THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, you have some interrogatories, I think, which you want to offer in evidence, have you not ?
DR. STAHMER (Counsel for defendant Goering): Yes, sir. ding which had not arrived at that time. who was a General in the Air Force. He submitted an organizational study for 1950, which was completed on the 2nd of May, 1938. He was questioned about the purpose and significance of this study. In this interrogatory he stated that this was just a sketch which was based on theoretical assumptions. Then there was a second part to this sketch, which gave the deadline of 1942, and the solution for 1938. This was a positive proposal or suggestion for the organization of the Luftwaffe, the Air Force.
This study was compiled by the author on his own; the witness does not know whether it was actually submitted to Goering at any time. He does not consider it probable, but he does assume that he did suggest the positive organizational plan to Goering.
This interrogatory will be designated Goering Exhibit No. 54. I should like to submit this to the High Tribunal at this time. nates from Colonel General Kurt Student. This deals with the air attack on Rotterdam in May of 1940. It is an explanation of that fact.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got copies of these interrogatories ? We have got this one you are now offering of Student, but we haven't got the one of Kammhuber.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I submitted this material to the Translation Department and I was told that the translations had been completed. I had given this material to the Translation Department. I shall look into the matter and see whether anything has been done with it. At any rate, I did submit the originals to the Translation Department.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; the Tribunal will expect you to look into it, then.
As to this one of Student, has that been applied for and granted ? It isn't on my list.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, Mr. President, it has been granted, and the prosecution has submitted a counter-interrogatory to this one.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STAHMER: If I am not mistaken, this interrogatory of Student's was granted me on the 14th of February. May of 1940. He gives the necessary explanation as to how it came about that during capitulation negotiations bombs were still being dropped on Rotterdam. I believe I do not need to refer to this interrogatory in detail, but the situation was such that capitulation negotiations were in progress. An air attack had been planned, but the squadron which had been deployed could not be advised in time by wireless. The ground troops gave off signals, which the air squadron did not recognize.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears to cover the same ground as has already been introduced in evidence; does it not?
DR. STAHMER: It has been dealt with in the examination; yes, that is correct, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then it should not be read under any circumstances now.
DR. STAHMER: Then I shall submit this document -
THE PRESIDENT: In evidence. I mean, you need not read it in detail.
DR. STAHMER: Very well, Mr. President.
Then, Mr. President, I have another interrogatory which I should like to submit, deposed by a general of the air forces, Koller. It shall be assigned exhibit number 55.
Mr. President, I ask the indulgence and the permission of the High Tribunal to read these questions, for there is a special significance connected with the testimony given by this witness as it relates to the defendant in this proceeding.
"Question 1: Did the former Reich Marshal Goering at any time issue an order that enemy fliers who had been shot down should be given over to the police or that they should be shot without a trial, or legal proceedings?
"Answer: As far as I know, no. Such an order's being issued by the Reich Marshal is not known to me, in any event.
"Question 2: Did the former Reich Marshal Goering participate in the formulation of an order on the basis of which all of the British flying officers who escaped from Stalag 3 at Sagan in March, 1944, were shot by the police or SD?
"Answer: General Korton told me that the Luftwaffe, the air force -meaning the Reich Marshal and himself -- did not participate in the issuing of this order.
"Question 3: Did the former Reich Marshal Goering learn of the fact contained in question 2 alter these decrees given by Hitler had been carried out? Did he learn about it only then?
"Answer: General Korton told me that he and the Reich Marshal, only had knowledge of this subsequently.
"Question 4: On what day was this order issued by Hitler?
"Answer: Not known.
"Question 5: On what day, or on what days, was this order carried out?
"Answer: Not known.
"Question 6: Do you know whether the former Reich Marshal Goering opposed the shooting of these fifty British Air Force officers very stronly, or very intensely?
"Answer: General Korton told no that the Reich Marshal had been very much upset and very indignant about this shooting.
"Question 7: Do you have any knowledge about the fact of whether the former Reich Marshal Goering and his deputies in the air force, the Luftwaffe, the chief of the general staff repeatedly protested with Hitler against the proceedings which were to be taken against the enemy 'terror' fliers who had been shot down?
