Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremburg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946, Volume 14
[Cover Illustration]
TRIAL OF THE MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS
BEFORE
THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
NUREMBERG 14 NOVEMBER 1945—1 OCTOBER 1946
PUBLISHED AT NUREMBERG, GERMANY 1948
This volume is published in accordance with the direction of the International Military Tribunal by the Secretariat of the Tribunal, under the jurisdiction of the Allied Control Authority for Germany.
VOLUME XIV
OFFICIAL TEXT
IN THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
PROCEEDINGS
16 May 1946—28 May 1946
One Hundred and Thirty-first Day, Thursday, 16 May 1946, Morning Session 1 Afternoon Session 32
One Hundred and Thirty-second Day, Friday, 17 May 1946, Morning Session 63 Afternoon Session 82
One Hundred and Thirty-third Day, Saturday, 18 May 1946, Morning Session 107
One Hundred and Thirty-fourth Day, Monday, 20 May 1946, Morning Session 143 Afternoon Session 181
One Hundred and Thirty-fifth Day, Tuesday, 21 May 1946, Morning Session 228 Afternoon Session 261
One Hundred and Thirty-sixth Day, Wednesday, 22 May 1946, Morning Session 287 Afternoon Session 320
One Hundred and Thirty-seventh Day, Thursday, 23 May 1946, Morning Session 357 Afternoon Session 386
One Hundred and Thirty-eighth Day, Friday, 24 May 1946, Morning Session 418 Afternoon Session 450
One Hundred and Thirty-ninth Day, Monday, 27 May 1946, Morning Session 494 Afternoon Session 533
One Hundred and Fortieth Day, Tuesday, 28 May 1946, Morning Session 567 Afternoon Session 601
ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FIRST DAY Thursday, 16 May 1946
Morning Session
MARSHAL (Col. Charles W. Mays): If it please the Tribunal, the Defendants Sauckel and Von Papen are absent.
[The Defendant Raeder resumed the stand.]
DR. WALTER SIEMERS (Counsel for Defendant Raeder): Admiral, yesterday we finished with the somewhat involved Document C-32, and we had got as far as Point 11. We now come to Point 12, “Ammunition stocks in excess of the armament permissible.” May I remind the Tribunal that this is Document C-32, Exhibit USA-50, in Document Book 10 a, Page 8, Point 12, which contains three columns.
Defendant, may I ask what you have to say to the accusation that you exceeded the permissible amount of ammunition?
ERICH RAEDER (Defendant): Certain ammunition stocks were in excess of the permissible amount and some were below it. I cannot tell you at this date what the reason was in each particular case. I assume that this depended to a considerable extent on the amounts left over from the last World War.
In the case of the first two items, the 17- and 15-centimeter shells, the actual stocks rather exceeded the quantity permitted, whereas the third item, the 10.5-centimeter, falls very far short of it—instead of 134,000 there were 87,000. In the case of the 8.8-centimeter shells there was an excess, then again a deficit, and the same thing applies to the last item. But they are all very insignificant amounts.
DR. SIEMERS: In the copy before the Tribunal there appears to be a note in the third column—on the next page in yours, Defendant—saying that quantities of ammunition are partly manufactured and partly in course of delivery, and that the total amount permissible will soon be exceeded.
I only wanted to ask you: The list was made out in September 1933. Then are the figures stated correct for September 1933 or autumn 1933?
RAEDER: I did not quite understand you.
DR. SIEMERS: If it says in this document that measures to be taken later will bring the totals above the quantities permissible, which—according to this statement—they had not yet reached, then that is calculated as from autumn 1933.
RAEDER: That may be assumed, yes. Because new ammunition as well as new guns were being manufactured, and old ammunition then had to be scrapped.
It also must be noted that ammunition for heavy artillery, which is not listed here, was in every case short of the permissible amount. A comparatively large amount of heavy artillery ammunition had been granted us for heavy coastal guns, and we had by no means as much as we were allowed to have.
DR. SIEMERS: For the assistance of the Tribunal, I may point out that this last point is proved by the actual documents in the hands of the Tribunal. In the Tribunal’s copy under the Figure 12, Column 2, just beside the separate figures, there is a sentence which says, “... that the whole quantity permitted for heavy artillery has not been reached.”
We now come to Number 13: “Exceeding the permissible stocks of machine guns, rifles, pistols, and gas masks.”
RAEDER: Here, too, it must be admitted that in isolated cases stocks were a little higher than permitted. There were, for instance, 43,000 gas masks instead of the 22,500 permitted. Large numbers of rifles and machine guns were taken away even by individuals after the World War to farms, et cetera. They were later collected, and for that reason there was a comparatively large stock of them. But we are not dealing here with any considerable quantities. Similarly ammunition, bayonets, hand grenades, searchlights, fog equipment, et cetera, also exceeded the prescribed limits but not to any great extent.
DR. SIEMERS: Now, Figure 14: “Obtaining 337 M.G. C/30’s without scrapping equally serviceable weapons.” As I did not ...
THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): Surely, Dr. Siemers, it would be possible to deal with all these various points in the documents in one statement as to why there were these excesses. We have a statement here which contains 30 different items, and you have only got as far as 13, and you are dealing with each one.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, personally I agree entirely. I am sorry that I caused the Tribunal so much trouble in connection with this document. As I am not a naval expert, I had a great deal of trouble finding my way through it; but I do not think that I was the cause of the trouble. The Prosecution, you see, have made use of the single points in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the question is—I am not blaming you, but we want to get on. We are not blaming you. Can’t it be done in one explanatory statement, one short statement?
DR. SIEMERS: I will try, Mr. President, and I will shorten it.
There is no need to say anything more about Numbers 15 to 17. I think these were the most important points. The points planned for a later date were not to be effective until the years ’33 and ’34. I may perhaps just point out to the Tribunal that Number 17 refers to the intended construction of reserve destroyers. The Versailles Treaty permitted the construction of these.
I pass over Number 18 because we have already dealt with that. Number 19, again, refers only to intended construction. Number 20 I may consider irrelevant; it concerns only the arming of fishing vessels. Numbers 21 to 29 ...
THE PRESIDENT: I think, perhaps, you should ask the Defendant to explain some of these observations in the third column. I mean in Number 18, for instance: “Difficult to detect. If necessary can be denied.”
RAEDER: These were explanations given to our League of Nations representative at the Disarmament Conference by the competent expert. It does not refer to local conditions. Construction of submarine spare parts, for instance, took place abroad or was to be prepared. It was actually carried out in 1934 and ’35, and the first submarine was launched at the end of June 1935.
DR. SIEMERS: I may take it, Defendant, that only the construction and purchase of submarines was prohibited.
RAEDER: Yes, the construction in Germany.
DR. SIEMERS: I cannot prove until a later stage that no violation of the Treaty was involved by the construction of these spare parts; but I think you will have to give some indication of your reason for wishing to conceal it, in view of the fact that spare parts were not forbidden. I may remind you that this took place in September 1933 at a time when negotiations had already been planned.
RAEDER: At that period, before the German-English Naval Agreement was concluded on the basis of 35 to 100, Hitler was particularly eager to avoid everything which might embarrass the negotiations in any way. The construction and preparation of submarine parts came under this heading as being a subject on which England was peculiarly sensitive.
DR. SIEMERS: Was there not an additional reason for this appendix and other remarks in this second column—namely, the unfortunate experiences which the Navy had caused in home politics, the fact that whenever the slightest action was taken a quarrel immediately ensued on the home political front?
RAEDER: Yes; and that went so far that the Reichswehrminister was attacked on occasions by Prussian ministers who disagreed with the Reich Government—for instance, Müller, Severing, Stresemann and later Brüning, who alleged to the Reich Chancellor that he took steps which he was not authorized to take. In reality, however, the Reich Government itself had sanctioned these things already and had accepted the responsibility for them.
DR. SIEMERS: So these things were kept secret for reasons of home policy, so that they should not be apparent...
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: With the approval of the Reich Government?
RAEDER: With the approval of the Reich Government. As regards the firms, a number of firms...
DR. SIEMERS: I would prefer now to refer back to Column 2, Number 20, as I see from the record that the Prosecution have also expressly raised this point in connection with the arming of fishing craft, emphasized it, and made it the basis of a charge, “Warning shots, play it down.”
RAEDER: The two fishing boats were quite small vessels and were normally unarmed. They served to supervise the fishing boats in the North Sea right up to Iceland, to help them in case of emergency, to take sick men aboard and to afford protection against fishermen of other nations. We thought it advisable to mount at least a 5-centimeter gun on these ships since they were actually warships. “Warning shots” means that they fired a salute when they wanted to draw the fishermen’s attention to something; so it was quite an insignificant affair and had no need to be artificially reduced to a bagatelle but was in fact a bagatelle.
DR. SIEMERS: We now come to Numbers 21 to 28. This is a list of various firms, including industrial firms working on armament contracts. The Versailles Treaty admitted certain firms for this type of work while it excluded others. In actual fact, other firms had received contracts. Perhaps you can make a general statement on this point.
RAEDER: This was at a time when we had strong hopes that progress would be made at the Disarmament Conference. The Macdonald Plan, which brought about a certain improvement, had already been accepted; and we might have expected, in consequence, that the few factories still left to us would have to increase their output during the next few years. I may refer you to the shipping replacement scheme. Consequently, factories producing specialized articles were better equipped and supplied. There was, however, never any question of heavy guns or anything of that kind but of automatic fuse-igniters, explosives—for instance, mine containers, et cetera, small items but special items which could be made only by certain firms. But, apart from the firms admitted, other firms which had been excluded were also employed. Thus, for instance, the Friedrich Krupp Grusenwerke A.G. at Magdeburg, Number 25, was equipped to manufacture antiaircraft guns and antiaircraft barrels from 2-centimeters to 10.5-centimeters; similarly Number 26, a firm manufacturing antiaircraft ammunition, explosives; Number 27...
DR. SIEMERS: I do not think we need the details.
RAEDER: No. And then engines for which there was also a great demand.
DR. SIEMERS: I have some questions which apply to all these figures. Is this not offset to a certain extent by the fact that some of the firms admitted had already dropped out for economic reasons?
RAEDER: Yes, you can certainly say that. These firms had comparatively few deliveries which were not sufficient to keep them going.
DR. SIEMERS: Defendant, I think one not only can—I think one must—say so. May I draw your attention to Point 22, Column 3, which reads, “The list in any case is out of date, as some firms have dropped out.”
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: That leaves us with Numbers 29 and 30. Number 29, “Preparations in the field of experiments with motorboats.” I think that these were preparations in a very small field.
RAEDER: At the moment I cannot tell you exactly what this means.
DR. SIEMERS: I do not believe in any case that the Prosecution will attach any importance to it.
Then I only want you to make a final statement on Number 30, “Probable further concrete violations becoming necessary in the near future” up to 1934 inclusively. To all intents and purposes you have already answered the question by your reference to the negotiations planned with the British Government, some of which were already in progress.
RAEDER: Yes, that was the point.
DR. SIEMERS: These are matters, therefore, which were in any case due to be discussed in the course of the negotiations with the British Government, or rather the Admiralty.
RAEDER: You cannot say that of them all. For instance, Points 1 to 3 deal with mines. The number of mines was to be increased and modern material was to replace the old. It goes on in the same way with the transfer of guns from the North Sea to the Baltic “A” batteries, not with the scrapping of guns.
DR. SIEMERS: To conclude the whole matter, may I ask you to say what impression the whole thing made on a naval expert like yourself. All things considered, would you say that these are minor violations, and how far are these violations of an aggressive nature?
