It has the facsimile signature of Raider at the end. I assume it's the facsimile; it may have been written with a stylus on a stencil; I can't tell. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit U.S.A. 43. It is headed with the title "Armament Plan (A.P.) for the 3rd Armament Phase." This document of 12May 1934, speaks of war tasks, war and operational plans, armaments target, etc., and shows that it was distributed to many of the high command of the Navy. It shows that a primary objective was readiness for a war without any alert period.
I quote from the third numbered paragraph:
"The planned organization of armament measures is necessary for the realization of the target; this again requires a coordinated and planned expenditure in peace time. This organization of financial measures over a number of years according to the military viewpoint is found in the armament programme and provides
a) for the military leaders a sound basis for their
b) for the political leaders a clear picture of what at a given time."
One other sentence from paragraph 7 of that document:
"All theoretical and practical A-preparations" (I assume that means Armament preparations,)"are to be drawn up with a primary view to readiness for a war without any alert period." long before the outbreak of hostilities is illustrated in many other ways. Thus, in 1934, Hitler instructed Raeder to keep secret the U-Boat construction programme; also the actual displacement and speed of certain ships. Work on U-Boats had been going on, as already indicated, in Holland and Spain.
The Nazi theory was rather clever on that. The Versailles Treaty forbade re-arming by the Germans in Germany, but they said it didn't forbid them to re-arm in Holland, Spain and Finland.
negotiations with England. We have a captured document, which is a manuscript in German script, of a conversation between the defendant Raeder and Adolf Hitler, in June, 1934. It is not signed by the defendant Raeder. I might ask his counsel if he objects to my stating that the defendant Raeder, in an interrogation on 8 November 1945, admitted that this was a record of this conversation, and that it was in his handwriting, though he did not sign his name at the end. it in evidence as Exhibit U.S.A. 44.
It is headed, "Conversation with the Fuehrer in June 1934 on the occasion of the resignation of the Commanding Officer of the "Karlsruhe"."
"1. Report by the C-in-C Navy concerning displacement of D. and E. (defensive weapons).
"Fuehrer's instructions: No mention must be made of a displacement of 25-26,000 tons, but only of improved 10,000-ton(ships). Also, the speed over 26 nautical miles may be stated.
"2. C in C Navy expresses the opinion that later on the Fleet must anyhow be developed to oppose England, that therefore from 1936 onwards, the large ships must be armed with 35 c.m. guns (Like the King George Class.)
"3. The Fuehrer demands to keep the construction of the U-Boats completely secret. Plebiscite also in consideration of the Saar." the Navy needed more funds than it had available; so Hitler proposed to put funds of the Labor Front at the disposal of the Navy.
with Hitler, on 2 November 1934. Of this, I have a photostatic copy of the German typed memorandum, identified as our C-190. This one, again, is not signed, but it was found in Raeder's personal file and I think he will not deny that it is his memorandum.
I offer it in evidence as Exhibit U.S.A. 45.
It is headed: "Conversation with the Fuehrer on 2.11.34 at the time of the announcement by the Commanding Officer of the 'Emden'.
"1) When I mentioned that the total funds to be made available for the armed forces for 1935 would presumably represent only a fraction of the required sum, and that therefore it was possible that the Navy might be hindered in its plans, he replied that he did not think the funds would be greatly decreased. He considered it necessary that the Navy be speedily increased by 1938 with the deadlines mentioned. In case of need, he will get Dr. Ley to put 120-150 million from the Labor Front at the disposal of the Navy, as the money would still benefit the workers. Later in a conversation with Minister Goering and myself, he went on to say that he considered it vital that the Navy be increased as planned, as no war could be carried on if the Navy was not able to safeguard the are imports from Scandinavia.
"2) Then, when I mentioned that it would be desirable to have six U-Boats assembled at the time of the critical situation in the first quarter of 1935, he stated that he would keep this point in mind, and tell me when the situation demanded that the assembling should commence."
Then there is an asterisk and a note at the bottom:
"The order was not sent out. The first boats were launched in the middle of June 35 according to plan." markets was a programme encouraged by the Navy, so that this industry would be able to supply the requirements of the Navy in case of need.
We have an original German document, again headed "Geheime Kommandosache" - "Secret Commando Matter" - a directive of 31 January 1933, by the defendant Raeder, for German industry to support the armament of the Navy.