"Answer: According to statements which General Korton made to me in June of 1944, that is correct. I remember that at a later time it was reported to me that the Reich Marshal complained to the Fuehrer on one occasion about the steps being taken by Party organizations and individuals among the population against so-called 'terror' fliers, the mason for this having been that our own air crows had suffered.
"In March of 1945, he very strongly and intensely turned down the suggestion, or proposal, that all enemy crews which were shot down and which would be shot down in the future and captured be turned over to the SD.
"Replying to questions 1 through 7, I should like to state in a supplementary fashion, generally, in the time concerned I was chief of staff of the Luftwaffe operational staff. In February, 1944, the Fuehrer headquarters was transferred, and the OKW was transferred, the Reich Marshal with his personal entourage and the chief of the general staff of the air force, General Korten, together with two or three ordnance officers, to Berchtesgaden. The Fuehrer headquarters transferred all of these to Berchtesgaden.
"As far as the supreme command of the Luftwaffe was concerned -- that is, the entire working staff in East Prussia, Robinson -- I was to remain in Robinson. Because we were counting on the rapid transfer of the Fuehrer headquarters, the entire signal command apparatus for the supplying and taking care of the Luftwaffe in those matters, were to be routed via Robinson.
And because of the separation which increased and became longer from week to week between the supreme command and the Luftwaffe on one hand and the supreme commanders of the general staff on the other hand, it came about that we in East Prussia did not have knowledge of things which were being handled and disposed of directly at Berchtesgaden.
"This applied to important decisions. Frequently we had no knowledge, and often we were advised very, very late of these matters. Only in the beginning of June -- I believe it was one week after Whtsunday -- I, together with some of my aides, was transferred to Berchtesgaden. And up until that time, beginning in early February, I had been present at Berchtesgaden only once for a conference.
"To questions 2 to 6, dealing with Sagan, concerning the shooting on the instructions of the Fuehrer of the fliers who escaped from Sagan, I heard from General Korten, and I believe from Colonel Christian, simultaneously about this matter. I rather believe I heard about it first from General Korten, who, as far as I recall, on the occasion of one of the daily, rather lengthy evening telephone conversations, advised me on this matter. General Korten on this occasion expressed an adverse view, quite unequivocally, and told me those things which I mentioned in reply to Questions 2, 3, and 6. The conversation must have taken place at the end of March or the beginning of April. However, I cannot fix the exact date.
"Dealing with Questions 1 and 2, concerning the 'terror' fliers, at perhaps the beginning of June, 1944 -- first I thought that it had been July, but I think now that it must have been June -- General Korten advised me that the Fuehrer intended to order that 'terror' fliers be given over to the wroth of the people.
"We discussed this matter repeatedly and we all agreed in our opposition. As far as the direct attacks by low-flying enemy aircraft was concerned, as directed against civilian population, against women and children, gatherings of civilians, passenger trains in public traffic, hospitals, school children who were out for a walk, our own crews which were parachuting to earth, farmers who were tilling their fields, we considered these attacks of hostile enemy aircraft in low-flying attacks against all of these people cruel and contrary to international law, but in the decree which the Fuehrer intended. to issue, we saw no real way and no solution of this very difficult problem. Our reasons, Articles of War, International Law, in opposition to soldierly principles, source of numerous misunderstandings through which these enemy flyers, as well as our own, could come to grief, and ramifications on the --"
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, isn't this really going into argument and not dealing with facts? It really isn't necessary for you to read all this witness' arguments about it. He is not really dealing with facts at all now and it is in detail -
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, they are these facts which he discussed with General Korten and facts which were decisive for them in rejecting the Fuehrer's order. These were the reasons discussed between him and Korten.
THE PRESIDENT: Some of what you have read no doubt is a matter of fact, but what you are now reading is a matter of argument.
DR. STAHMER: No, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, surely you can summarize the rest of this.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, this document is of such great importance to the Defendant because this document deals with just those questions concerning points with which he is accused and which are very relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: You have been reading it and so far as it is statements of fact, it seems to me that there is some excuse for reading it in detail, but when you come to matters of argument, it seems to me there is no excuse for reading it because argument by a particularwitness is not really relevant for the Tribunal's consideration at all. Summarize the argument, if you like. I mean, you have read the factual part. Summarize the rest and maybe you can tell us , if you like, what the argument is.