RAEDER: As I said yesterday, most of them are very inadequate improvements in defense of an almost entirely defenseless position. The separate items, as I explained yesterday, are so insignificant that it is really impossible to spend very much time on them. I believe that the Control Commission also had the impression that very little weight need be attached to all these matters; for in 1925 when the Control Commission left its station at Kiel where it had worked with the organizations of the Naval Command, Commander Fenshow, Admiral Charlton’s chief of staff and head of the Commission, whose main interest was guns and who had worked with a Captain Raenkel, a gunner and a specialist in these matters, said:
“We must leave now, and you are glad that we are going. You did not have a pleasant task, and neither did we. I must tell you one thing. You need not think that we believed what you have said. You did not say a single word of truth, but you have given your information so skillfully that we were able to accept it, and for that I am grateful to you.”
DR. SIEMERS: I now come to Document C-29, which is Exhibit USA-46. Mr. President, it is in Raeder’s Document Book 10, Page 8 of the Prosecution’s document book.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean 10a?
DR. SIEMERS: Number 10, Page 8. This document, too, was submitted during the general Indictment made by the Prosecution at the beginning of the Trial on 27 November. It consists of a speech, a document signed by Raeder, dated 31 January 1933, “General Directives for the Support of the German Armaments Industry by the Navy.”
[Turning to the defendant.] The Prosecution pointed this out; and they have thought fit to conclude from it that on the day after Hitler’s nomination as Chancellor of the Reich, you were already acting positively in his support through this letter. Will you define your attitude, please?
RAEDER: There is no connection whatsoever between this letter and Hitler’s accession to power. You must admit that it would be impossible to compile so long and complicated a document—which was, after all, carefully prepared—between the evening of 30 and the morning of 31 January. This document results from the hope, which I mentioned before, that already under the Papen and Von Schleicher Government the stipulations of the Versailles Treaty and the Disarmament Conference might be gradually relaxed, since the British Delegation had repeatedly said that they favored the gradual restoration of equal rights. We had, therefore, to get our industries into the best possible condition, as far as the manufacture of armaments was concerned, by increasing their output and enabling them to overcome competition.
As I say in Paragraph c of this letter, almost every country was at that time making efforts in the same direction, even those which, unlike Germany, had no restrictions imposed on them. Great Britain, France, North America, Japan, and especially Italy made the most determined efforts to gain markets for their armaments industry; and I wanted to follow them in this particular sphere. In order to do this, there had to be an understanding between the various departments of the Naval Command Staff to the effect that industry must be given support in a way which avoided the secrecy of technical matters and developments to too petty a degree. That is why I explain in Paragraph c that secrecy in small matters is less important than maintaining a high standard and keeping the lead.
I state in the final sentence:
“To sum up, I attach particular importance to the continued support of the industry in question by the Navy, even after the expected relaxation of the present restrictions, so that the industry would command confidence abroad and would find a market.”
This has nothing at all to do with Hitler nor with any independent rearmament on my own behalf.
DR. SIEMERS: Can you tell us when, approximately, you drafted these directives?
RAEDER: During the month of January. I may say that we had a conference—perhaps at the beginning of January—and after that I had it put in writing.
DR. SIEMERS: That would be certainly 2 to 3 weeks before this letter was written?
RAEDER: Yes, certainly.
DR. SIEMERS: I think it happens rarely that one receives a letter from a government office one day after its being conceived by the head of that office.
May I ask you now to tell me one thing more in connection with the “relaxation of the present restrictions.” That means the relaxation of the Versailles Treaty, I presume, through the Disarmament Conference. You have mentioned that four times in this document, so that I assume that was your basis.
RAEDER: Yes, it was. The whole atmosphere at that time, under both the governments I mentioned, was such that one could expect an improvement.
DR. SIEMERS: And this was the basis for which, to quote a few names only, Stresemann, Brüning, fought.
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: As they felt it their duty to take certain advance precautions?
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: I think there is no need for me to go into further details. I have read this document again and again, and have been unable to find any point on which the Prosecution could base the conclusion that you had National Socialist ideas.
I now come to Document C-140. It is Exhibit USA-51, and is in the Document Book 10a, Page 104.
RAEDER: May I interrupt you, please? Would it not be appropriate that I should say now what I wanted to say to supplement the statement in C-156 regarding aircraft?
DR. SIEMERS: I apologize. It might be practicable to finish with the infringements of the Versailles Treaty before going on to another subject. I had forgotten that.
The Prosecution have submitted Document C-156. It is Captain Schüssler’s book from the year 1937 and contains almost the same list of infringements as Document C-32, so that that document can be disposed of at the same time. In addition, it deals with the case of the designing office for submarines in Holland, with which we have already dealt. But there is still one point on which I should like to have your comments, and that concerns certain preparations in connection with navy aircraft which might be permitted later.
RAEDER: All sorts of preparations had been made in the field of aviation long before I came into office. A number of aircraft had been purchased, as I see from this book. They were stored with a firm called “Severa G.m.b.H.,” which was known to the Reichswehrminister. The Versailles Treaty had permitted us antiaircraft guns both on ships and on the coast, as was mentioned yesterday; and for these antiaircraft, firing practice had to be arranged. The Control Commission had allowed us a certain number of aircraft to tow the necessary targets. These aircraft were flown by ex-naval pilots employed by this company. The company, in turn, was managed by an old naval pilot.
Since we were not allowed to train naval pilots or were not allowed to have any naval air force, we gave a year’s training in the civil aviation school to a number of prospective naval officers before they joined the Navy, so that through this 1-year training they developed into very good pilots. Then they joined the Navy and went through their ordinary naval training. The aircraft purchased in this way was temporarily in the possession of the “Severa,” which also had a good deal to do with the Lohmann affairs and for that reason was dissolved by Reichswehrminister Gröner in the summer of 1928. Reichswehrminister Gröner established a new company with similar assignments in the autumn of 1928, soon after I assumed office. But he had signed the agreement himself in order to control the correct management of the whole affair.
In this company, in addition to their ordinary work, the Navy pilots carried out experiments in connection with the development of aircraft for a later Navy air force. We had the Government’s permission to manufacture a model of every type likely to be of use, but we were not allowed to accumulate aircraft. The Government had expressly forbidden that. The result was that in the course of years the company developed a number of aircraft types which would be useful at a later date when we were once more allowed to have aircraft.
In the early period exercises in the Navy were carried out by the old naval pilots—that is to say, it was demanded that exercises in observation be taken and that the crews of ships learn how to act against aircraft. When these young naval pilots were assigned to such exercises, they were discharged from the Navy for that time. It was an awkward affair, but it was always carried out punctiliously.
DR. SIEMERS: I may now turn to Document C-140, which is in Document Book 10a, Page 104. It is a letter from Reich Defense Minister Von Blomberg dated 25 October 1933. It is addressed to the Chief of the Army, the Chief of the Navy, and the Reich Minister for Aviation.
On this document the Prosecution based their accusations that you, Witness, prepared military plans for an armed resistance which might become necessary in consequence of Germany’s withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations. Perhaps you can briefly state your view.
RAEDER: I had no previous knowledge of our imminent withdrawal from the League of Nations. This directive came out 11 days after we had left the League of Nations, and it merely provides defensive measures in the event of sanctions being applied against Germany by other powers in consequence of her departure from the League of Nations. It says under 2c: “I prohibit any practical preparations in the meantime.” So, at first, nothing was done in consequence of this directive, and the Reich Defense Minister merely asked for a report from me as to what should be done.
As far as I remember, no practical preparations of any kind were carried out by the Navy at the time, because the situation remained absolutely quiet and there was no reason to assume that there would be any need for defense.
DR. SIEMERS: That is probably indicated by the words under Point 2a, “Preparation for defense against sanctions.” It concerns the defense only.
RAEDER: The defense only.
DR. SIEMERS: That the withdrawal from the League of Nations occurred 14 October 1933, 11 days before the document was written, is a well-known fact and has been mentioned by the Prosecution on Page 257 of the record (Volume II, Page 304).
Now we come to Document C-166. This is Exhibit USA-48. Mr. President, this is in Document Book 10, on Page 36. It is a document dated 12 March 1934. It emanates from the Command Office of the Navy and refers to the preparation of auxiliary cruisers for action. The Prosecution have quoted only the first two paragraphs of this document and have pointed out that it shows that auxiliary cruisers were to be built and describes transport ships “O” for camouflage purposes.
The two paragraphs sound incriminating, but they can very easily be explained. May I refer to Lohmann’s affidavit, Document Number Raeder-2, my Document Book 1, Page 5. I refer to Paragraph II. I quote:
“The Document C-166, submitted to me, a communication from the Office of the Naval Command of 12 March 1934, deals with the ‘availability of auxiliary cruisers’ which, as stated in the document, were marked as ‘Transport Ships O.’ These ships were not to be newly constructed but were to be selected from the stock of the German merchant marine in accordance with the demands enumerated in the document and were to be examined as to their suitability for the tasks to be assigned them. Then plans were made for reconstruction in case of necessity, but the boats remained in the merchant marine.”
May I state at this point that in the English translation the word “Umbau” has been translated by the word “reconstruction.” I have my doubts as to whether this is quite correct. I presume that the interpreter has now translated it as “Umbau” accordingly. As far as I know, the German word “Umbau” only means much the same thing as the English word “changes”—that is, “Veränderung.”
I continue to quote:
“The order to select such boats from German shipyards was received, among others, by the Hamburg Office of the Naval Command where I was serving at the time.”
Thus far Admiral Lohmann.
Witness, is Lohmann’s statement correct? Have you anything to add?
RAEDER: No. I can only emphasize again that there was no question of immediate construction but only of selecting suitable ships and examining them with a view to ascertaining the alterations necessary to enable them to function as auxiliary cruisers in the case of a general mobilization. The preparation of the plans and the plans themselves were to be ready by 1 April 1935, as laid down in Number 12. They were to be submitted to the naval administration so that in the case of mobilization the ship concerned could be taken from the stock of the merchant marine and converted.
All these proposals for mobilization were, of course, kept secret.
DR. SIEMERS: I believe, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, that the whole misunderstanding would not have arisen if the Prosecution had translated two further sentences. The English version is very short and Point 11 is missing. I quote the text of Point 11:
“‘B’ is requested in co-operation with ‘K,’ first of all, to select suitable vessels and to ascertain how many 15-centimeter guns have to be mounted to achieve the required broadside...”
The word “selected” is used here so that the intention is not—as the Prosecution assert—the building of auxiliary cruisers but the making of a selection from merchant vessels.
RAEDER: Yes; and the ships continued to sail in the service of the merchant marine.
DR. SIEMERS: The second sentence, which I find has been unfortunately omitted from the English translation of the Prosecution, reads as follows:
“As long as only a restricted number of guns—at present 24—can be placed at our disposal for this purpose, preparations are to be made for only four transport ships (O). An increase of this number, presumably to six, will be postponed to a date when more guns are available. Until then we must await the results of the preparations for the first auxiliary cruisers.”
The fact that only four, or at the most six, merchant navy vessels were involved shows the insignificance of the whole matter.
I now come to Document C-189, USA-44. It is in Document Book Number 10 of the British Delegation, Page 66.
I should like your comments.—I beg your pardon. I should remind you that this concerns the conversation between Grossadmiral Raeder and the Führer aboard the Karlsruhe in June 1934.
Grossadmiral, will you please state your views on the three points mentioned in this brief document and which you discussed with Hitler in June 1934.