I offer it in evidence as Exhibit U.S.A. 46.
"TOP SECRET "General directions for support given by the German Navy to the German "The effects of the present economic depression have led here and there to the conclusion that there are no prospects of an active participation of the German Armament Industry abroad, even if the Versailles terms are no longer kept.
There is no profit in it and it is therefore not worth promoting. Furthermore,the view has been taken that the increasing "self-sufficiency" would in any case make such participation superfluous.
"However obvious these opinions may seem, formed because of the situation as it is today, I am nevertheless forced to make the following contradictory corrective points:
"a) The economic crisis and its present effects must perforce "Though equality of rights in war politics is not fully "b) The consequent estimation of the duties of the German "It is impossible for this industry to satisfy, militarily the deliveries to our own armed forces.
Its capacity must "c) Almost every country is working to the same and today, even restrictions.
Britain, France, North America, Japan, and for their armament industries.
The use of their diplomatic "d) It is just when the efforts to do away with the restrictions "e) If, however, the German Armament Industry is to be able to of its purchasers.
The condition for this is that secrecy for our own ends be not carried too far.
The amount of small.
I would like to issue a warning against the assumption solved there.
Solutions arrived at today, which may become or at any rate after the copy has been made.
It is of "(f) To conclude:
I attach particular importance to guaranteeing the continuous support of the industry concerned by the navy, even after the present restrictions have been relaxed. If the purchasers are not made confident that something special is being offered them, the industry will not be able to stand up to the competitive battle aid therefore will not be able to supply the requirements of the German Navy in case of need." starting even before the Nazis came into power, is illustrated by a 1932 order of the Defendant Raeder, chief of the Naval Command, addressed to the main Naval Command, regarding the concealed construction of torpedo tubes in E-Boats. He ordered that torpedo tubes be removed and stored in the Naval Arsenal but be kept ready for immediate refitting. By using only the permitted number -- that is, permitted under the Treaty -- at a given time, and storing them after satisfactory testing, the actual number of operationally effective E-Boats was constantly increased. reading "Der Chef der Marine Leitung, Berlin, 10, February 1932. Our series number is C-141. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit, USA 47, the order for concealed armament of E-Boats. I read from the first paragraph of the text:
"In view of our treaty obligations and the Disarmament Conference steps must be taken to prevent the 1st E-Boat-Half-Flotilla, which in a few months will consist of exactly similar newly built (E)-Boats, from appearing openly as a formation of torpedo-carrying boats" -- the German word being Torpedotraeger -- "as it is not intended to count these E-Boats against the number of torpedo-carrying boats allowed us.
"I therefore order:
"1. S2 - S5, will be commissioned in the shipyard Luerssen, Vegesack without armament, and will be fitted with easily removable cover-sheet-metal on the spaces necessary for torpedo-tubes. The same will be arranged by T.M.I."--a translator's note at the bottom says with reference to T.M.I., Inspectorate of Torpedoes and Mining--"in agreement with the NavalArsenal, for the Boat 'Sl' which will dismantle its torpedo-tubes, on completion of the practice shooting, for fitting on another boat.
"2. The torpedo-tubes of all S-Boats will be stored in the Naval Arsenal ready for immediate fitting. During the trial runs the torpedotubes will be taken on board one after the other for a short time to be fitted and for practice shooting so that only one boat at a time carries torpedo armament. For public consumption this boat will be in service for the purpose of temporary trials by the T.V.A."
I suppose that is not the Tennessee Valley Authority. The translator's note calls it the Technical Research Establishment.
"It should not anchor together with the other, unarmed boats of the Half-Flotilla because of the obvious similarity of type. The duration of firing, and consequently the length of time the torpedo-tubes are aboard, is to be as short as possible.
"3. Fitting the torpedo-tubes on all E-Boats is intended as soon as the situation of the political control allows it." in 1932, was talking about as soon as the situation of the political control allows it. The seizure of power was the following year. preparation of auxiliary cruisers, under the disguised designation of Transport Ships O. The preparations under this order were to be completed by 1 April 1935. At the very time of construction of these ships as commercial ships plans were made for their conversion.
secret, identified by our number C-106, order from the Command Office of the Navy, dated 12 March 1934, and signed by draft by Groos. It has the seal of the Reichministerium, Marineleitung, over the draft signature. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit, USA 48. I think the defendant Raeder will admit, or at least will not deny that this is an official document.
