation to the whole of the evidence when it is before the Tribunal, and will decide at that time the probative value of this opinion as well as the probative value of the other evidence.
Dr. Siemers, may I remind you that you told us your re-examination would take, you hoped, about half an hour?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, Mr. President, I shall conclude very shortly. BY DR. SIEMERS: discussed a good deal, yesterday Sir David put a case to you regarding the attack on the ship Tirpitz. In this connection I should like to ask you: Do you recall that in this particular a point was raised in the testimony of Wagner about the British sailor Evans? number 64, GB-57, Flesch declared: "I do not know that Evans were a uniform"?
Q Then I do not need to submit the document to you?
A No, I don't need it. the same day during Wagner's testimony, he says: "The British sailor Evans was captured wearing civilian clothing"? committed a murder without the knowledge of the Navy?
A Yes. This man had been apprehended by the SD or the Police, not by the Navy. He had been interrogated by the admiralty in the meantime. Bordeaux. I clarified this situation in Wagner's testimony the other day. to escape to Spain.
A Yes, that is true.
discussed yesterday, and when this group was led by Vice Admiral Heye, did our soldiers ever appear in civilian clothing?
Q Always in uniform?
A Yes, always in uniform. They were soldiers and they were used along with submarines and other craft like that.
DR. SIEMERS: As my last point, Mr. President, I should like to point out that yesterday Colonel Pokrovsky submitted a document, USSR 460, which deals with the Moscow declaration.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: My Lord, the point is that yesterday the Tribunal made a decision about submitting to the attorney for the defense extracts from USSR 460. Today the prosecutors have exchanged opinions amongst themselves; and the prosecution of the United States, represented by Mr. Dodd, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe for Great Britain, and myself for Russia, have agreed that it is necessary for us to request you to permit us to read into the record here today, so that it will be included in the record for today, several brief extracts referring to Admiral Doenitz, to Keitel, and to Jodl. These are the excerpts which, yesterday, the Tribunal did not find possible to have read into the record as evidence. We understood the Tribunal in such a manner as to interpret that as being occasioned by lack of time to consider it thoroughly. read into the record today. The excerpts referred to yesterday by the defendant have hot been included in yesterday's minutes. For that reason I am requesting just about five minutes' time to read these excerpts into the record today, on behalf of the prosecution of the three countries.
THE PRESIDENT: What would be the most convenient course, Dr. Siemers? Would you like to have them read now so that you can put any questions upon them?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I just make this remark? The Soviet Delegation has been kind enough to put the original at my disposal. I perused the original yesterday, and I looked at the excerpts and extracts. The Soviet delegation has also been kind enough to put a photostatic copy of the extracts involved at the disposal of the High Tribunal. I am completely in agreement with the suggestion, but I personally do not have the intention of putting any questions on this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SIEMERS: I would like to ask that the resolution which was put forth by the High Tribunal yesterday be upheld, that this not be read, the same procedure which has been applied to other documents of the same type which were not read either.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, the document was originally in German. Presumably it has been translated into Russian; it has certainly been translated into English.
Unless the members of the French Prosecution want it read, if it hasn't been translated into French there doesn't seem to be any use taking up the time of the Tribunal in reading it into the record, e have got the document in English, and we have all read it.
MR. DODD: Mr. President. I think there is one reason. Even if it read into the record, it will at least be tomorrow before the transcript is available for the defendants who are referred to, and this witness, or this defendant, will be off the stand. If they want to cross-examine about what he has said about them, then we will, I suppose, have to bring this defendant back on the stand. I think we will lose far more time by doing that, rather than now having Colonel Pokrovsky take five minutes to read it. They will all hear it, and then if they want to examine about it, they can do so promptly.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SIEMERS: If you don't wish to ask any questions about it, you can conclude your re-examination, and then Colonel Pokrovsky can read the document, Then any of the other defendants can question the witness upon it if they wish t
DR. SIEMERS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that not be the best way, Colonel Pokrovsky?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: I am agreed, Mr. President, but I do believe that this document need not be read, because Mr. Dodd was a little bit incorrect when he said that the defendants are not familiar with this document. They are thoroughly familiar with it. I believe everyone knows it, and I do not think that it needs to be read. However, in the final analysis, it really makes very little difference to me personally.