DR. STAHMER: Very well, Mr. President. General Korten further stated that all of the documents which are important to the question of terror flyers and the shooting of Air Force officers, after looking over them he arrived at the conclusion that the contents of these documents is proof of the fact that OKW as well as the Reichsmarshal opposed these steps and did everything within their power to prevent such a decision as had been intended by Hitler being realized and put into effect.
Specifically, he points out that in one of these letters there is a marginal note to the effect that from the Supreme Commander of the Air Force there was no reply, and he concludes from that that the Reichsmarshal personally fought against any conclusive treatment of this matter.
Then there is a further incident dealt with in Question 8: "Did the Fuehrer, on the occasion of the situation discussion, in the presence of all participants, in an excited manner and tone, accuse the Luftwaffe that the German Air Force had made a coward's agreement with the Allied Air Forces?" This applies to Question 5.
"Answer: Perhaps in the first half of March of 1945, Bormann sent the Fuehrer a note taken from the Allied Press -- it had been a reporter's article and the sense of this note was that the crew of an American fighting plane, which just a little bit prior had been shot down over Germany, had been picked up by American troops. Its crew had testified thatundignified persons of the population had threatened them with death and in all probability they would have been lynched if it hadn't been German soldiers who had liberated them and protected them. Bormann, in a few words, called Hitler's attention specifically to the fact that this confirmed the fact that German soldiers, in cases of that nature, were taking steps against their own population; and he concluded his remarks approximately as follows: "'My Fuehrer, that is the way your orders are being followed and carried out. Thereupon, all of these participants of the situation report listened to a rather excited statement by the Fuehrer, and among other things the Fuehrer complained, saying: 'The reason why my orders are not being carried through is the cowardice of the Air Force, because the officers of the Luftwaffe are cowards and they are afraid that something might happen to them some day. The entire thing is nothing but an agreement between my Luftwaffe and the English and American flyers.' I reported on this to the Reichsmarshal.
Whether Hitler made the same utterance to the Reichsmarshal personally, that I am not able to say,but I consider this quite probable, because in eases of this kind,especially as applied to the Air Force, repeated himself in choice phrases."
"Question: On what day did this discussion take place?"
"Answer: I cannot fix the date."
Now we come to Question 10: "The Fuehrer repeatedly ordered the former Reichsmarshal to determine the name of that officer of the Luftwaffe who, in May of 1944 protected from the population an Allied flyer who had been shot down, but despite repeated inquiries on the part of the Fuehrer the Reichsmarshal gave no instructions to determine the name of this officer or to make the name known to the Fuehrer."
He says he cannot tell from his own experience; he had a report only that an officer of the Luftwaffe and an Ortsgruppenleiter had tried to use their influence on behalf of this American crew; that the Ortsgruppenleiter, who was known, was shot on Hitler's order; that Hitler then demanded to have the name of the Luftwaffe officer given to him; that he had not been told the name, and he said further that if the Reichsmarshal had actually wanted to determine the name of this Luftwaffe officer, he could have done so easily.
"Question 11: Did the Luftwaffe, at the end of the war, receive orders to destroy Dachau with bombs at the approach of the enemy, a nd in particular, was an order to that effect given by the Gauleiter in Munchen under the cue word "Wolke"? Could a Gauleiter give instructions to the Luftwaffe?"
I can summarize the answer by saying, the witness says: "I do not recall any order to that effect," and specifically, he does not know whether the Gauleiter in Munchen was competent to give an order in that respect and he does not believe that a higher officer of the Luftwaffe would have been willing to carry out such a decree.
"Question 12: What do you know about the attitude and the position of the Reichsmarshal and his Luftwaffe in dealing with hostile flyers who had been shot down?"
"Answer: The attitude of the Reichsmarshal always remained correct and chivalrous, quite in line with the Air Force tradition which he gained in the First World War and which he emphasized frequently."
Of course, in time of indignation about great difficulties in their defense and pressed by the Fuehrer, perhaps on occasion he used harsh words.
These words, however, soon were forgotten and I do not know of a single case that such spontaneous utterances made by the Reichsmarshal ever translated themselves into incorrect or harsh measures or oders, dealing with the members of foreign air crews and the attitude and position maintained by the entire Luftwaffe was always correct and humane. To fight in a chivalrous manner, that was a manner of honor with the German flyers --- only a few examples out of many, even though the attacks of enemy aircraft were used against German flyers who were parachuting to earth, these things which were disliked intensely --
THE PRESIDENT : This is all you are reading now aren't you; and this is all comment, not a statement of fact. It is comment and argument.