"Subject: Preparation of Auxiliary Cruisers.
"It is intended to include in the Establishment Organization 35 (AGAufstellungsgliederung) a certain number of auxiliary cruisers which are intended for use in operations on the High Seas.
"In order to disguise the intention and all the preparations the ships will be referred to as "Transport Ships O". It is requested that in future this designation only will be used.
"The preparations are to be arranged so that they can we completed by 1.4.35." year by year, from 1927 to 1940 on the reconstruction of the German Navy, and in these notes are numerous examples of the Navy's activities and policies of which I should like to point out some illustrations. ship "Scharnhorst - Gneisenau" and "F/G"--whatever that is--was actually greater than the tonnages which had been notified to the British under the treaty. This document, our C-23, I offer in evidence as Exhibit, USA 49. That is a set really of throe separate documents joined together. I read from that document:
"The true displacement of the battleship "Scharnhorst - Gneisenau" and 'F/G' exceeds by 20 percent in both cases the displacement reported to the British. columns, headed "Displacement by Type", one column "Actual Displacement," and the other column, "Notified Displacement."
On the "Scharnhorst" the actual was 31,300 tons, the notified was 26,000 tons. On the "F", actual, 41,700, the notified, 35,000. On the "HI", actual, 56,200 tons, notified, 46,850' and so on down the list.
I need not read them all. English version, is the statement, "In a clear out programme for the construction, the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor has set the Navy the task of carrying out the aims of his foreign policy." limitation, and with characteristic German thoroughness had prepared superficial explanations of pretexts to explain away those violations.
Following a conference with the chief of "A" section, an elaborate survey list was prepared and compiled, giving a careful list of the quantity and type of German naval armament and ammunition on hand under manufacture or construction, and in many instances together with a statement of the justification or defense that might be used in those instances where the Versailles Treaty was violated or its allotment has been exceeded.
The list contained 30 items under "Material Measures" and 14 items under "Measures of Organization." The variety of details covered necessarily involved several sources within the Navy, which must have realized their significance. As I understand it, the "A" section was the military department of the Navy. identified by our number C-32. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit, USA 50. It again is Geheime Kommandosache, and it is headed "A Survey Report of German Naval Armament after Conference with Chief of "A" Section, dated 9 September 1933," and There are three columns, one headed "Measure," one headed "Material measures, Details," and the most interesting one is headed "Remarks."
The remarks contain violations of the treaty.
They are numbered so I can "1. Exceeding the permitted number of mines."
Then figures are given.
"Remarks: Further mines are in part ordered, in part being delivered."
"Number 2. Continuous storing of guns from the North Sea area for Baltic artillery batteries."
In the remarks column, "Justification:
Necessity for over-hauling.
Cheaper repairs."
Turning over to Number 6, "Laying gun-platforms in the kiel area."
And under remarks "The offence over and above fications are forbidded in the Kiel area.
This justifi cation will make it less severe; pure defence Measures."
"Number 7: Exceeding the calibre permitted for coastal batteries."
The explanation: "Possible justifi of guns is less."
"Number 8: Arming of mine-sweepers. The reply to any remonstrance against this breach:
the guns are taken installed only for training purposes.
All nations arm their mine-sweeping forces (equality of rights)." Here is one that is rather amusing.
"Number 13, Exceeding the number of machine guns, et cetera, permitted."
Remarks: "Can be made light of."
"Number 18: Construction of U-boat parts." This remark is quite characteristic:
"Difficult to detect. If necessary can be denied."
"Number 20: Arming of fishing vessels." Remarks:
For warning shots. Make little of it." And so on New, to Paragraph IV (F) 2 (b) of the Indictment, the allegation that "On 14th October 1933 they led Germany League of nations."
to take judicial notice. The Nazis took this opportunity application of sanctions by other countries.
Anticipating which I offer as Exhibit, USA 51.