THE PRESIDENT: If the defendants' counsel do not want i t read then the Tribunal does not want et have it read unless defendants' counsel want to ask questions upon it.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, I am not interested in having the document read. I know the document.
DR. SIEMERS: I have just been advised that the defense attorneys know the document, do not put any value on having it read and do not wish to put any questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, Mr. Dodd and Colonel Pokrovsky, it does not seem that it serves any useful purpose to have it read.
MR. DODD: No, I am satisfied your Honor. I have not heard from Keitel's attorney; I assume he is satisfied. I am just concerned that at some later date -- a very interesting document to us, of course I am just concerned some question may be raised and I am also sympathetic to the desire of these defendants not to have it read publicly.
The defendant Schacht's counsel has not spoken either. I think it might be well,Mr. President, if we had a careful statement from counsel for each of these men that they do not wish to question on it so that we
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the defendants' counsel are all here or all the defendants are represented and they must clearly understand what I am saying and I take it from their silence that they acquiesce in what Dr. Siemer's has said, that they do not wish the document to be read and they do not wish to ask any questions.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I have not understood your decision, my Lord. Are you permitting me to read these few excerpts or are you not?
THE PRESIDENT: No, Colonel Pokrovsky. I am saying as the defendants' counsel do not wish to document to be read it need not be read.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: We do give a great deal of importance and significance to this document as it involves not only the interests of the defense but also the interests of the Prosecution. reason only a very short part of it was included in the stenographic record for the day and it seems to me that the defense today have reasons not to have it read publicly, especially the defense counsel for Keitel, Jodl and Raeder.
It appears to me that our interests are quite at stake there, I mean that we have it included in the stenographic records.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky and Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal has ruled yesterday that it was unnecessary that the document should be read and the Tribunal adheres to that decision in view of the fact that the defendants' counsel do not wish it to be read and have no questions to put upon.
Yes, Dr. Siemers.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I will now conclude my examination of Grand Admiral Raeder. I do not know whether other questions will be put to Grand Admiral Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any question which has arisen out of the cross-examination which the defendants' counsel want to put?
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I should like to put two questions, Mr. President. BY DR. KRANZBUEHLER: orders and memoranda as to the U-boat warfare. with the U-boat warfare which during your term as commander-in-chief of the navy were issued and which you issued? decrees issued as to the U-boat warfare which took place under my responsibility as well as every naval operation which I ordered.
In the S.K.L. and with the officers of the S.K.L. I worked out these directives, I approved memoranda and in accordance therewith put forth my decrees. The commander-in-chief of the U-boats was solely the tactical commander of the U-boats. He transmitted the orders and he led and carried through the operations. he could not determine who actually gave the orders that the log book of the U-boat that sank the "Athenia" was to be changed.
Admiral Godt testified in answer to my question that he had issued this order at the request of Admiral Doenitz. Do you know of any fact which would show this testimony of Admiral Godt to be incorrect?
A No, I did not concern myself with this case. I only decreed the three points which have been mentioned repeatedly.
Q Therefore, you consider Admiral Godt's testimony as being correct? very reliable.
DR. KRANZBUEHLER: I have no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant can return to the dock.
DR. SIEMERS: Then, with the permission of the High Tribunal I should like to call my first witness, the former Reich Minister of the Interior, Severing. as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you state your full name?
A Karl Severing. I am 70 years old and I live in Bielefeld.
Q Wait one minute. Will you repeat this oath after me. pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(Witness repeated oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. BY DR. SIEMERS:
Q Mr. Minister, please tell the High Tribunal what role you played up until the year 1933 in the Social Democratic Party and which ministerial posts were yours up until the year 1933. union movement and when I was eighteen years I entered the Social Democratic Party and as a result of that I was active and had honory positions at a relatively early age.
In the year 1905 I was counsellor in the City of Bielefeld. I belonged to the Reichstag from the year 1907 up until the year 1912 and I became a member of the Reichstag once more and a member of the Prussian Diet in the year 1919. I was in the Reichstag and in the Prussian Diet until the year 1933. I was Minister from the year 1920 until 1921, that is Minister of Prussia; then again from 1921 to 1926; from 1930 until 1933. Then in the meantime from the year 1928 until 1930 Minister of the Interior for the Reich.