DR. STAHMER : Now, Mr. President, he is coming to an example in which he reports about those things.
THE PRESIDENT : Well, let us come to it.
DR. STAHMER : Very well. The use of the sea emergency service meant the entire English Channel, the Bay of Heligoland and Brest, and the Bay of Biscay, and the sea rescue service applied in the same manner to the Germans as well as to the enemy. The rescue service crews in their aircraft and the rescue service couriers in a most tireless manner and in a manner of willingness to sacrifice, tried to assist friend and foe in distress.
THE PRESIDENT : Dr. Stahmer, these weren't particular instances. These weren't particular facts; they are just general statements which are really comments and argument about the chivalry of the German Air Force; That is all.
DR. STAHMER : Mr. President, he is trying to prove in that way.
THE PREDISENT : He doesn't prove it by making a general statement.
DR. STAHMER : No, of course not. He is going over to the point of how many were rescued, how many of those were enemies and how many were their own people. I believe this fact, Mr. President, has significance for the judgment of individual people and of the Luftwaffe.
THE PRESIDENT : As I said just now, if you will get down to the facts, if you have the numbers, well, no doubt that will be a matter of fact.
DR. STAHMER : It amounted to thousands in distress who were rescued at sea --- in various branches of the German Luftwaffe; on the other hand, the members of enemy crews -- Without my being able to give exact figures at the moment, I would estimate -- according to my memory I would say that from seventy to eighty percent were saved by the enemy --- a correction --- who were enemies.
And in continuing. In the use of our services and through our reconnaissance or other means, crews who were in distress at sea, who were found near hostile coasts or who were beyond the limits of our own sea-air rescue service, people who were in distress who were sighted, immediately the enemy was notified and was asked to rescue. Then there are several questions put by the prosecution. The first question is --
THE PRESIDENT : It is for the prosecution to read their questions if they want to read them.
DR. STAHMER : I am not interested in these questions, Mr. President; that is quite all right.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE : The prosecution do not want the questions read.
THE PRESIDENT : The Tribunal will read them. Do you mean you want to put them in evidence ?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE : We will put them in but we do not want them read.
THE PRESIDENT : Right.
DR. STAHMER : I have already stated that this is Goering Exhibit 55. Then I have one more interrogatory, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT : Dr. Stahmer, you realize that the Tribunal proposes to read all the evidence and therefore these interrogatories will be read and considered even though they are not read now in open court. You offered them in evidence and the Tribunal will be grateful if you will out short the reading of these affidavits and interrogatories as far as possible.
DR. STAHMER : I shall be guided accordingly, Mr. President. Now, we are turning to the interrogatory of von Hammerstein which I shall submit as Goering Exhibit No. 52. Mr. President, this interrogatory is not at my disposal in the original. I can only submit it in a form attested to. It has been submitted to the prosecution; it has been translated but it is inaccessible at the moment, I shall assume that I shall find the original very soon and the British prosecution is advised and, as I have stated, this document has been translated.
THE PRESIDENT : You mean the original has been mislaid or something.
DR. STAHMER : It has just been mislaid, Mr. President, and I am unable to find it at the moment.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE : My Lord, there is no objection to this affidavit, I have no copy in front of them. It is general in its terms and if I may say so, I thought it would serve its purpose admirably if Dr. Stahmer put it in and the Tribunal consider it in due course.
THE PRESIDENT : Yes.