First question: Why was Hitler unwilling to reveal the increase in displacement of D and E—that is, the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau—when, according to this document, these were defensive weapons and every expert would notice the increased tonnage of these ships and, as far as I know, did notice it?
RAEDER: At that time we were considering what we could do with the two armored ships D and E, after the signing of the impending naval pact with England—that is, the two ships which Hitler had granted me for the Navy in the 1934 budget. We had definitely decided not to continue building these armored ships as such, since we could make better use of the material at our disposal.
DR. SIEMERS: But surely you realized that every expert in the British or American or any other Admiralty would see on a voyage, as soon as he had sighted the ship, that the 10,000 tons had now become 26,000?
RAEDER: Yes, of course.
DR. SIEMERS: So that there was merely the intention...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, when you are examining a witness directly, you are not to ask leading questions which put into his mouth the very answer that you desire. You are stating all sorts of things to this witness and then asking him “isn’t that so?”
DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon. I shall make every effort to put my questions differently.
RAEDER: My answer is different anyway.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes?
RAEDER: We are dealing here, in the first place, with plans: I asked permission to revise the plans for these two armored ships; first, by strengthening their defensive weapons—that is, the armor-plating and underwater compartments—and then by increasing their offensive armaments—namely, by adding a third 28-centimeter instead of 26-centimeter tower. The Führer was not yet willing to sanction, a new 28-centimeter tower because, as I said before, he did not in any circumstances want to prejudice the negotiations going on with Great Britain. To begin with, therefore, he sanctioned only a medium displacement of 18,000 to 19,000 tons; and we knew that when matters reached the stage where a third 28-centimeter tower could be mounted, the displacement would be about 25,000 to 26,000 tons.
We saw no cause to announce it at this stage, however, because it is customary in the Navy that new construction plans and especially new types of ships should be announced at the latest possible moment. That was the principal reason; and apart from that, Hitler did not want to draw the attention of other countries to these constructions by giving the figures mentioned or stating the very high speed. There was no other reason for not announcing these things.
DR. SIEMERS: I should like your comments on Number 2 of the document. That has been specially held against you by the Prosecution, because there you state the view that the fleet must be developed to oppose England later on.
RAEDER: At first—as I intended to explain later—we had taken the new French ships as our model. The French Navy was developing at that time the Dunkerque class with eight 33-centimeter guns and a high speed, and we took that for our model, especially since, in Hitler’s opinion—as you will hear later—there was no question of arming against England. We intended to reconstruct these two armored ships on this pattern as battleships with nine 28-centimeter guns and capable of a high speed. But then we heard that the King George class was being designed in England with 35.6-centimeter guns and, therefore, stronger than the French type; and so I said that we would in any case have to depart from the French type eventually and follow the English model which is now being built with 35-centimeter guns.
There is an error in the translation—namely, “oppose England.” It says in my text that developments should follow the lines of British developments—in other words, that we should design vessels similar in type to the English ships. But they were out of date, too, shortly afterwards, because France was then building ships of the Richelieu class with 38-centimeter guns. Therefore, we decided that we too would build ships with 38-centimeter guns. That was how the Bismarck came to be built. The word “oppose” would have been quite senseless at a time when we intended to come to an agreement with Britain on terms under which we could in no way vie with her.
DR. SIEMERS: Now we come to Point 3 of this document, which the Prosecution regard as equally important. I quote:
“The Führer demands complete secrecy with regard to the construction of U-boats—in consideration, also, of the Saar plebiscite.”
RAEDER: I have already referred to the Führer’s wish for secrecy in connection with both the construction of submarines and the preparations for that construction. This is one of the points on which he was most sensitive, because in no circumstances did he wish to prejudice the negotiations. He himself was generally extremely cautious during this period and would not in any circumstances do anything which might sabotage the naval pact which he was so eager to conclude.
DR. SIEMERS: I do not quite understand the reference to secrecy in connection with the construction of submarines. These were as yet not under construction, were they?
RAEDER: No. I said secrecy in connection with the preparations for the construction of submarines; that is just a short way of expressing it.
DR. SIEMERS: We now come to Document C-190, Exhibit USA-45. It is in Document Book Number 10 of the British Delegation, Page 67. This is a conversation which took place between Hitler and Raeder on 2 November 1934 aboard the Emden. In the document before you Hitler informs you that he considers it necessary to enlarge and improve the Navy by 1938 and that, if necessary, he would instruct Dr. Ley to place at the disposal of the Navy 120 to 150 million marks from the Labor Front.
Did you have anything at all to do with raising funds for rearmament?
RAEDER: No, not actually with the raising of funds. I applied for funds to the Reich Defense Minister, who allocated them to me for the purpose of this rearmament. I presume that this statement was made because the allocation sanctioned for the Navy appeared too small to me, and for this reason the Führer said that if necessary he would get Ley to act. This did not actually happen. I received my funds only through the Reich Defense Minister.
DR. SIEMERS: Although the charge made by the Prosecution is not quite clear to me, since it is based on Hitler’s views—which have nothing to do with you—I want to come back to this sum once more. I may remind you that an armored cruiser of the old 10,000-ton class, which after all was small, cost 75 to 80 million. Could this figure of 120 to 150 million be large enough to put the Navy in a position to carry out rearmament on a large scale?
RAEDER: No, certainly not. Two battleships were also under construction, apart from those two armored cruisers. You can imagine that the costs continually increased.
DR. SIEMERS: So that this sum was not final?
RAEDER: No, it was not final.
DR. SIEMERS: Will you please go on, then, to Point 2. According to Point 2 of the document, you pointed out to Hitler during this conference that it might be necessary to assemble six submarines during the first quarter of 1935.
RAEDER: I said this because I knew that at the beginning of 1935 we were going to aim at the re-establishment of the Armed Forces; and I thought that this might create a critical situation in respect to sanctions, which Hitler always expected, too. I assume that we were talking about this and that is why I suggested that if the necessity for any special preparations should arise out of the re-establishment of the Armed Forces then six submarines should be assembled, at a date previous to their proper date of assemblage, from those parts which were obtained from abroad.
DR. SIEMERS: Did Hitler actually give the order?
RAEDER: No, the order was not given.
THE PRESIDENT: We might break off now.
[A recess was taken.]
DR. SIEMERS: I now come to Document C-159, Exhibit USA-54. This document may be found in the British Delegation’s Document Book 10a, Page 110. This document is a letter written by Von Blomberg on 2 March 1936, dealing with the demilitarized zone. Did you, Witness, make lengthy military preparations for the action which took place on 7 March 1936?
RAEDER: No, I made no lengthy preparations; I heard of the plan only through this document of 2 March. I may refer you to Point 6 which says, “To preserve the peaceful character of the operation, no military security or advance measures are to be taken without my express orders.” It was made clear, therefore, that the entire action was to have a peaceful character.
DR. SIEMERS: You knew nothing at all about this entire action until the beginning of March?
RAEDER: No, I believe that this action was kept especially secret.
DR. SIEMERS: Then I will turn to Document C-194, Exhibit USA-55, in the British Delegation’s Document Book 10a, Page 128. This document is a communication from the High Command of the Wehrmacht to the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy dating from 1936—the wording seems to indicate 6 March 1936. It deals, therefore, with the same subject as the last document. May I have your comments.
RAEDER: The Reich Defense Minister had sanctioned a certain air reconnaissance to take place over the North Sea on 6 March—that is to say, the day before the occupation of the Rhineland. He intended to withhold his decision as to whether U-boats were also to be sent out on reconnaissance assignments in the West as far as the Texel until the next day. I thereupon issued an order on 6 March 1936 and gave special instructions...
DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon.
[Turning to the Tribunal.] I would like to point out that Raeder’s order of 6 March 1936 is appended to the same document and that the text is therefore before the Tribunal.
[Turning to the Defendant.] Please go on.
RAEDER: I prepared this decree of 6 March concerning the planning of the U-boat line and the reconnaissance to take place in the German bay on 7 March. I pointed out especially that everything must be avoided which might create a false impression of the Führer’s intentions and thus put difficulties in the way of this peaceful action.
DR. SIEMERS: I would like to add to your statement that these words taken from the decree of 6 March 1936 are to be found under Point 5. They are in the last two lines.
RAEDER: Those were all precautionary measures in case of a hostile counteraction.
DR. SIEMERS: Were there any preparations on a large scale?
RAEDER: No, no.
DR. SIEMERS: I come now to the two last documents dealing with the topic of the Versailles Treaty and rearmament, Document C-135, Exhibit GB-213, Document Book 10, Page 20—that is the British Delegation’s Document Book 10—which is headed, “History of the War Organization”—that is, the “War Organization and Mobilization Scheme.” This dates from 1938. This document was read in its entirety by the Prosecution and a very grave charge was based upon it, because the document contains a statement to the effect that Hitler had demanded that in 5 years—that is, by 1 April 1938—a Wehrmacht should be created which he could employ as a political instrument of power and also because the document mentions the Establishment Organization Plan 1938 and the Combat Organization Plan.
Considering the significance of this point, I asked Vice Admiral Lohmann for his comments on this rather technical question. We are dealing with Exhibit Number Raeder-2, in my Document Book 2, under part III, on Page 5. I think the Prosecution have misunderstood the meaning of certain terms. The terms “Kriegsgliederung” (Combat Organization Plan) and “Aufstellungsgliederung” (Establishment Organization Plan) have been misunderstood.
I ask permission, therefore, to read this affidavit in conjunction with the documents I have submitted in evidence. I quote:
“III. Referring to Documents C-135 and C-153, Armament Plan, Mobilization Plan, Establishment Organization Plan—Aufstellungsgliederung, A.G.—and Combat Organization Plan—Kriegsgliederung, K.G....”
I would like to add that C-153 and C-135 are connected. I have taken them together for the sake of simplicity. Therefore, I would like to state for the record that 153 is Exhibit USA-43 and may be found in British Document Book 10a, Page 107. It is headed, “Armament Plan (A.P.) for the Third Armament Period.” It is a rather long document and is dated 12 May 1934.
I quote Lohmann’s affidavit on these two documents:
“The above-named documents submitted to me deal with the Establishment Organization Plan, the Combat Organization Plan, the Mobilization Plan, and the Armament Plan. The first three plans, or orders of distribution, deal with the same matters and differ only in manner of composition. The Armament Plan differs from the other plans inasmuch as it deals with new construction and the required new materials and is hence less extensive.
“The German Navy, like the Armed Forces as a whole—and, no doubt, the Armed Forces of every nation—made such plans in order to be able, in the case of a conflict or of military complications, to prepare in time and use efficiently the means of combat available. Owing to changing conditions, military developments, changes in personnel, and advances in technique, such plans were revised every year. An essential part of these preparations, self-evident in the case of any Armed Forces, consisted of the establishment, mobilization, or combat organization, which provided a survey of all naval installations on land and sea, their local defenses, and tactical subordination—as well as of all combat material on hand or to be secured, increased, or reorganized by a specified date. All operations envisaged by the military command were based on this Combat Organization Plan, and it also served the political leaders as an indication of the possibilities according to the strength and number of the military resources available.
“The Combat Organization Plan always had to be prepared with great foresight and was issued by the High Command of the Navy generally 1½ years before it was to go into effect, in order to enable the responsible offices to attend in time to such necessary preliminaries, such as applying to the Navy Budget Office for funds and materials—such as iron, steel, et cetera—and for the preparation of accommodation insofar as all this was not already covered by the peacetime development of the Navy.
