Q When and why did you leave public life?
A From official public life I took my departure in July of 1932; from political life at the time in Which there was prohibition against the Social Democratic Party. a later date, were you arrested and, if so, at whose order? the Reichstag. This order for my arrest was signed by the then Minister of the Interior, Mr. Goering, who at that time was also president of the Reichstag and, if I may utter an opinion, who would have had the obligation, as president of the Reichstag, to protect the immunity of the members of the Reichstag. Under the breach of this immunity I was arrested at the moment at which I entered the Reichstag building.
Q Mr. Minister, but you participated in the vote on the Enabling Act? against the treatment which was accorded me, had complained to Goering, but this complaint had only the outcome that at the time of the vote I was not permitted to take replies. Then the Reichstag President Goering permitted me to say no as my vote for the Enabling Act?
Q You were arrested but briefly? I was permitted to leave Berlin on the second day and had the instruction to be ready at my home in Bielefeld for further interrogations.
Q Mr. Minister, despite your well-known anti-Nazi position, you were not arrested later and put in a concentration camp -- that is as far as I know' and I say this with all modesty -- of the respect which the old Prussian officials had for me. At the end of October of 1933 I heard from the Police Chief in Bielefeld that something was in the wind against me. The Police Administrator advised me that they would not be in a position to give me any protection and they advised mo, therefore, to leave Bielefeld for several months. I followed this advice that they gave me from October, '33 until the end of March, '34, I lived in Berlin. I used a false name. First of all I stayed with friends; then I was in a small Jewish sanitorium in Wansee.
Then in August of the year 1944 there was a further arrest imminent. The list of those who were to be arrested summarily -- that is the list of those men and women who were suspicioned of having plotted against Hitler in July, 1944, my name was on that list. One of my friends -
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say '44 or '34?
DR. SIEMERS: '44. After the attempted assasination of Hitler of July, 1944.
THE WITNESS: May I continue? BY DR. SIEMERS: given to the police which ordered certain people to be arrested. On this list issued in Bielefeld my name was to be found. Then one of the officials whom I knew from the past pointed out that I was close to my seventieth year of life and had lost my son in the war. By pointing out this fact, that I was almost seventy and that I had lost a son, he succeeded in crossing my name from the list. National Socialists damage you or did you derive any detrimental effect from them? movements. I wasnot especially surprised that the postal service and the telephones were under control. I considered that asa matter of course. But I could not even take a trip without being followed and watched by the police. Mr. Minister, I should like to call your attention to the fact that I had material damage but besides that I had ideal damages, and those I received at the hands of the National Socialist Party after they assumed power I had many disadvantages that way. A political measure, which originated in the year 1932, was used against me, and I might say it was used against me in a criminal way. They talked about me as the "thief of millions", and this epithet was applied to my family and the members of my family.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, is this witness going to rive any evidence which has relevancy to the Defendant's case?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, bring him to it then as soon as possible.
DR. SIEMERS: Very well. BY DR. SIEMERS:
Q Mr. Minister, try to be as brief as possible in this connection. It is of course true that you had ideal damages as well, but as the basis of my examination and your testimony I would like to ascertain whether there were tremendous damages which accrued to you and I would like to have you tell us, but briefly, whether National Socialism -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, what relevancy has that got to Raeder's case?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I should like to marshal my questions to this point, that through a brief description of the life of the Minister, as shown during National Socialist times, that he can answer the questions which deal with Raeder; that he can give objective answers about Raeder for, first of all, he had no advantages but rather disadvantages from the Nazis.
THE PRESIDENT: You have dealt sufficiently with the disadvantages now. Go to the matters which relate to Raeder. He has given us, from 1933 to 1944, a fairly general account of his life and that ought to be sufficient.
DR. SIEMERS: The prosecution accuses the Defendant Raeder, that in his capacity as Commander in Chief of the Navy he violated the Treaty of Versailles, specifically, with the intention of carrying on aggressive wars, and also, to do with behind the back of the Reich government. In order to shorten the proceedings and the testimony, I would just like to mention that this is a fact; we do not dispute this fact. It is a matter of history that Germany, in the development of her Navy, acted against the stipulations of the Versailles Treaty. These facts are known to the Tribunal. Even before this deadline, the then government decreed that an armored cruiser was to be constructed. About the construction of this cruiser there was a political debate, and in a debate before the Reichstag dealing with this cruiser the witness gave a speech. I have a brief excerpt from this speech which I should like to submit to you and which I should like to read. Mr. President, this is Raeder Exhibit No. 5, to be found in Document Book I, Page 13. This is an extract from a speech by the Reichsminister Karl Severing to the German Reichstag on the 20th of January, 1928.