DR. STAHMER : The original will be submitted in the next few days, Mr. President. We are concerned with an interrogatory by the Judge Advocate of the Air Force, General von Hammerstein. For several years he was the Judge Advocate in Chief of the Air Force and in that capacity, once a month he reported to the defendant Goering and in that way he was in a position to judge the attitude and position taken by Goering and in detail he is describing how seriously the defendant Goering considered his duties, as the Judge Advocate in Chief, and he further describes how the Reichsmarshal Goering reserved the right to make decisions in all the more important matters; that he concerned himself with all matters very carefully; that as to the soldiers who were under his command, he was interested in their maintaining morale and discipline and that, specifically, he was careful to see that the soldiers subordinate to him were punished most severly if they acted illegally against the civilian population and especially against the civilian population in the Occupied Countries. Then he further sets forth that the Reichsmarshal Goering, particularly on those occasions demanded severe punishment when acts of violence against women were involved and that in the many decrees he reserved the admiration and respect shown to women as the first duty of a soldier; that in severe cases of rape, he always demanded death as the penalty no matter what the nationality of the woman was and in two cases, for instance, he rescinded the sentences for the sentences had been too lenient and confirmed --
THE PRESIDENT : What you have said, Dr. Stahmer, has given us the substance of the affidavit. You said that this man was the Judge Advocate for the Air Force and that the law with reference to offenses in the air force was strictly carried out. I am sure that is all you want to say in summarizing it.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, Mr. President. There was no consideration given to the nationality of the woman involved, and in one case of rape which applied to a Russian woman, he always -
THE PRESIDENT: That is exactly what I have said, that the law was strictly carried out. It is only an illustration of how the law was strictly carried out.
DR. STAHMER: Very well, Mr. President. Mr. President, I shall dispense with all further explanation. I shall submit this document immediately
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal thinks that their time is being wasted, and unless counsel for the defense can do what the Tribunal desires them to do, which is to offer these affidavits and interrogatories in evidence giving the shortest possible summary or description of the affidavits or interrogatories, the Tribunal will have to order that the interrogatories and affidavits shall be simply offered in evidence, and they will hear no comment whatever on them. are going to make their speeches, and if there is anything in these affidavits or interrogatories of real importance, they will have the opportunity then of commenting upon it. Also, the Tribunal itself proposed to read not only the oral evidence, but the documentary evidence in this case.
DR. STAHMER: Then, Mr. President, I should like to submit this document under Exhibit No. 53.
THE PRESIDENT: Now then, counsel for the defendant von Ribbentrop. Dr. Horn, you have no affidavits or interrogatories to put in, have you, that have been approved by the Tribunal?
DR. HORN: Mr. President, I ask to be permitted to submit four affidavits to the High Tribunal. Thadden, Legation Councillor in the Information Office No. 14 in the Foreign Office, which was a branch which dealt with the anti-Semitic propaganda in foreign countries.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, have you applied for these documents?
DR. HORN: Trhough the General Secretary, in writing, I asked that these affidavits be granted, and this morn ing I received the confirmation that these affidavits had been given to the Translation Department and to the Prosecution.
Therefore, I beg to submit this document as Ribbentrop Exhibit No.319. the submission of which I have asked the General Secretary in writing, is the affidavit of Dr. Werner Best, a former Reich Plenipotentiary.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: I am sorry, but as I was telling Dr. Horn, we haven't had copies of these yet; they haven't reached usso far.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I have before me a list of four affidavits, Thadden, Best, Ribbentrop and Schulze, and it is stated that they are not approved by the Tribunal.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: No, My Lord, Dr. Horn mentioned them to me a day or two ago, as to whether I should object to their being translated, and I said no, that I shouldn't object to their being translated. Of course, I haven't had a chance to see them.
THE PRESIDENT: Wouldn't the best course, as they have gone to the Translating Department, be for them to be offered in evidence now, as I understand Dr. Horn is intending to do, subject, of course, to any question which may arise as to their admissibility?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, if you will just give us the numbers then.
DR. HORN: The affidavit proposed by Best I should like to submit as Ribbentrop Exhibit 323. I should like to give a brief explanation for the reason for this affidavit. This document is an affidavit of a colonel of the police, Dr. Rudolf Mildner. From this affidavit a passage was quoted to my client dealing with the treatment of Jews in Denmark. I examined this document and have ascertained that two documents bear the number 2375-PS. One document is a statement made by Dr. Mildner which wasnot made under oath. This statement which was not attested to under oath contained that passage which was put up to my client in cross examination. Under the same number there is an affidavit which has been attested and sworn to, deposed by Dr. Mildner also. This passage dealing with the attitude of Ribbentrop on the Jewish question is not found in this affidavit.
Dr. Best, on the instructions of Ribbentrop, dealt with the Jewish question.