“In 1933, when Hitler in his Five Year Plan demanded that by 1 April 1938 an armed force should be created which he could throw into the balance as an instrument of political power, the Combat Organization Plan for 1938 was worked out independently of the scheduled yearly Combat Organization Plan, and up to 1935 it dealt mostly with the possibilities of the Treaty of Versailles which had not yet been exhausted and with the question of supplementing the naval strength with craft not subject to limitation in type or number. After the Naval Pact of 1935, the Combat Organization Plan 1938 was replaced by a “Combat Organization Plan Ultimate Goal” (K.G. Endziel), which regulated the number of warships of all types existing or to be built in the proportion of 35:100 measured by the tonnage actually existing in the English Fleet. In consideration of monetary and material resources, the capacity of the shipyards, and the length of time required to build large warships, this ultimate goal was in the meanwhile fixed for the year 1944-45.
“There remained always the possibility of postponing it further, in accordance with the building program of the English Fleet.
“The various terminologies have only a naval technical significance and do not permit conclusions as to political plans.”
I would like to indicate a slight error in translation in the English text. The translation of the word “Terminierungen” by “terminology” is, in my opinion, not correct. It should probably be “dates” or “deadlines.”
Witness, are Vice Admiral Lohmann’s statements correct? Can you add anything to this basic point of view?
RAEDER: These statements contain everything which can be said on this matter. All these arrangements are, in my opinion, preparations which must be made by every navy if it is to be systematically equipped and made ready for operation.
* * * * *
Editor’s Note
In spite of the meticulous care given to this edition certain inexactitudes may slip in, some originating with the speakers themselves. In order to give a faithful rendering of the Record we are avoiding alterations, but corrective notes will be printed in the final volume.
The General Secretary’s Office would be grateful if the reader would draw to his attention any errors or omissions, so that they may also be included in the list of corrections.
S. Paul A. Joosten Deputy General Secretary Editor of the Record
Address: Editor of the Record International Military Tribunal APO 696 A, United States Army
* * * * *
It says somewhere—in Document Number C-135, Page 1, under Point 2—that, “The growing tension between Germany and Poland forced us to make practical instead of theoretical preparations for a purely German-Polish conflict.” That was interpreted to mean that at some time—I believe in 1930—we planned a war of aggression against Poland.
I testified yesterday that our main object was and had to be, nor could it have gone any further than, to oppose with force any aggression committed by Poland against East Prussia. That was the object of our work—to protect Germany from an invasion by the Poles. At that time, it would have been madness for German forces, which were still very inadequately armed, to invade Poland or any other country.
Then too, since the dates 1938 and 1944-45 constantly recur, I would like to point out again that the year 1938 first came into question as the final date for the first phase of the Shipping Replacement Plan. The last ship of this Shipping Replacement Plan was to be built from 1936 to 1938.
DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon.
[Turning to the Tribunal.] I would like to call your attention to the fact that this is Document Number Raeder-7.
RAEDER: [Continuing.] Then Hitler decreed a Five Year Plan, which happened also to cover the years 1933 to 1938 and in accordance with which the Combat Organization Plan was to be fixed for the year 1938. The Combat Organization Plan Ultimate Goal was fixed for 1944-45; and the reason for fixing this date, as stated in the document which you have just read, was the fact that in fixing our program we had to take into consideration the funds and material at our disposal, the capacity of our shipbuilding yards, and the length of time needed to build big warships. A reasonably strong fighting force could not be created before that date. Later on the Combat Organization Plan appears again in several of my letters. But there was no date given which, on our part, was intended as the appointed time of attack.
DR. SIEMERS: The statements in Document C-135 are in accordance with the German-English Naval Agreement. Is that correct?
Perhaps I did not formulate my question clearly. The statement that a new program was set up implies then that it was done in accordance with the German-English Naval Agreement?
RAEDER: Yes, of course.
DR. SIEMERS: In any case, the reference to Document C-135, Point 8, is probably to be interpreted in that way since it says, “...A modern fleet, bound only by the clauses of the German-British Naval Agreement.”
RAEDER: Of course.
DR. SIEMERS: Now I turn to another topic and go back to the year 1933.
Grossadmiral, when did you meet Hitler, and did you have any connection with National Socialism before 1933?
RAEDER: I met Hitler on 2 February 1933 when I saw him and talked to him for the first time. It was at an evening party arranged by General Von Blomberg at the home of General Von Hammerstein, the Chief of the Army Command Staff, at which Reich Defense Minister Von Blomberg intended to present to Hitler senior generals and admirals. I shall describe the proceedings later.
Up to that time, I had had no connection whatsoever with National Socialism. I knew Admiral Von Levetzow only from the first World War. He was on the staff of Admiral Scheer whom I knew well and who had obviously met Hitler at a comparatively early date. It was through him, however, that I heard that Hitler took a very active interest in naval matters and was surprisingly well-informed about them. On the other hand, I believe that Von Levetzow had also spoken to Hitler about the reputation of the Navy and his own opinion of the Navy at that time. But I had no connections beyond that.
DR. SIEMERS: What were your reasons for remaining in office in 1933, Grossadmiral, when you had no connection with National Socialism?
RAEDER: The Reich President, Field Marshal Von Hindenburg, at the same time Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht, had appointed the leader of the largest party as Chancellor of the Reich. I think that, if I had gone to him and told him I wanted to resign—or intended to resign—because he had appointed a new Chancellor, he would quite certainly have taken it as an insult and would then really have dismissed me. I had not the slightest reason to ask my Supreme Commander to release me from my military post because he, in his capacity of Reich President, had appointed a new Reich Chancellor of whom I, perhaps, might not approve.
DR. SIEMERS: When and where did you first hear Hitler state his basic political principles?
RAEDER: I heard him for the first time on the afore-mentioned 2 February, after the dinner at General Von Hammerstein’s home. I was introduced to him before dinner, and after dinner he made a speech. He was accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Herr Von Neurath. There were no other members of the Party present.
In his speech, he first of all spoke of his career and of his social and national aims. He said that he wanted to regain equal rights for the German Reich and that he would try to rid the country of the shackles of the Versailles Treaty and restore to Germany her internal sovereignty; and he also discussed his social aims: the establishment of true community among the people, the raising of the workers’ standard of living, assistance to be given to the farmers, and the promotion of agriculture, the establishment of a labor service, and the elimination of unemployment. He specially emphasized—and this was really the main point—that both domestic and foreign policy were to be left entirely in his hands, that the Wehrmacht was to have nothing at all to do with this, that the Wehrmacht was not to be used even to deal with unrest at home, and that he had other forces to deal with these affairs. He wanted to insure an undisturbed period of development for the Wehrmacht so that it could become the factor necessary to prevent the Reich from becoming the sport of other nations; and for that reason it would be necessary in the next few years for the Wehrmacht to devote its entire attention to the preparation of its main objective, training for the defense of the fatherland in the case of aggression. The Wehrmacht would be the sole bearer of arms, and its structure would remain unaltered. He spoke of no details.
There was a comparatively large party assembled. As far as schemes for war were concerned—none was mentioned, and all those present were uncommonly pleased with this speech. He spoke with particular respect of Reich President Von Hindenburg, the Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht, and we had the impression that he would respect this much-revered personality.
This speech was the only account of his basic principles which he gave me as Chief of the Naval Command Staff, as well as to the Chief of the Army Command Staff and others.
DR. SIEMERS: Grossadmiral, when did you report to Hitler for the first time on the Navy; and what was Hitler’s general attitude on this occasion—toward the Navy in particular?
RAEDER: The first naval report I gave was a few days later in the presence of General Von Blomberg, who in his capacity of Reich Defense Minister was my superior. I cannot give the exact date, but it was shortly afterwards.
On this occasion, Hitler gave me a further account of the principles on which I was to command the Navy. I reported to Hitler first of all on the state of the Navy; on the rather slight degree to which the provisions of the Versailles Treaty had been carried out by the Navy, its inferior strength, the Shipping Replacement Plan, and incidents concerned with naval policy, such as the Treaty of Washington, the Treaty of London, 1930, the position of the Disarmament Conference. He had already been fully informed on all these matters.
He said he wanted to make clear to me the principles on which his policy was based and that this policy was to serve as the basis of long-term naval policy. I still remember these words quite clearly, as well as those which followed.
He did not under any circumstances wish to have complications with England, Japan, or Italy—above all not with England. And he wanted to prove this by fixing an agreement with England as to the strength to be allotted to the German Fleet in comparison with that of the English Navy. By so doing, he wanted to show that he was prepared to acknowledge, once and for all, England’s right to maintain a navy commensurate with the vastness of her interests all over the world. The German Navy required expansion only to the extent demanded by a continental European policy. I took this as the second main principle on which to base my leadership of the Navy. The actual ratio of strength between the two navies was not discussed at the time; it was discussed later on.
This decision of Hitler’s afforded extreme satisfaction both to myself and to the whole of the Navy, for it meant that we no longer had to compete senselessly with the first sea power; and I saw the possibility of gradually building up our Navy on a solid foundation. I believe that this decision was hailed by the whole Navy with joy and that they understood its significance. The Russian Pact was later greeted with the same appreciation, since the combination of the Russian Pact and the naval agreement would have been a guarantee of wonderful development. There were people—but not in the Navy—who believed that this amounted to yielding ground, but this limitation was accepted by the majority of Germans with considerable understanding.
DR. SIEMERS: Grossadmiral, what were your personal relations with Hitler? How did you judge him in the course of the years, and what was Hitler’s attitude toward you?
RAEDER: I welcomed this vigorous personality who was obviously most intelligent, had tremendous will power, was a master in handling people, and—as I myself observed in the early years—a great and very skillful politician whose national and social aims were already well known and accepted in their entirety by the Armed Forces and the German people...
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal think this might be taken more shortly. We have heard it from so many of the others.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes. Is the defendant not to describe his relations with Hitler? Do the Tribunal consider them irrelevant?
THE PRESIDENT: He might do it shortly.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes. Good. Grossadmiral, please do it shortly.
RAEDER: I would just like to say what I thought of Hitler in order to make clear my reasons for not at any time leaving him, which fact the Prosecution have raised very strongly against me. His first steps in both domestic and foreign policy undoubtedly called forth admiration for his political ability and awakened the hope that, since he had taken these first steps without bloodshed or political complications, he would be able to solve in the same way any problems, which might arise later.
THE PRESIDENT: We have heard this as I have pointed out—this quality or power of Hitler’s ability from nearly every one of the defendants and it is very cumulative, and if this defendant wishes to say he was greatly impressed by Hitler’s qualities, that is quite sufficient. All of the rest is cumulative.
RAEDER: Very well. Then I shall only say that during the early years I had no reason to wonder whether I should remain in my position or not.
DR. SIEMERS: Grossadmiral, we shall automatically come to the later complications at a later stage of the hearing.
I come now to the German-British Naval Agreement and would like to ask you briefly how this Naval Agreement of 1935 came about. I am referring to Document Number Raeder-11, Document Book 1, Page 59, which contains the Naval Agreement in the form of a communication from the German Foreign Minister to the British Government. The actual content was fixed by the British, as the first few words show:
“Your Excellency, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency’s note of to-day’s date, in which you were so good as to communicate to me on behalf of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom the following”:
Then come the following statements by the British:
“1. During the last few days the representatives of the German Government and His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom have been engaged in conversations, the primary purpose of which has been to prepare the way for the holding of a general conference on the subject of the limitation of naval armaments. It now gives me great pleasure to notify your Excellency of the formal acceptance by His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom of the proposal of the German Government discussed at those conversations, that the future strength of the German Navy in relation to the aggregate naval strength of the Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations should be in the proportion of 35:100. His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom regard this proposal as a contribution of the greatest importance to the cause of future naval limitation. They further believe that the agreement which they have now reached with the German Government and which they regard as a permanent and definite agreement as from to-day between the two Governments...”