BY DR. SIEMERS:
Q Mr. Minister, at this period of time you were not a minister. Rather, you gave this speech as a member of the Reichstag?
Q The extract reads: "Now the armored cruiser. The fact that a government, which knows precisely what gigantic sums we must raise during the coming year, should make such demands, is, to say the least, very remarkable. It says, the Peace Treaty permits it -- yes, but the Peace Treaty also decrees the payment of reparations. The 93 million marks demanded for this year will play their decisive part only in their consequences and those consequences require several hundred million marks to raise, which during the next few years seems to me absolutely impossible. Considering the development of weapons for naval warfare, I am unconvinced also of the military value of armored cruisers. It may be that armored cruisers are the backbone of the defense at sea, as the government says. But, to form an active fighting unit, (Gefechtskoerper) a backbone must also be made up of other members, of U-boats and airplanes, and as long as we are not allowed to build these, armored cruisers are of very little value even for defence." Is that extract from the speech correct?
Q Can you gather here that the Social Democrats and you, per-
sonally, at that time were ofthe opinion that the Wehrmacht which was granted Germany according to the Versailles Treaty might not be used for a defensive war because it was not large enough? was not to be used for a defensive war everyone knew and everyone in Germany knows that today who was concerned with political things. It was a very bad situation that obtained for Germany, especially since the establishment of the corridor, and the position which was very bad, in her relation to her eastern neighbor. The insular position of East Prussia even at that time forced Germany to take measures which I saw and carried through with disagreement; but the population of East Prussia had a right to be protected against attacks which were threatening from the east. I'm not speaking about an aggressive war and. I'm not speaking of theplans of the Polish Government, but I would like to refer you to the fact that in the years 1919, 1920 and 1921, there were groups in Poland who wanted to attack. They set foot on the German soil and possibly with the idea of
THE PRESIDENT: This evidence is all a matter of argument. Not only is it a matter of argument, but we have had it over and over again from nearly all the defendants and a good many of their witnesses and, surely, it is not assisting the Tribunal in the very least to know what this witness said in 1928 or what view he took in 1928.
DR. SIEMERS: May it please the High Tribunal, I believe in the course of the testimony it will be shown that Minister Severing is a member of that government, a cabinet member of the 28th, and the government was carried through this cabinet andits meeting. I agree with the opinion of the High Tribunal that thesematters have been heard very frequently, but I should like to point out that Sir David even yesterday in cross-examination accused, the defendant that, against the will of the Reich Government and against the wish of the organizations and despite the testimony of Raeder, he violated the Treaty of Versailles. Then, if after the testimony of Raeder, the Prosecution persists in their opinion, I have no other possibility to correct the inaptitude of the opinion of the Prosecution.
The only way I have to do that is throughthe question ing of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The question that the Treaty of Versailles was violated is a question of fact and, of course, upon that you can give evidence and you did give evidence through the defendant Raeder; but this witness is not talking about the question of fact. He is arguing that Germany was entitled to defend herself in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. That is what I understood his evidence to be and that is a question of argument, not a question of fact.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, as far as I know -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the class of evidence which has just been given by this witness will not be listened to by this Tribunal. If you want to prove facts by him, you can prove them, but you cannot prove arguments or his views upon arguments. BY DR. SIEMERS: attack in Silesia and Poland? East Prussia; therefore, it was necessary to protect the population of East Prussia, and this was brought about in that I, personally, give my voice and agreed that all weapons which were found in East Prussia were to be given to the population. Under conditions with applied at that time, even for purposes of inspection, it was very hard to pass through the corridor even by rail; so that in the year 1920, I had to make a tour of inspection by way of water rather than land. I am mentioning this fact to show the difficulties of transportation through the corridor. I want to show the difficulty. In the years 1920 and '21, it wasnot possible for theGerman Wehrmacht to prevent attacks of Polish insurgents in Upper Silesia and, I am sorry to say, and I emphasize "I am sorry", that a certain self defense had to be created in order to protect and defend German life and German property.
Q Mr. Minister, Reichswehr Minister Groener, beginning with January, 1920, were the peasures which he wanted applying to armament based, as far as you know, on defensive or offensive basis?
everything that he did and carried through was based on the thought of defense.
Q This also applies to the armored cruiser. I should like to know why the Social Democratic Party, who was interested in the idea of defense, was against the building of this armored cruiser.
building of the armored cruiser for the economic situation did not warrant the making of any expenses which were not absolutely necessary. And the Social Democratic Party wanted to prove and to show that they could do everything within their power and they wanted to realize disarmament. They did not believe that the building of an armored cruiser would be a good gesture for the bringing about of negotiations.