It is a directive Paragraph 1: "The enclosed directive gives the "2. I request the chiefs of the Army and Navy High out the preparations in accordance with the following points:
"(a) Strictest secrecy. It is of the utmost importance that no facts become known to the outside world from which preparation for resistance against sanctions can be inferred or which is incompatible with Germany's existing obligations in the sphere of foreign policy regarding the demilitarized zone. If necessary, the preparations must take second place to this necessity." I think that makes the point without further reading. One of the immediate consequences of the action was that following the withdrawal from the League of Nations, Germany's armament program was still further increased. I introduced this morning document C-153, as Exhibit USA-43, so that is already in. From that, at this point, I wish to read paragraph 5. That, as you recall, was a document dated 12 May, 1934. Paragraph 5: "Owing to the speed of military political development since Germany quitted Geneva and based on the progress of the army, the new A-Plan will only be drawn up for a period of two years. The third A phase lasts accordingly from 1.4.34 to 31.3.36." Then, the next allegation of the Indictment, if the Tribunal please: "On 10 March, 1935, the defendant Goering announced that Germany was building a military air force." That is a historical fact of which I ask the Court to take jedicial notice, an I am quite certain that the defendant Goering would not dispute it. We have a copy of the German publication known as das Archiv--I suppose that is the way they pronounce it--the number of March 1935, and it es page 1830 to which I refer. I would offer that in evidence, identifying it as our number 2292-PS; I offer it as USA-52.
It is an announcement concerning the German Air Force:
"The Reich Minister for Aviation, General of the Airmen, Goering, in his talk with the special correspondent of the Daily Mail, Ward Price, expressed himself on the subject of the German Air Force.
"General Goering said?
"In the extension of our national defense, (Sicherheit) it was necessary, as we repeatedly told the world, to take care of defense in the air. As far as that is concerned, I restricted myself to those measures absolutely necessary. The guiding line of my actions was, not the creation of an aggressive force which would threaten other nations, but merely the completion of a military aviation which would be strong enough to repel, at any time, attacks on Germany." Das Archiv: "In conclusion, the correspondent asked whether the German Air Force will be capable of repelling attacks on Germany. General Goering replied to that exactly as follows:
"The German Air Force is just as passionately permeated with the will to defend the Fatherland to the last as it is convinced, on the other hand, that it will never be employed to threaten the peace of other nations." assurances of that kind from Nazi leaders, we take it that we are not foreclosed from showing that they had different intentions from those announced. of the law for compulsory military service, or universal military service. secret training of personnel, the next step necessary to the program for aggressive war was a large-scale increase in military strength.
This could no longer be done under disguise and camouflage, and would have to be known to the world. Accordingly, on 16 March, 1935, there was promulgated a law for universal military service, in violation of Article 173 of the Versailles Treaty. as it appears in the Reichsgesetzblatt, which is the official compilation of laws, in Title I of Volume I, yearly volume 1935, or Jahrgang, at page 369. I think I need not offer the book or the law in evidence. read that; it is right at the end of the article. I should refer to that as our Document Number 1654-PS, so as to identify it.
"In this spirit the German Reich Cabinet has today passed the following law:
"Law for the Organization of the Armed Forces of March 16, 1935.
"The Reich Cabinet has passed the following law which is herewith promulgated:
"Section 1.
"Service in the Armed Forces is based upon compulsory military duty.
"Section 2.
"In peace time, the German Army, including the police troops transferred to it, is organized into: 12 Corps and 36 Divisions." of that. It says "16 Divisions", but the original German says 36 Divisions.
"Section 3.
"The Reich Minister of War is charged with the duty of submitting immediately to the Reich Ministry detailed laws on compulsory military duty."
That is signed, "Berlin, March 16, 1935." It is signed first by the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor Adolph Hitler, and then by many other officials, including the following defendants in this case: von Neurath; Frick; Schacht; Goering; Hess; Frank.
Does the Court contemplate a short recess?
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn for ten minutes.
(Whereupon at 3:40 p.m. a short recess was taken.)
COLONEL STOREY: If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution expects, tomorrow, to offer in evidence some captured enemy moving pictures, and, in order to give defense counsel an opportunity to see them before they are offered in evidence--and in response to their request made to the Tribunal some time ago--the showing of these films for defense counsel will be held in the court room this evening at 8 o'clock.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Colonel Storey.
MR. ALDERMAN: May it please the Tribunal, I have now reached Paragraph IV, F, 2(e) of the Indictment, which alleges: "On 21 May, 1935, they falsely announced to the world, with intent to deceive and allay fears of aggressive intentions, that they would respect the territorial limitations of the Versailles Treaty and Comply with the Locarno Pacts". states, the Nazis followed a policy of making false assurances, thereby tending to create confusion and a false sense of security. Thus, on the same date on which Germany renounced the armament provisions of the Versailles Treaty, Hitler announced the intent of the German Government to respect the territorial limitations of Versailles and Locarno. number 2288-PS, the pertinent volume of the issue of the Volkischer Beabachter containing Hitler's speech in the Reichstag on that date.