THE PRESIDENT: This is a well-known document, and the Tribunal will take judicial notice of it, of course. It is not necessary to read it all.
DR. SIEMERS: Very well. I should nevertheless like to point out that, according to Point 2f of this document, the British Government recognized that, as far as submarines were concerned, Germany should be allowed the same number as Britain. At that time that amounted to about 52,000 tons, or rather more than 100 U-boats. The Government of the German Reich, however, voluntarily undertook to restrict itself to 45 percent of the total submarine tonnage of the British Empire.
[Turning to the defendant.] Did you and the Navy regard such considerable restrictions as the basis for Germany’s peaceful development, and was it received favorably by the Navy in general?
RAEDER: Yes, as I have already said, it was received with greatest satisfaction.
DR. SIEMERS: Since a judgment formed some years ago carries more weight than a declaration made now in the course of the Trial, I wish to submit Document Number Raeder-12, Document Book 1, Page 64. This document deals with a communication made by Grossadmiral Raeder for the information of the Officers’ Corps. It is dated 15 July 1935, a month after the signing of the naval agreement. Raeder says—and I quote the second paragraph:
“The agreement resulted from the Führer’s decision to fix the ratio of the fleets of Germany and the British Empire at 35:100. This decision, which was based on considerations of European politics, formed the starting point of the London conferences. In spite of initial opposition from England, we held inflexibly to our decision; and our demands were granted in their entirety. The Führer’s decision was based on the desire to exclude the possibility of antagonism between Germany and England in the future and so to exclude forever the possibility of naval rivalry between the two countries.”
A sentence on Page 66 is also important. I wish to ask the High Tribunal to take judicial notice of the rest of it:
“By this agreement, the building-up of the German Navy to the extent fixed by the Führer was formally approved by England.”
This is followed by individual statements as to tonnage.
Then I should like to call attention to the final sentence, which is indicative of Raeder’s attitude at the time:
“This agreement represents a signal success in the political sphere since it is the first step towards a practical understanding and signifies the first relaxation of the inflexible front so far maintained against Germany by our former opponents and implacably demonstrated again at Stresa.”
DR. SIEMERS: Grossadmiral, were the lines of peaceful development laid down by you at that time followed in the next years?
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: In this connection I should like to submit Document Raeder-13. This is a document which enables me—in order to save time—to dispense with the testimony here in Court of Vice Admiral Lohmann. This document will be found in Document Book 1, Page 68, and is entitled, “The New Plan for the Development of the German Navy,” and is a standard work. It is a speech made by Vice Admiral Lohmann in the summer of 1935 at the Hanseatic University in Hamburg. I ask the High Tribunal to take judicial notice of the essential points of this document; and as this is an authoritative work done at the request of the High Command, I may perhaps just quote the following. Admiral Lohmann sets forth first of all that since we now had the liberty to recruit and arm troops, the Navy was then free of restrictions, but that that was not Hitler’s view. I now quote:
“The Führer, however, chose another way. He preferred to negotiate on German naval armament direct with Britain which, as our former adversary”—I beg your pardon; I am quoting from Page 70—“has tried for years to show understanding for our difficult position.”
And on Page 71 Lohmann speaks about misleading reports published in the press, et cetera, and continues literally:
“All the more surprising, then, was the ratification of the treaty which expressed the full agreement of both governments and did not, like some armament treaties of former time, leave more embitterment than understanding in its wake. The sense of fairness which British statesmen have retained, despite the frequently dirty ways of higher politics, came through when confronted with the unreserved sincerity of the German declarations, the dignified firmness of the German representatives, and the passionate desire for peace inspiring the speeches and acts of our Führer. Unlike former times, the speeches of the British leaders expressed respect and recognition. We have acknowledged this as a sign of honest willingness to understand. The voices from the circles of British war veterans are hardly less valuable than the attitude of the official leaders. In November 1918, for instance, when the German Fleet was taken by British squadrons to be interned in Scapa Flow, the British Commander-in-Chief, Lord Beatty, the great foe of our Admiral Hipper, sent the famous signal, ‘Do not forget that the enemy is a contemptible beast.’ This Grand Admiral expressed his dislike for Germany on many occasions, but on 26 June this same Lord Beatty stated in the House of Lords, ‘I am of the opinion that we should be grateful to the Germans. They came to us with hands outstretched, announcing that they agreed to the ratio of 35:100.’ If they had submitted other proposals, we could not have prevented them. We may be truly grateful for the fact that there is at least one country in the world whose competition in regard to armament we do not need to fear.”
Then I should like to refer to Page 73, which limits battleships to 35,000 tons. This limitation plays a part in the Prosecution Document C-23. The fact that in this document next to the words “Panama Canal” are placed the words “battleships 35,000 tons” has a certain significance. The limitation to 35,000 tons is not so decisive and important as the Prosecution would like us to believe. This is the origin: The United States of America at that time wanted to limit the tonnage to 35,000 tons on account of the width and depth of the Panama Canal, for the Panama Canal would have had to be enlarged in order to admit ships of greater tonnage. I shall return to this point later since this limit of 35,000 tons was not maintained.
Then as evidence of the basis for comparison with German U-boats, I should like to point to Page 76 where the figure mentioned is 52,700 tons. It is a historical fact—which is set down here—that France took no part in this limitation and at that time was the strongest U-boat power with her 96,000 tons, 96 ready and 15 under construction. It is also a historical fact that Germany—and this is shown on the same page—had agreed to abolish submarines, having had to destroy 315 after the first World War.
Grossadmiral, did this accord with the British Fleet apparent in these documents show itself on another, or on any particular occasion?
RAEDER: I tried to maintain this good understanding and to express these sentiments to the British Navy as, for instance, when I was informed of the death of Admiral Jellicoe through a phone call from an English news agency. He stood against us as the head of the English Fleet in the first World War, and we always considered him a very chivalrous opponent. Through this agency I gave a message to the English Fleet.
THE PRESIDENT: I doubt if this really has any effect on the issues we have to consider.
RAEDER: In any event, I tried to bring about a good understanding with the British Navy for the future and to maintain this good understanding.
DR. SIEMERS: On 17 July 1937 a further German-English Naval Agreement was signed. I am submitting this document as Document Raeder-14, Document Book 1, Page 81. This is a rather lengthy document only part of which has been translated and printed in the document book; and in order to understand the violation with which the Prosecution charge us, I must refer to several of the points contained in this document.
The agreement concerns the limitation of naval armaments and particularly the exchange of information on naval construction. In Article 4 we find the limitation of battleships to 35,000 tons, which has already been mentioned; and in Articles 11 and 12—which I will not read because of their technical nature but would ask the Tribunal to take note of—both governments are bound to report annually the naval construction program. This must be done during the first 4 months of each calendar year, and details about certain ships—big ships in particular—4 months before they are laid down. For a better understanding of the whole matter, which has been made the basis of a charge against the defendants in connection with the naval agreement, I may refer to Articles 24 to 26. The three articles show...
THE PRESIDENT: Can you summarize these articles?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes. I did not intend to read them, Your Honor. I just want to quote a point or two from them.
These articles enumerate the conditions under which either partner to the agreement could deviate from it. From the start, therefore, it was considered permissible under certain conditions to deviate from the agreement, if, for instance, (Article 24) one of the partners became involved in war, or (Article 25) if another power, such as the United States or France or Japan, were to build or purchase a vessel larger than those provided for in the agreement. In this article express reference is made to Article 4—that is, to battleships of 35,000 tons—in the case of deviation, the only obligation was to notify one’s partner. Article 26 states a very general basis for deviation from the agreement—namely, in cases where the security of the nation demands it such deviation is held to be justified. No further details are necessary at this point.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom): My Lord, the deviation is subject to notification of the other party under Subarticle 2. It was just relevant in Article 26—any deviation is subject to notification to the other party of the deviation to be embarked on.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it, Dr. Siemers?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, of course. I believe...
THE PRESIDENT: Do the Prosecution say that this agreement was broken?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes. With reference to the remarks just made by Sir David, I would like to say that I pointed out that such deviation was permitted under these conditions, but that there was an obligation to notify the other partners. Perhaps that did not come through before.
[Turning to the defendant.] Was this agreement concluded, Admiral, in 1937, from the same point of view which you have already stated? Are there any other noteworthy facts which led to the agreement?
RAEDER: In 1936, as well as I remember, the treaties so far made by England with other powers expired, and England was therefore eager to renew these treaties in the course of 1936. The fact that we were invited in 1937 to join in a new agreement by all powers meant that Germany would henceforth be completely included in these treaties.
DR. SIEMERS: The Prosecution have accused you of violating this German-English Naval Agreement, and this charge is based on Document C-23, Exhibit USA-49, in the British Delegation’s Document Book 10, Page 3. This document is dated 18 February 1938. It has been mentioned repeatedly in these proceedings and begins as follows, “The actual displacement of the battleships Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and F/G is in both cases 20 percent greater than the displacement stated to the British.” Then we find a list which shows that the displacement of the Scharnhorst was given as 26,000 tons but was actually 31,300 tons, and that the draught stated one meter less than was actually the case. And the “F” class, that is, the Bismarck and Tirpitz, were listed as 35,000 tons but had an actual displacement of 41,700 and a difference of 80 centimeters in draught. Therefore, according to what we have seen, there is an evident infringement of the treaty. Grossadmiral, I am assuming that you do not dispute this violation of the treaty?
RAEDER: No, in no way.
DR. SIEMERS: Certainly, at the time of this document there were only four battleships in question: Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Bismarck, and Tirpitz...
THE PRESIDENT: It seems you are again stating these things to the Tribunal, making statements instead of asking questions of the witness.
DR. SIEMERS: I believe, Mr. President, that I was incorporating my documentary evidence in order to show the connection, so as to make clear what we are dealing with. I was about to put the question: Were the four battleships mentioned actually in commission when this document was drawn up?
RAEDER: No, they had not yet been commissioned.
DR. SIEMERS: None of these four battleships?
RAEDER: No.
DR. SIEMERS: If I am permitted to do so, I may say that the exact dates on which these ships were commissioned—dates which the defendant can hardly repeat from memory—can be seen from Point IV of Lohmann’s affidavit, Document Number Raeder-2.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you must prove them. You cannot state them without proving them.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, certainly, Your Honor.
I am referring to Document Number Raeder-2, which has been submitted to the Tribunal already. This is the affidavit by Lohmann, on Page 5. I quote from Document Book 1, Page 8:
“Within the limits defined by the German-English Naval Agreement, the German Navy commissioned four battleships. I append the dates of laying down the keel, launching, and commissioning, as far as I can still determine them. Scharnhorst: laid down keel, exact date cannot be determined; launched, 3 October 1936; commissioned, 7 January 1939. Gneisenau: laid down keel, date cannot be determined; launched, 8 December 1936; commissioned, 31 May 1938. Bismarck: laid down keel, 1936; launched, 14 February 1939; commissioned, 2 August 1940. Tirpitz: laid down keel, 1936; launched, 1 April 1939; commissioned, 1941.”