Q Mr. Minister, on the 28th of June, 1928, a new Reich Government was formed. Moeller was chancellor; Stresemann was froeign minister, and you were minister of the interior. What position did your government take to the problem about disarmament stipulated in Versailles, disarmament by all countries as vs. the armament of Germany?
A I have already touched and assorted this problem. In the Social Democratic Party and after the entry of Moeller into the government, we were of the opinion that we would have to use all our efforts in order to solve just this problem. In September of 1928 the French Chancellor Moeller, as deputy of the Foreign Minister Stresemann, who was ill, went to Geneva in order to bring this problem before the League of Nations meeting. Moeller gave a very definite and firm speech which, if I remember correctly, was received very cooly by allied statesmen; so that any practical suggestion for the realization of disarmament could not be hoped for.
Q Mr. Minister, in July, 1928, you spoke with Reich Defense Minister Groener about the buget and, specifically, about the fact that there were secret budgets and knowledge which had gone through the Wehrmacht about this dealing with the armored cruiser and so forth. What attitude did you take in this connection and what results came about on the basis of your agreement with Greece? extract from my speech, which you just submitted to the High Tribunal. In the same Reichstag session in which I gave this speech, Groener appeared for the first time as successor of Gossler. I had, as far as Gossler was concerned, given a few farewell words to him. I greeted the now minister with the remark that my political friends would show him respect, but that he would have to deem our confidence first, and on the basis of this remark Groener most likely replied to these remarks. When in the first session of Moeller's Government he approached me and said that he was looking forward to a collaboration with me, on that occasion I quoted a passage from Schiller's works, but between us there was to be truth and only on the basis of this truth and clarity it would be possible to bring about a working together on a collaboration.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal thinks that this is an absolute waste of time and this speech of the witness is entirely irrelevant. Why do you not ask him some questions which have some bearing on the case of Raeder?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I remind you that it is an accusation on the part of the Prosecution that the rebuilding took place by using a secret budget and that a rearmament was carried on with the idea of carrying on wars of aggression later on. It is not quite clear to me how I can cross-examine him otherwise than what I am doing to show how in his government these secret budgets, which are practically identical with violations of the Versailles Treaty, how those secret matters were dealt with and that is the point on which I just questioned the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: This speech that you have drawn our attention to is simply a speech in which he said that he did not think that armored cruisers were of any use.
That is the only meaning of the speech, except, insofar as it refers to the fact that reparations had not been paid. For the rest it simply says that armored cruisers, in his opinion, are of no use.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I do not wish to plead my case. In the speech which I read something else is said. It says there that for economic reasons, the Social Democratic Party was against the building of this armored cruiser, not because of strategic reasons.
THE PRESIDENT: That would have nothing to do with a charge of making an aggressive war in 1939.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I did not raise the accusation of an aggressive war; the Prosecution did that, but I have to protect my client against the fact that in 1928 he hadintentions of carrying on an aggressive war, and I assert that he had no intention of that sort and that the Reich Government knew about the violations of the Treaty, that the Reich Government took the responsibility for that, and the testimony of the Minister will show that these are actual facts.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask him some direct questions on issues of fact. Then the Tribunal will listen to them if they are relevant, but the Tribunal considers that the evidence of his speech that you have been dealing with is an utter waste of time.
DR. SIEMERS: I shall try to be brief. BY DR. SIEMERS:
Q Mr. Minister, I will put single questions to you. Please answer them.
You said that you demanded of Groener confidence and truthfulness. In this connection, did you ask for a clarification of the secret budget and violations of the Treaty of Versailles which had taken place up to that time? Reichsminister Marx had agreed that under the leadership of Captain Lohmann in the Navy Department there had been a concealment of the budget, and that could not be in accordance with political decency, political sincerity or good bookkeeping.
Q What did Groener reply?
A Greener then told me that he had the intention to discuss these matters at the cabinet meeting and to receive clarification on this point.
Q Were the leaders of the Wehrmacht to be present at this Meeting?
Q Mr. Minister, when did you meet Grand Admiral Raeder? days of October, 1928, probably on the dry when he paid me an official visit on my assuming office.
DR. SIEMERS: As Raeder exhibit Number 6, I submitted to the High Tribunal, as the High Tribunal will probably recall, a speech by Raeder dating to 23 January 1928. There was a covering letter with this document. This document will now be submitted to the witness. BY DR. SIEMERS: 1928. Did it take place five days after the appointment of Raeder as commander in chief of the navy?