I have had this affidavit given to me. with a seriesof documents, on which occasion he could answer but briefly since they were extensive documents which, in the majority, he had not seen in advance. I should like to ask the High Tribunal to permit me a few explanations on behalf of my client, and I should like to submit this document on behalf of my client under Exhibit No. 321 Ribbentrop. TC-75. TC-75 represents a note sent by Ribbentrop to Hitler. This was submitted by the Prosecution in a very abbreviated form. When I had this document given to me in the original for the first time, the photo copy coincided with the copy submitted by the Prosecution. When I had this same exhibit given to me a second time, I received a photostatic copy of nine pages, and in my final argument I should like to refer to this document. Therefore, in order to save the time of the High Tribunal, I ask for permission to submit this complete document TC-75.
I have no further applications, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, you didn't give a number to that last affidavit.
DR. HORN: That exhibit will be No. 322, identical to TC-75.
DR. SIEMERS: (Counsel for the defendant Raeder) Mr. President, with the permission of the High Tribunal, I should like to deal with the outstanding points of my presentation of evidence. me by the High Tribunal, General Admiral Boehm. The Tribunal will recall that I called this witness at the end of the presentation of evidence. I checked with Sir Elwyn Jones and Sir David. I have received an affidavit deposed by Boehm at Hamburg, so that I could perhaps dispense with calling him as a witness.
I submitted this affidavit to Sir David and to Mr. Jones, and yesterday afternoon, Hr. Jones told no that Sir David and he agreed that they would not cross examine, and at the sane time I agreed to not insist on an examination, but rather to be satisfied with the submitting and reading of the affidavit.
I believe that Sir David agreed. 129. This was sworn to on the 13th of June this year at Hamburg.
THE PRESIDENT: It isn't necessary to read it now, is it?
DR. SIEMERS: Hr, President, I should be very grateful if I might be permitted to read this affidavit, for it deals with a portion of evidence which is quite significant. The High Tribunal, I am sure, will recall the fact -
THE PRESIDENT: But a have already told you, Dr. Siemers, that we can't have all these documents read out to us. You can certainly confine yourself to the really important part of it and summarize anything that is really not so important.
DR. SIEMERS: The High Tribunal will agree with me that as far as my other documents are concerned, Tread remarkably little. I just wanted to read a part of it. I am concerned only with the fact that the British Delegation, at the close of the cross examination, submitted two very lengthy summaries, GB-464, and GB-465. The so are summaries about the key documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, surely you can tell us what the subject matter of the affidavit is. We will then know the general subject matter of it, and then I should have thought you could direct our attention to the particular matters which are of special importance here. It only takes up time if you are going to tell us what the Prosecution have done.
DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon, Mr. President, if I have been misunderstood. It was my intention to do just that.
I shall not read from "I" of the affidavit. I shall only summarize it, that it is a discussion between Raeder and AdmiralBoehm, referring to the summer of 1939, on which occasion Boehm told Raeder that he was being careful because of the pol itical developments.
He then asked whether Raeder had called Hitler's attention to the great dangers and to the fact that the German Navy would not be in a position to carry on a sea war.
"The Grand Admiral replied to me"-- and this is verbatim-"that he had done this more than once in the presence of Hitler, and that he had concluded his presentation to Hitler with the fundamental and basic sentence that in such a case the Navy could not do other than to die gloriously".
As to "II" of the affidavit of Admiral Boehm: "on the 22d of October 1939, Hitler made a speech at the Obersalberg to the top leaders of the Wehrmacht. I was present during the entire speech which lasted two to two and a half hours. The speech was delivered in the office of Hitler".
I am now omitting the next few points and continue:
"The speech was submitted as Raeder Exhibit No.27 to the High Tribunal, and I set it down with great exactitude, and I can state under oath that the speech was delivered in the way in which I have set it down. I can specifically confirm that all important thoughts and words are contained in the presentation as I have set it forth.
"The versions submitted by the Prosecution, Documents 798 and 1040-PS, have been submitted to me by Dr. Siemers. I have compared the various cersions".
Now I am skipping a paragraph:
"I decalre under oath that parts of the speech as shown in this document were not used by Hitler, and parts were used in another sense by Hitler". version which I have just received, which was submitted by Sir David. I should like to remind the High Tribunal that this is GB-464. In this version you will find the sentence, "Thereafter, we shall discuss military details". Attitude taken: This sentence was not used. Military details did not follow".