Admiral Lohmann was unable to ascertain the exact date. The “H”—I may add that the other ships mentioned under Document C-23 were planned but were broken up later. They had already been broken up in the summer of 1939, and this applies only to the first “H.” So far there is no question of final preparation or construction. Since an obvious violation of the treaty exists, we now have to consider in what light this violation should be regarded. The Prosecution have said that this violation of the treaty is criminal since it implies intended aggression. In order to save time, especially since technical problems are involved, I should like, before questioning the defendant further, to submit Document Number Raeder-15, within the scope of the documentary evidence which I have submitted with the Tribunal’s permission. In my opinion, this document proves that there was no intention of aggression.
Document Number Raeder-15 is an affidavit—I beg your pardon—it is in Document Book 1, Page 94. This document deals with an affidavit deposed before a notary at Hamburg by Dr. Ing. h.c. Wilhelm Süchting and is important for the refutation of Document C-23, and for that purpose I should like to quote:
“I am the former Director of the shipbuilding yard of Blohm & Voss in Hamburg. I was with this firm from 1937 to 1945”—pardon me—“from 1907 to 1945 and I am conversant with all questions concerning the construction of warships and merchant ships. In particular, as an engineer I had detailed information about the building of battleships for the German Navy. Dr. Walter Siemers, attorney at law of Hamburg, presented to me the Document C-23, dated 18 February 1938, and asked me to comment on it. This document shows that the Navy, contrary to the previous agreement, informed the British that the battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau—as well as other intended constructions—had a displacement and draught of about 20 percent less than was actually the case.
“I can give some details to explain why this information was given. I assume that the information given to the British—information which according to naval agreement 4 had to be supplied 4 months before the keel was laid down—was based on the fact that the battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were originally intended to have a displacement of 26,000 tons and a draught of 7.50 meters and the battleship “F” (Bismarck) a displacement of 35,000 tons and a draught of 7.90 meters, as stated.
“If these battleships were afterwards built with a greater displacement and a greater draught, the changes were the result of orders given or requests made by the Navy while the plans were being drafted and which the construction office had to carry out. The changes were based upon the viewpoint repeatedly expressed by the Navy—namely, to build the battleships in such a way that they would be as nearly unsinkable as possible. The increase of the tonnage was not meant to increase the offensive power of the ship”—I beg your pardon, Mr. President. I shall be finished in a moment—“The increase of the tonnage was not meant to increase the offensive power of the ship but was done for defensive and protective purposes.”
I may perhaps point out that in the English text there is a mistake in translation. In this text the word “not” is missing. It should read, “was not meant,” and not “meant.”
“As time went on, the Navy attached more and more importance to dividing the hull of the battleship into a greater number of compartments in order to make the ship as unsinkable as possible and to afford the maximum protection in case of leakage. The new battleships were therefore built broad in the beam with many bulkheads, only about ten meters apart, and many longitudinal and latitudinal bulkheads outside the torpedo bulkhead. At the same time, both the vertical and the horizontal armor-plating were, as far as my information goes, heavier and composed of larger plates than those used by other navies. In order...”
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, his explanation is that they were altered in the course of construction for technical reasons. It does not matter what the technical reasons are.
DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon, Mr. President, but I do believe that when we are dealing with a clearly-established violation of a treaty, the manner of this violation is of some importance. I do not believe that each and every violation of a treaty can be described as a war crime. The point is whether this violation of the treaty was a war crime in the sense of the Charter—in other words, whether it was motivated by the intention of waging a war of aggression. An insignificant violation of a kind which, after all, is found in every commercial lawsuit cannot be a crime.
THE PRESIDENT: The affidavit is before us. We shall read it. In fact, you have already read the material parts of it.
Now, I think we had better adjourn. How long do you expect to be?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, it is very difficult for me to judge that accurately, but I imagine I shall be able to conclude sometime tomorrow. I hope, Mr. President, that I shall be able to conclude at noon; but I am asking Your Honor to take into consideration the fact that I am incorporating my documentary proof in the interrogation and that this documentary proof, which in many other cases has taken hours to present, is thus dealt with simultaneously.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal hope that you will make your presentation as short as you possibly can. We have already been so long a time over this defendant.
[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
Afternoon Session
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I must first make a formal request, namely, that in addition to my own secretary I may have another here in Court. She was here this morning but has just been told that she may not come into the courtroom, and she is now standing outside the door.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
[The Defendant Raeder resumed the stand.]
DR. SIEMERS: Herr Grossadmiral, you just saw the affidavit of Dr. Süchting. I ask you: Is it true, or rather—not to confuse you I will ask—on what did the Navy base its ideas about enlarging the battleships by about 20 percent?
RAEDER: Originally there was no intention to enlarge the ships by 20 percent. But at the time when we resumed battleship construction, when we could see that we would have a very small number of battleships in any case, it occurred to us that the resistance to sinking of ships should be increased as much as possible to render the few we had as impregnable as possible. It had nothing to do with stronger armament or anything like that, but merely with increasing the resistance to sinking and to enemy guns. For this reason a new system was worked out at that time in order to increase and strengthen the subdivision of the space within the ship. This meant that a great deal of new iron had to be built into the ships. Thereby the draught and the displacement were enlarged. This was unfortunate from my point of view, for we had designed the ships with a comparatively shallow draught. The mouths of our rivers, the Elbe, Weser, Jade, are so shallow that ships with a deep draught cannot navigate all stages of the rivers. Therefore, we had these ships built broad, intending to give them a shallow draught; but by building in these many new latitudinal and longitudinal bulkheads, we increased the draught and also the displacement.
DR. SIEMERS: Were these disadvantageous changes, which took place during construction, due in part to a comparatively limited experience in battleship construction?
RAEDER: Yes. Since the designers in the High Command of the Navy and the designers and engineers in the big shipyards had not built any heavy warships for a very long time, they lacked experience. As a result, the High Command of the Navy had to issue supplementary orders to the shipyards. This in itself was a drawback which I tried hard to overcome.
DR. SIEMERS: Did the construction of these four battleships surpass the total tonnage accorded by the naval agreement?
RAEDER: No, the total tonnage was not overstepped until the beginning of the war.
DR. SIEMERS: Your Honors, in this connection I should like to refer to Document Raeder-8, which has already been submitted in Raeder Document Book 1, Page 40, under II. In this affidavit Lohmann gives comparative figures which show how much battleship tonnage Germany was allowed under the naval agreement. Please take notice of it without my reading all the figures. What is important is that, according to comparison with the British figures, Germany was allowed to have 183,750 tons. At that time she had three completed armored cruisers with 30,000 tons—which is shown here—so that according to this affidavit 153,750 tons still remained.
With reference to Document Raeder-127, I should like to submit a short correction, because Grossadmiral Raeder, in looking through the affidavit, observed that Vice Admiral Lohmann made a mistake in one figure. The mistake is unimportant in terms of the whole, but in order to be absolutely fair and correct I thought it necessary to point it out to Vice Admiral Lohmann. Instead of 30,000 it should actually read about 34,000 tons, so that there is a difference, not of 153,750 tons but of 149,750. According to the naval agreement, we were allowed to build 146,000, the final figure, so that the result is not changed. Admiral Lohmann’s mistake—as the Tribunal know—can be attributed to the fact that we were very limited in our material resources.
RAEDER: May I add a remark to what I said before? The statement of these displacements deviated from the terms of the treaty insofar as only the original construction displacement or draught was reported and not the draught and displacement which gradually resulted through these changes in the course of the planning of the construction.
DR. SIEMERS: In addition, may I refer the honorable Court to the following: The Naval Agreement of 1937 was changed by the London Protocol of 30 June 1938. I refer to Exhibit Raeder-16. My secretary just tells me it is not here at the moment; I will bring it up later. It is the last document in Raeder Document Book 1, Page 97.
May I remind the Court that Document C-23 is of February 1938. By this London Protocol, at the suggestion of the British Government, the limitation on battleship tonnage to 35,000 tons was changed because the British Government, as well as the German Government, realized that 35,000 tons was too low. As the protocol shows, effective 30 June 1938, the battleship tonnage was raised to 45,000 tons. Thereby this difference in the battleships, referred to in Document C-23, was settled a few months later.
Now, I shall take up a new subject, the question of your participation in the planning and conspiracy to wage wars of aggression. This is the question of the so-called key documents which the Prosecution presented. Since you, Admiral, were present during these speeches of Hitler’s to the commanders-in-chief, I must ask you to comment on these documents. The first document is Document 386-PS, the so-called Hossbach Document, Exhibit USA-25, in the Document Book of the British Delegation, Number 10, Page 81. It is Hitler’s speech of 5 November 1937.
Herr Grossadmiral, did you ever see this document of Hossbach before the Trial began?
RAEDER: No, I saw no document and no protocol of any speeches which Hitler made. No minutes were taken officially. Only in later years—I believe since 1941—were stenographers present who wrote down every word. These are really not minutes at all, since the document is written in indirect discourse. It was written down by the author 5 days after the speech itself, as we have heard.
DR. SIEMERS: Although it is a very important document, I have noted that in contrast to other documents it has no distribution list; it was written down 5 days after the speech and is not even marked “secret.” Can you explain where these minutes were set down?
RAEDER: I cannot recollect in detail the conditions that prevailed. I can only imagine that the adjutant in question kept the minutes in his safe.
DR. SIEMERS: Then you have only an over-all impression of this speech, after 8 or 9 years?
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: The document was read in full here by the Prosecution and, as cannot be denied at all, it contains serious references to a war of aggression. It mentions, for instance, something bequeathed by will, the problem of space, the hatred against England and France; it says that, armament now being completed, the first goal is the overthrow of Czechoslovakia and Austria.
Please explain to the Court what effect the speech had on you at that time, and how it happened that you ascribed no such importance to the speech as did Herr Von Neurath, for example, who was also present? And in spite of the speech how did you retain your opinion that Hitler would hold the old line and not seek a solution by force?
RAEDER: By way of introduction I may say that the assertion contained in the trial brief, that an influential group of Nazis met in order to examine the situation, does not give a correct picture of the situation at all. Hitler called together the persons mentioned in the document to explain to them the possibilities for political development and in order to give them any instructions he might have.
And here I should like to say something in general—since there are quite a number of Hitler’s speeches coming—about the nature of his speeches. Hitler spoke at great length, going very far in retrospect. Above all, in every speech he had a special purpose depending on the audience. Just as he was a master of dialectics, so he was also a master of bluff. He used strong expressions again according to the objective he was pursuing. He afforded his imagination full play. He also contradicted himself frequently in successive speeches. One never knew what his final goals and intentions were. At the end of such a speech it was very difficult to determine them. As a rule, his speeches made a greater impression on people who heard him infrequently than on those already acquainted with his whole manner of speaking on such occasions. It was never a question of taking counsel but, as has been said, always of giving undisputed orders.
The purpose of the speech on 5 November 1937 was, as Reich Marshal Göring said at the beginning...
DR. SIEMERS: Excuse me. That is at the beginning of this speech of 5 November?
RAEDER: Yes, at the beginning of the speech.
He told me he had spoken with the Führer beforehand. The Führer wanted to spur on the Army to carry out its rearmament somewhat faster. It was going too slowly for the Führer. The subject of the speech was Austria and Czechoslovakia, which he said in one place he wanted to overthrow. He said that the latest date would be 1943-1945, because after that our situation would become worse. But the case could come up earlier due to two conditions: In the first place, if internal unrest occurred in France; in the second place, in the event of the outbreak of a Mediterranean war in which England, France, Italy, and probably Spain, would participate, which in my opinion was fantastic.