Q Just a moment, Mr. Minister. May I ask you to confirm to the High Tribunal that this discussion with Raeder was saved by you and that it is a true and authentic copy?
A The letter which I put at your disposal, Mr. Solicitor, is on original letter by Raeder. It is in accordance with the incidents which you just mentioned. the conversations between you and Raeder, in its basic line, was in accordance with the thought of this speech?
that a war of aggression was a crime? agreed with Groener that the violations of the Treaty of Versailles would have to be rectified and that a cabinet meeting would have to take place? to be sincerity and truthfulness and clarity? that you could work pleasantly and correctly together with Raeder and that he would tell you the truth? ned took place. May I ask you to describe that cabinet meeting, but briefly in case it is agreeable to the High Tribunal to have the witness picture this session I believe that a description of this session would save time, rather than to have me ask single questions. Therefore, Mr. Minister, be brief in telling us what happened. things which might be considered a concealment of the budget or which Were violations of the Versailles Treaty. Both gentlemen, the Commander in Chief of the army and the Commander in Chief of the Navy, spoke.
Q I beg your pardon; did the entire cabinet attend? a session at which all the most essential members were present.
Q Was Stressmann present?
A I cannot tell you whether Stressmann was present. He was ill in September and whether he had recovered by 18 October, I cannot say.
I may say, Mr. Solicitor, that if Mr. Stressman was not present, certainly someone else who was an authorized deputy from the Foreign Office was present. and did they expressly give the asssurance--as I remember, an affidavit--that only those violations which were mentioned were the violations which had taken place?
not know, but, in any event, at the request of the Reichschanceller and on my request, they said that no further violations would take place. without the knowledge of the Reich Government?
everything?
Q Was that declaration made? Versailles concern important and essential things? interested in the extent of the violations and the size and sum. I wanted to know what I could do in my now capacity against organizations which were not permitted, and I wanted to know what the total sum was that was involved. I was thereupon told--and I believe that this was set down and confirmed in writing later -- that perhaps five and a half to six million marks was the amount involved in the concealment of the figures.
Q Mr. Minister, do you remember the administrative figures as they applied in those days, and what can we gather from those figures? Can we show that they were tremendous violations with the intention of aggressive purposes, or can we gather that in the final analysis they were just trifling violations? of the/navy and the army, and, therefore, I cannot quote the figures from memory, but my entire impression was -- I gathered from the army that trifles were involved. This impression was the one which caused me to assume a certain political responsibility for those things, and especially in this connection, since we were assured that further concealment of the budget or other violations were not to happen again. infringements of the Treaty concerned themselves purely with defenses, with flak batteries, with a strengthening of the coasts? the speeches which Groener made at the time when he was Defense Minister were along those general lines. In all of his speeches in the Reichstag, Mr. Groener expressly declared that he was interested in a happy pacifism. In answer to your question, Mr. Solicitor, I reply that Groener's statement, and I believe his directives, were based on defense and defensive measures.
responsibility for the infringements and the secret budget in a small scope? act according to these directives? infringements of the navy against those agreements did not take place during my term of office as Minister of the Interior. that the promise that he made that he would not infringe secretly on the Treaty -- that he kept this promise? I believed that he would keep his word.
Q Just one more question, Mr. Minister. Of course, you cannot remember the details, but do you perhaps recall that on the occasion of the cabinet meeting of 18 October there was discussion about a Dutch firm which was carrying on the construction of U-boats? that at that period of time, that subject was much discussed -- whether that was done in another cabinet meeting or in another meeting of parliament or another committee of parliament -- that experimental stations had been established for the army and the navy in Russia, Sweden and Holland.
Q Purely experimental stations?
A I can say only that there was talk to this effect. Whether experimental stations had been established I cannot tell you from my own experience.
Q Mr. Minister, could Germany hope that some day, despite the Versailles Treaty, she would be permitted to build U-boats?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, how can he answer that there was a hope that they would be allowed to build U-boats? That is what your question was, was it not; was there a hope?
DR. SIEMERS: I know, Mr. President, these questions were dealt with in the government which obtained through the years 1928 to 1932, and I believe that Stresemann carried on these discussions. Since Stresemann is no longer alive, I would like to ask Mr. Severing on this point.
THE PRESIDENT: That is more political gossip. BY DR. SIEMERS:
Q Mr. Minister, on whom did it depend that this was brought up in the Reichstag? Raeder is accused of acting behind the back of the Reichstag. Who submitted this to the Reichstag? Did Raeder do that?
A I do not quite follow you. Who submitted the budget, you mean? and was sent to the entire cabinet, and from the cabinet these suggestions as to the budget were put to the Reichstag. matter for the Reich Government and not for the commander in chief of the navy, is that right? committee of the Reichstag, the exports were responsible for bringing it to the Reichstag, but the responsibility was to the Reich Cabinet.