In Document 793-PS , lines 7 to 10, "I made this decision already in spring, but thought that first of all in a few years I should turn against the West, and only thereafter against the East".Attitude taken:
"The version as set down by me, on pages 5 to 8, is absolutely true. That part of the speech saying that Hitler would first of all turn to the West was something that was not used in any event."
Line 12 to 14:
"First of all I wanted to bring about a working agreement with Poland so that I could first of all fight against the west. In no event did Hitler voice the thought that he wanted to fight against the west." says:
"With us the making of decisions is easy. We have nothing to lose, only to gain. Our economic situation, because of our resources, is such that we can last only a few more years. As to the attitude taken here, the summary in my statement, pages 21 to 26 is absolutely correct. Above all --"
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, does it not come to thi s? There are two or three versions of this particular speech and this admiral is saying that his version is correct. That is all it comes to and he does not think the other versions are correct, Well, the Tribunal will no doubt have to compare the three versions and compare it with this affidavit. But what is the purpose or use of reading it to us at this stage I do not know.
DR. SIEMERS: Very well, Mr. President. Thank you very much, Mr. President. statement, as set forth herein. I should like to refer only to the fact that Admiral Boehm expressly confirms that the sentence which has been quoted several times:
"'I am afraid that at the last moment some dirty dog (Schweinehund) w ill give me an arbitrary possibility.' I want to state under oath that Hitler did not use this sentence." been emphasized by the prosecution sic or seven times and I should like to read it.
"The destruction of Poland is in the foreground and the outrage is the doing away of living forces, not the reaching of a certain line."
In this connection Boehm says:
"There was never any talk of any destruction of Poland or of a destruction of the fighting forces. What we did speak about was the breaking down of military forces."
rather carefully set down statements for it seems to me that this matter is important in looking at the evidence presented by the prosecution. he was commanding admiral at Norway. I should like to have the Tribunal take judicial notice of this matter. In this statement we are chiefly concerned with the fight carried on by Boehm and Terboven against the German civilian administration and to come to peace with Norway.
Mr. President, after many weeks finally the interrogatory of Albrecht has reached me in its final form. I have submitted it to the translation department several days ago and have not yet received the translation. This has been granted me and this shall be Raeder Exhibit 128. of the closest co-workers of Raeder; that already in 1939, in October, he resigned. He knows the attitude taken by Raeder and he knows the conduct and leadership of the navy at the time before 1933 and up to 1938. He too confirms the fact that Raeder constantly warned Hitler of complications and to avoid them and that Hitler always stated that he had matters under control and that he would not let a war come about.
All other points, I ask Mr. President, that the Tribunal take judicial notice of.
I should like to refer to the following. One interrogatory by Schulze is still outstanding. All my efforts to obtain this interrogatory dates back to March 1946. I have his address. The witness is in retirement. The witness is in Hamburg, Blankenese, and the interrogatory was sent to Hamburg in March. as I have no facility to expedite this matter, that I be permitted to submit this interrogatory to the Tribunal at a later time. However, I do not know when it will reach me for this interrogatory has inthe meantime been sent to Washington for reasons I do not quite understand but I certainly hope this interrogatory will reach me at some future date.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. What do you mean by it having been sent to Washington? Did you say Washington?
DR. SIEMERS: The secretary of the secretariat told me this interrogatory had been sent to Washington for the reason that the winess could be found there. However, the witness resides in Hamburg/ I am sorry that I have no possibility of using my influence at all even though I have tried for three months.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, no doubt the general secretary is making every effort to have the witness found. What are the dates? You say that three months ago you submitted this interrogatory? Was it sent to Hamburg or where was it sent?
Surely, Dr. Siemers, you ought to know. You have been in touch all these three months with the general secretary and you are stating that he sent it to Washington. You ought to know. Have you given him any address in Hamburg? What is your complaint?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I was not complaining. I was just giving you a picture of the facts in order to show why the interrogatory has not been returned and I ask that when the interrogatory reaches me that I may be permitted to submit it then.
THE PRESIDENT: I know you say that but the Tribunal wants to know where the interrogatory was first sent and why it 3 July M LJG 6-1a was sent to Washington and why it was sent to Hamburg and what you know about the alleged fact that the person who was to make the interrogatory was at Hamburg?