The assertion that the arming of the Army, Navy, and Air Force was as good as completed in November 1937, I could not understand. The Navy still had not a single battleship in service. The situation was similar in the Air Force and Army. In no way were we armed for war, and a war against England, for example, would have been sheer madness. For me, the decisive sentences in his speech were that first, England and France—I believe—had already written off Czechoslovakia, and secondly, that he was convinced that France and England would not interfere. In the third place was the fact that just a few months before, in July 1937, the second naval agreement had been signed. These three facts seemed to me to make it certain that Hitler would not seek a warlike solution to these problems of Austria and Czechoslovakia. At that time it was a question of the Sudetenland under any circumstances and it seemed he would strive for a peaceful solution. For that reason the speech did not impress me with the fact that Hitler at that time wanted to change his policy—that he wanted to turn from a policy of peace to one of war. I can imagine that Herr Von Neurath, not knowing the purpose of this speech, received a different impression. But, as I now think back over the matter, I can imagine that the exaggerated character of the speech was specifically intended to force Von Neurath out of the Cabinet, because I have learned that at that time the Führer was already inclined to replace Von Neurath by Von Ribbentrop. That was only an assumption which I made afterwards.
For me the conclusions to be drawn from the speech were none other than these: The construction of the fleet in the ratio of one to three, relative to England, was to be continued, and a friendly relationship with England was still to be striven for. The ratio agreement which had just been reached was to be observed.
DR. SIEMERS: And, it is obvious at the end of the document—namely in the fourth paragraph from the end—that Field Marshal Von Blomberg and Colonel General Von Fritsch, in giving their estimate of the situation, repeatedly pointed out the necessity of England and France not playing the role of our enemies. This is commented on further, and one sees that Blomberg and Fritsch were disturbed and for once opposed Hitler.
After the speech you talked to Blomberg. Is it true that Blomberg, who can unfortunately not be examined and Fritsch, who is also dead, saw through this exaggeration of Hitler’s and therefore pointed out their misgivings and in this way intended to intervene? About what did you talk to Blomberg after this speech?
RAEDER: In the first place, Blomberg and Fritsch...
THE PRESIDENT: You must try not to put leading questions, Dr. Siemers. You are putting into the witness’ mouth what you want him to answer. If you want to...
DR. SIEMERS: I am sorry if I did so. It is a little difficult when the two men who were there, Blomberg and Fritsch, are dead. I can only point out that they are not alive now. My final question is...
THE PRESIDENT: That cannot be helped, the fact that they are dead. But, if you want to get anything in about that, you must get it from the witness, not from yourself.
DR. SIEMERS: What impression did Blomberg have after this speech? What did he say to you afterwards?
RAEDER: I believe Blomberg himself in a questionnaire stated to Field Marshal Keitel that when we military men left the room Blomberg, who was with the Führer frequently, said that this again had not been meant so earnestly and was not to be judged so seriously. He believed that the Führer would settle these questions peacefully, too. And as Dr. Siemers said, Blomberg and Fritsch had both already called the attention of the Führer to the fact that under no circumstances should England and France be allowed to intervene, since the German Wehrmacht would not be able to cope with them.
I may add that in this case I intentionally did not make any such objections because it was, after all, a daily occurrence that whenever I met the Führer, I told him, “Ceterum censeo, we must stay on the course in order to avoid entanglements with England.” And the Führer repeatedly confirmed this intention of his. It is typical that as soon as the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Colonel General Von Fritsch, said that after these remarks he would not be able to take the vacation in Egypt in the winter of 1937-38 which he had planned for his health, the Führer immediately retracted his statement and said that the affair was not so urgent, that he could go ahead on his vacation undisturbed, which he then did.
This shows that it was again a question of exerting pressure. That was the speech of 5 November 1937. In fact he did not crush either Austria or Czechoslovakia at that time; but in 1938 the question was settled peacefully without bloodshed, and even with the agreement of the other powers.
DR. SIEMERS: In this connection may I submit the document dating from the following year, Exhibit Raeder-23, Raeder Document Book 2, Page 127. On 30 September 1938—I need not say anything further about Munich, because the defendant was not directly participating—Hitler and Chamberlain jointly declared that the agreement signed the previous night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement were considered symbols of the desires of both nations never again to wage war against each other. The rest of the contents is well known.
Then I come to the second key document which the Prosecution submitted—namely, Document L-79, the so-called “Little Schmundt.” It is Exhibit USA-27, Number 10 in the document book of the British Delegation, Page 24. The document in spite of its astonishing length was also presented in full by the Prosecution, so that I shall not read from it. May I remind the Court that it states that further successes could not be achieved without bloodshed, and on 23 May 1939 with reference to Poland it states that not Danzig but the readjustment of Lebensraum was the issue at stake.
It speaks of the readjustment of Lebensraum and of the fact that the Polish problem could not be separated from the conflict with the West. Thereupon Hitler said that the only way out was to attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity. Unfortunately, this is again a document which is undated.
Do you know when Lieutenant Colonel Schmundt prepared this report?
RAEDER: No, unfortunately I cannot say that.
THE PRESIDENT: Why do you say it is undated?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, there is no date stating when the document was prepared. There is only the date referring to the minutes of the conference of 23 May. In the case of the Hossbach Document the conference was on 5 November, but it was written down by Hossbach 5 days later from memory, on 10 November. In the case of Schmundt, we do not know whether it was written down after 1 day, 5 days, or 4 weeks.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it in evidence that the document of 5 November was written down 5 days later?
DR. SIEMERS: No. The document of 5 November shows that it was prepared 5 days later. The document is dated at the top, “Berlin, 10 November 1937; Notes of the Conference in the Reich Chancellery on 5 November 1937....”
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is right, then there is evidence.
DR. SIEMERS: [Turning to the defendant.] In the case of Schmundt, there is no indication?
RAEDER: No.
DR. SIEMERS: You do not know when it was written down?
RAEDER: No, I never heard when.
DR. SIEMERS: Did you ever see this document before this Trial?
RAEDER: No.
DR. SIEMERS: Does this document contain a correct reproduction in all points of Hitler’s speech, or does what you said about the Hossbach Document apply here also?
RAEDER: It applies even more here. In my opinion it is the most abstruse document concerning a Hitler speech in existence, for a large part of the statements in my opinion makes no sense whatsoever, as I have tried to show. The adjutant stated that he was only paraphrasing.
DR. SIEMERS: This is on the first page in the center where it is written, “Reproduced in Substance.”
Please explain to the Court what impression this speech made on you at the time and why you believed, in spite of this speech, that Hitler was not planning any war of aggression.
RAEDER: I should like to point out again here that the trial brief makes the comment that consultation took place regarding the scale on which the plan should be executed. Particularly in this case this does not at all represent the character of the speech correctly. The meaning of the whole first part of the speech, as I said, is extremely vague. Whereas in the 1937 speech he gave 1943 to 1945 as the latest deadline and the possibility of an earlier date under certain improbable circumstances, here Hitler speaks of a solution as being possible in 15 to 20 years. He says that Poland is always on the side of the enemy, in spite of the treaty of friendship, that her secret intention is to take advantage of any opportunity to act against us, and that he, therefore, wants to attack Poland at the first opportunity. The Polish problem cannot be separated from the conflict in the West, but a conflict in the West must not be permitted to arise simultaneously. If it is uncertain as to whether a war with the West will or will not take place in the wake of the German-Polish conflict, then a line of battle first against England and France is perhaps of greater importance. Then again, he says that we cannot allow ourselves to be drawn into a war with England on account of Poland, a war on two fronts such as the incapable men of 1914 had brought about.
Then again, England—and that is comparatively new here—is the driving force against Germany. We must prepare for a long war in addition to a surprise attack, obviously against England. It is astonishing that we were to endeavor, at the beginning of such a war, to strike a destructive blow against England. The goal is to force England to her knees. Then follows quite a new part...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the defendant appears to be reading from a document an argument about this document. That is not giving evidence. If he can tell us anything about what happened at this meeting, it is open to him to do so.
DR. SIEMERS: He is repeating, with the aid of this document, the involved thoughts which Hitler expressed at that time, and he is pointing out the contradictions contained in Hitler’s speech at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter of argument, to point out that there are conflicts between one part of the document and another. That is not the subject of evidence. He has already told us that Hitler’s speeches generally were—that one speech generally contradicted another, but we can see for ourselves from the document if one part of it conflicts with another.
DR. SIEMERS: Is it not of importance, Mr. President, that the abstruse statements of Hitler at that time had such an effect on the witness that he says so and so many points are false? Then the whole tendency which we read out of it cannot be true. As I understand the witness, Hitler must have had mental reservations back of such conflicting remarks to commanders. But I believe we can shorten this.
Herr Grossadmiral, according to the wish of the Court, just explain what the effect was on you and what in your opinion were the special designs connected with this document.
RAEDER: By contrasting these sentences, I wanted only to show how muddled the speech was. At the end there is a second part in which a number of doctrinaire, academic opinions on warfare are expressed and a conclusion to the effect that it was also a wish of Hitler to have formed in the OKW a research staff to work out all these plans for war preparation, evaluation of individual weapons, et cetera, without the participation of the general staffs, with which he did not like to collaborate. He wanted these things to be in his own hands. Thus it was the formation of a research staff which motivated this speech.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemens, I have already told you that the Tribunal thinks that argument is not evidence. This seems to be purely argument upon this document. If there is anything in the shape of recollection as to what passed at this meeting, that would be evidence; but merely to argue upon the document is not in evidence.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may the witness not say what effect Hitler’s processes of thought had on him? The Prosecution say that Hitler and Raeder entered upon a conspiracy together.
THE PRESIDENT: He can say he did not understand it or did not think it was sincere.
DR. SIEMERS: In this connection I should like to point out that the witness referred to this point because this is the only passage from this document which the Prosecution have not read. In this document the sentences about the research staff, as I noticed immediately, were not read. This research staff was what Hitler wanted to obtain.
Herr Grossadmiral, after this speech, was anything changed in your department?
RAEDER: No. The conclusion drawn was: First, that the ship construction program was to be continued in the same way as in the past—so Hitler himself said—and in the second place, he said that the armament programs were to be geared for the year 1943-1944. That was the positive thing which I could conclude for myself.
At that time, moreover, I was strongly impressed by the speech which Hitler himself made at the launching of the battleship Bismarck in Hamburg. There he said that the Wehrmacht, as the keenest instrument of war, had to protect and help to preserve the peace founded on true justice. That made the greatest impression on me at that time with regard to Hitler’s intentions.
DR. SIEMERS: Was the fleet at that time in a position to do this?
RAEDER: No. It was completely incapable.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, if there are any passages in this document which have not been read and to which you attach importance, you may read them now; and for the rest, all that the Tribunal thinks you ought to do is to ask the defendant, what his recollection was or what happened at that meeting, and if he can supplement the document as to what happened at the meeting, he is entitled to do so. The Tribunal does not intend to prevent your reading anything from the document which has not yet been read nor from getting from the witness anything which he says happened at the meeting.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I understood the witness to mean that he recalled the research staff which the Prosecution had not mentioned. Thus it came about that the witness, since he too knows the document, at the same time pointed out that the research staff was also mentioned in the document. I believe that can explain the misunderstanding. The situation is clear to me, and perhaps I may read this sentence in that connection.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
DR. SIEMERS: Under Number 3, toward the end of the Document L-79, it says:
“To study weak points of the enemy.