THE PRESIDENT: It was never alleged as to the defendant Raeder that he submitted it to the Reichstag; it was never put to him.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, yesterday it was asserted -
THE PRESIDENT: Go on with any other questions? BY DR. SIEMERS: the government, with the various leading personalities in the Wehrmacht, and on that occasion made a statement which was publicized later by certain persons. there had been a decrease in my respect for some personalities -- I named Groener and Raeder in this connection..
Q Mr. Minister, how many concentration camps do you know of?
A How many do I know of now?
A I am sorry; not now. How many did you know of before the collapse of Germany?
Q Mr. Minister, did you know before the collapse of Go many, specially, did you know in 1944, about the mass murders which have been dealt with so frequently in this proceeding? when this thing was going on. I heard of a few cases which touched me personally very deeply. Reichsbank. He was a Social Democrat who had rightish tendencies, and I was told that he was murdered in the concentration camp at Papenburg. Another friend of mine, the chairman of the Miners Union, Fritz Husemann, supposedly was murdered shortly after his being committed to the concentration camp, Camp Oranienburg, according to the reports received by his family.
Another friend of mine, Ernst Heimann, was beaten to death. Dachau was known even in the north of Germany as a concentration camp. Some Jewish inmate returned from Buchentwald in the spring of 1939, and in that way I learned of this camp. Columbia House at Berlin was considered as a concentration camp by me also. about concentration camps. I received knowledge of these camps and atrocities. I received knowledge of these camps and atrocities. I perhaps night mention this as one case. In the year 1944 a freind of mine, who had been a member of the Reichstag, Herr von Meier, who had served three years in the penitentiary, was put into a concentration camp near Berlin. After a brief stay there, according to the report received by his family, he was murdered at this camp.
Q Mr. Minister, you just heard of these and similar cases? every day in gas chambers or otherwise were murdered in the east? seen to me to be authentic according to my reports. Everything I learned of later was from reports, and these were indirect reports, also, of my friend Feger or from the book of the now General Langhof. All of these things I was told about, but it was not in my sphere.
Q Mr. Minister, did you and your Party friends have the possibility
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, are you going to finish this examination, or are you going on ? Do you see the clock?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, I should like to leave the decision up to the High Tribunal as to whether we shall have a recess now.
THE PRESIDENT: Presumably you know what questions you are going to ask; I don't.
DR. SIEMERS: I cannot say exactly. It might take perhaps another ten minutes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We will adjourn now till a quarter past 2:00 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1415 hours.)
(The Tribunal reconvened at 1415 hours, 21 May 1946.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will not sit on Saturday morning.
Now, Mr. Dodd, could you tell us what the position is with reference to the documents of the defendants von Schirach, Sauckel, and Jodl?
MR. DODD: As far as von Schirach is concerned, we are waiting for a ruling on those documents concerning which we were heard on Saturday. I'm sorry, those were on Seyss-Inquart. I wasn't sure the documents were ready.
These documents are all ready; they are all translated and in book form.
THE PRESIDENT: Will it be necessary to have any further discussion of the
MR. DODD: I believe not, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then, we can take it that we needn't have another argument about those documents.
MR. DODD: No, sir, I comprehend no need for any further argument on von Schirach's documents. situation is, since they have the primary responsibility as far as the Prosecution is concerned. I am told that Mr. Herzog of the French Prosecution staff is on his way here and he will be able to report more accurately.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we can mention that at a later stage then. Schirach at any rate then, is ready to go on?
MR. DODD: He is ready to go on.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. DODD: Sir David has the information about the defendant Jodl.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Mr. Roberts.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, the position with regard to Jodl's documents is that Dr. Jahrreiss produced to me a draft book, just before Easter, which had a certain number of documents, all except four of which had already been exhibited, and therefore no objection could betaken to them.
My Lord, theother four were all short. Two, I thought, were objectionable on the ground that they referred to alleged war crimes by one of the Allies. But, my Lord, they were so short that I thought the best course would be for them to be translated -- they were only a page or so, each of them, -so that when the books had been translated any objection could be taken, and then the Tribunal could shortly decide the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as there are only four of them and only two which might be objected to, that can be dealt with when we come to hoar the ease.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, there are only two.
THE PRESIDENT: We needn't have any special hearing for it.
MR. ROBERTS: No, my Lord, certainly not. It can be disposed of in a very few minutes.
DR. EXNER (Counsel for defendant Jodl): Mr. President, I should like to say one word about these Jodl documents.