In that speech he said:
"Therefore, the Government of the German Reich shall absolutely respect all other articles pertaining to the cooperation (zasammenleben)--really meaning the living together in harmony-of the various nations including territorial agreements; revisions which will be unavoidable as time goes by it mil carry out by way of a friendly understanding only.
"The Government of the German Reich has the intention not to sign any treaty which it believes not to be able to fullfil. However, it will live up to every treaty signed voluntarily even if it Was composed before this Government took over. Therefore, it will in particular adhere to all the allegations under the Locarno Pact as long as the other partners of the pact also adhere to it." and Versailles Treaties, include the following:
The Rhine Pact of Locarno, 16 October 1925, Article 1:
"The high contracting parties, collectively and severally, guarantee, in the manner provided in the following Articles; the maintenance of the territorial status quo, resulting from the frontiers between Germany and Belgium and between Germany and France and the inviolability of the said frontiers, as fixed by, or in pursuance of the Treaty of Peace, signed as Versailles, on June 28, 1919, and also the observance of the stipulation of Articles 42 and 43 of the said Treaty, concerning the demilitarized zone." Rhineland.
Then from the Versailles Treaty, 28 June, 1919, Article 42:
"Germany is forbidden to maintain or construct any fortifications, either on the left bank of the Rhine or on the right bank, to the west of the line drawn 50 kilometers to the east of the Rhine.
"Article 43: In the area defined above, the maintenance and the assembly of armed forces, either permanently or temporarily and military maneuvers of any kind, as well as the upkeep of all permanent works for mobilization, are in the same way forbidden."
The next allegation of the indictment (f):
"On 7th March, 1936, they re-occupied and fortified the Rhineland, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the Rhine Pact of Locarno of 16 October, 1925, and falsely announced to the world that 'we have no territorial demands to make in Europe.'" with the Nazis ever since its establishment, after World War 1. Not only was this a blow to their increasing pride, but it was a bar to any effective strong position which Germany might want to take on any vital issues. In the event of any sanctions against Germany, in the form of military action, the French and other powers would get well into Germany east of the Rhine, before any German resistance could even be put up. Therefore, any German plans to threaten or breach international obligations or for any kind of aggression, required the preliminary reoccupation and refortification of this open Rhineland territory. Plans and preparations for the reoccupation of the Rhineland started very early. which we identify as C-139, and which appears to be signed by the handwriting of Blomberg. I offer it in evidence as U.S.A. Exhibit 53.
The document deals with what is called "Operation Schulung", meaning schooling, or training. It is dated 2 May 1935 and even refers to prior Staff discussions on the subject dealt with. It is addressed to the Chief of the army Command, who at that time, I believe, was Fritsch; the Chief of the Navy High Command, Raeder, and the Reich Minister for Air, Goering.
It does not use the name "Rhineland" and does not, in terms, refer to it.
It is our view that it was a military plan for the military reoccupation of the Rhineland, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the Rhine Pact of Locarno. "Secret Document."
"For the operation, suggested in the last Staff Talks of the Armed Forces, I lay down the Code name "Schulung" (training).
"The supreme direction of the operation 'Schulung' rests with the Reich Minister of Defense as this is a joint undertaking of the three services.
"Preparations for the operation will begin forthwith according to the following directives:
"1. General.
"1.) The operation must, on issue of the code word "Carry out Schulung", be executed by a surprise blow at lightning speed.
very smallest number of officers should be informed and employed in the drafting of reports, drawings, etc., and these officers only in person.
"2.) There is no time for mobilization of the Forces taking part. These will be employed in their peace-time strength and with their peace-time equipment.
"3.) The preparation for the operation will be made without regard to the present inadequate state of our armaments. Every improvement of the state of our armaments will make possible a greater measure of preparedness and thus result in better prospects of success." unnecessary to read it. inconsistent with any theory that it was merely a training order, or that it might have been defensive in nature. The operation was to be carried out as a surprise blow at lightning speed (Schlargartig als Verberfall).The air forces were to provide support for the attack.