“These studies must not be left to the general staffs. Secrecy would no longer be guaranteed. The Führer has, therefore, decided to order the formation of a small research staff within the OKW composed of representatives of the three branches of the Wehrmacht and, as occasion arises, the three commanders-in-chief—that is to say, general staff chiefs.
“The staff shall keep the Führer constantly informed.
“The research staff shall undertake the planning of operations from the theoretical side and the preparations which of necessity arise therefrom...”
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. A passage is left out in the English translation. The copy I have before me says, “These studies must not be left to the general staffs; secrecy would no longer be guaranteed.” And then it goes on, “This staff shall keep the Führer informed and shall report to him.” I do not think it is very important. Go on.
DR. SIEMERS: Apparently the paragraph about the research staff in the Armed Forces High Command was left out in the English. Continuing the document:
“The purpose of certain regulations concerns no one outside the staff; however great the increase in armament of our adversaries may be, they must at some time come to the end of their resources and ours will be greater. The French have 120,000 men in each class! We shall not be forced into a war, but we shall not be able to avoid one.”
This research staff, in effect, eliminated the commanders-in-chief and that was what Hitler wanted to achieve.
If I am correctly informed, the rest has been read by the Prosecution—namely, the subsequent aim and the principle, to be specific, the well-known order to keep everything secret and, at the end, that which the witness remembered, that the shipbuilding program should not be changed and the armament program should be fixed for 1943-1944.
[Turning to the defendant.] Had Hitler at this time intended a war of aggression, would he have had to speed up any particular part of the Navy’s armament?
RAEDER: Yes, indeed. He would have had to speed up all naval construction.
DR. SIEMERS: Would not the construction of submarines especially have had to be speeded up?
RAEDER: Yes, of course, particularly because they could be built most quickly.
DR. SIEMERS: How many submarines did you have at this time?
RAEDER: I cannot say exactly. I think about 26.
DR. SIEMERS: If I remember rightly, Admiral Dönitz has already answered that there were 15 capable of sailing in the Atlantic—by the way, there were altogether 26.
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, in the winter of 1938-1939, did you have a talk with Sir Nevile Henderson on relations between Germany and England?
RAEDER: Yes, a very short talk at an evening reception in the Führer’s house, where I stood near Ambassador Henderson and Herr Von Neurath, and wherein the question was discussed—it was brought up by me—as to whether England had not welcomed Germany’s offer to set the proportion of strength at 1 to 4 and would not draw certain conclusions from this reciprocal relationship. Ambassador Henderson answered, without anyone else having brought up this question, “Yes, that would be shown in the future when the colonial question was settled.” I later reported this answer to the Führer in order to use it to maintain a friendly policy toward England.
DR. SIEMERS: We are now at the summer of 1939. Admiral, in the course of the summer, after the speech of 23 May 1939, did you talk to Hitler in view of the generally known danger of war, and what did he tell you?
RAEDER: Whenever I talked to the Führer, I always brought up the question of England, whereby I annoyed him to a certain extent. I tried to convince him that it would be possible to carry out the peace policy with England which he himself had urged at the beginning of his regime. Then he always reassured me that it remained his intention to steer a policy of peace with England, always leaving me in the belief that there was no danger of a clash with England—in any case, that at this time there was no such danger.
DR. SIEMERS: Now I come to the third key document—namely, Hitler’s speech before the commanders-in-chief on 22 August 1939, at Obersalzberg. There are two documents: Document 1014-PS and Document 798-PS. Document 1014-PS is Exhibit USA-30, in Raeder Document Book 10a, Page 269; and Document 798-PS is Exhibit USA-29, in Document Book 10a, Page 266. In regard to this Document 1014-PS, which I have here in the original in the form submitted by the Prosecution, I should like to make a formal request. This Number 1014-PS was read into the record in the afternoon session of 26 November 1945 (Volume II, Page 286). I object to the use of this document. I request that this document be stricken from the trial record for the following reason...
THE PRESIDENT: What document are you speaking about now, 1014-PS?
DR. SIEMERS: In Raeder Document Book 10a, Page 269, Exhibit USA-30.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, what are your reasons?
DR. SIEMERS: The deficiencies which were already mentioned in the other transcripts are much greater here. This document is nothing but two pieces of paper headed “Second Speech by the Führer, on 22 August 1939.” The original has no heading, has no file number, no diary number, and no notice that it is secret; no signature, no date, no...
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to look at the original. Yes, Dr. Siemers.
DR. SIEMERS: It has no date, no signature—in the original in the folder, it has no indication of where the document comes from. It is headed “Second Speech...” although it is certain that on this date Hitler made only one speech, and it is hardly 1½ pages long, although...
THE PRESIDENT: When you say it has no date, it is part of the document itself which says that it is the second speech of the Führer on the 22d of August 1939.
DR. SIEMERS: I said, Mr. President, it has a heading but no date.
THE PRESIDENT: But you said it has no date.
DR. SIEMERS: It has no date as to when these notes were put in writing. It has only the date of when the speech is supposed to have been made. On all documents which the Prosecution submitted, also in the case of minutes, you will find the date of the session and the date on which the minutes were set up; also the place where the minutes were set up, the name of the person who set it up, an indication that it is secret or something like that. Furthermore, it is certain that Hitler spoke for 2½ hours. I believe it is generally known that Hitler spoke very fast. It is quite out of the question that the minutes could be 1½ pages long if they are to give the meaning and the content, at least to some extent, of a speech which lasted 2½ hours. It is important—I may then refer to still another point. I will submit the original of Document 798-PS afterwards. I am no expert on handwriting or typewriters, but I notice that this document, which is also not signed, whose origin we do not know, is written on the same paper with the same typewriter.
THE PRESIDENT: You say we do not know where it has come from—it is a captured document covered by the affidavit which was made with reference to all other captured documents.
DR. SIEMERS: Well, but I would be grateful to the Prosecution if, in the case of such an important document, the Prosecution would be kind enough in order to determine the actual historical facts to indicate more exactly where it originates. Because it is not signed by Schmundt or Hossbach or anyone and has no number, it is only loose pages.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not know whether the Prosecution can do that, but it seems to me to be rather late in the day to ask for it.
MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): Mr. President, I do not know what the exact origin of this document is offhand, but I expect that we could probably get some information before the Tribunal if the Tribunal wishes us to do so. But as the President pointed out, it is a captured document and everything that counsel says about it seems to go to its weight rather than to its admissibility.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know where the document was found, if that is possible.
MR. DODD: I will make an effort to find that out.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, Mr. Dodd just pointed out that my objection comes rather late. I believe I recall correctly that repeated objections were raised...
THE PRESIDENT: I think it was I who pointed it out, not Mr. Dodd.
DR. SIEMERS: Excuse me. I believe I recall correctly that the Defense on several occasions raised objection during the Prosecution’s case, and it was said that all statements could be made during the Defense’s case at a later time—namely, when it is the defense counsel’s turn to speak.
THE PRESIDENT: I only meant that it might not be possible at this stage to find out exactly where the document came from, whereas, if the question had been asked very much earlier in the Trial, it might have been very much easier. That is all I meant. Have you anything more to add upon why, in your opinion, this document should be stricken from the record?
DR. SIEMERS: I should like to point out, Mr. President, that I do not do it for formal reasons but rather for a very substantial reason. Most important words in this document have constantly been repeated by the Prosecution during these 5 or 6 months—namely, the words “Destruction of Poland, main objective... Aim: elimination of vital forces, not arrival at a certain line.” These words were not spoken, and such a war aim the German commanders-in-chief would not have agreed to. For that reason it is important to ascertain whether this document is genuine.
In this connection, may I remind the Court that there is a third version of this speech as mentioned in this courtroom—namely, Document L-3, which is even worse than these and which was published by the press of the whole world. Wherever one spoke to anyone, this grotesque and brutal speech was brought up. For that reason it is in the interest of historical truth to ascertain whether Hitler spoke in this shocking way at this time. Actually, I admit he used many expressions which were severe, but he did not use such words, and this is of tremendous significance for the reputation of all the commanders who were present.
Let me point out the next words. They say expressly, “close your hearts against pity, brutal measures.” Such words were not used. I will be in a position to prove this by another witness, Generaladmiral Böhm.
I therefore request the Court to decide on my request for striking this document from the record. I should like to point out that the document is mentioned in the record at many points. Should the honorable Court so wish, I would have to look for all the points. I have found only four or five in the German record. If necessary, I would give all the points in the English record. It was submitted on 26 November 1945, afternoon session (Volume II, Page 286).
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you need bother to do that. You are now only upon the question of whether the document should be stricken from the record. If it were to be stricken from the record, we could find out where it is. Is that all you wish to say?
DR. SIEMERS: One question to Admiral Raeder.
The words which I just read, “brutal measures, elimination of vital forces”—were these words used in Hitler’s speech at that time?
RAEDER: In my opinion, no. I believe that the version submitted by Admiral Böhm, which he wrote down on the afternoon of the same day on the basis of his notes, is the version nearest to the truth.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, in order to achieve clarity on this question, I submit as Exhibit Raeder-27, in Raeder Document Book 2, Page 144, an orderly reproduction of this speech.
RAEDER: May I also have Document Book 2?
DR. SIEMERS: This is the speech according to the manuscript of Generaladmiral Hermann Böhm. Generaladmiral Böhm was present at Hitler’s speech on 22 August 1939 at Obersalzberg. He made the notes during the speech. He transcribed them in the present form on the same evening—that is, on 22 August 1939—in the Vier Jahreszeiten Hotel in Munich. I have certified the correctness of the copy. The original is in the handwriting of Generaladmiral Böhm. Böhm has been called by me as a witness for various other questions. He will confirm that the speech was made in this form as I have submitted here. A comparison of the two documents shows that all terms, such as “brutal measures,” are not contained in this speech. It shows further...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Surely this part of Dr. Siemers’ argument must go to weight. He has said that a comparison of the two documents shows such and such. I have just looked at the end of Admiral Böhm’s affidavit and it contains, I should argue, every vital thought that is contained in Document 1014-PS. But whether it does or not, that is a matter of weight, surely. We cannot, in my respectful submission, go into intrinsic comparisons to decide the admissibility of the document. As I say, on that I should have a great deal to say by comparing the documents in detail. That is not before the Tribunal now.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The Tribunal was only wanting to hear whatever Dr. Siemers has got to say upon the subject.
DR. SIEMERS: A comparison of the document with Document 798-PS, in the longer and better version, as the Prosecution submitted...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, as Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe has just pointed out, a mere comparison of the documents—of the two or three documents does not help us as to its admissibility. We know the facts about the document. It is a document in German, captured among German documents.
DR. SIEMERS: I understand. I made the statement only in order to show that I am not raising objections for formal reasons, but because the thing is actually of great importance. In proof of my...
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, you will be able to urge that when you make your speech in criticism of the document as to its weight. You will be able to point out that it does not bear comparison with a fuller document taken down by Admiral Böhm or with the other document.
DR. SIEMERS: Absolutely right. To explain my formal request, I refer to my statement on the formal character of the document which I submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
The application to strike out Document 1014-PS is denied.
[A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: Has Counsel for the Prosecution understood that the Tribunal wishes to have information as to where that document was found?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord; we will do our best to get it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and also the other, Document 798-PS.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, if Your Lordship pleases.
DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, I submitted Document Raeder-27, which is the Böhm version, to you. You have read the speech in this version. Is this reproduction correct on the whole, in your recollection?
RAEDER: Yes. In my opinion, this version is that one which corresponds most closely to reality. I remember especially that Hitler devoted a large portion of his remarks to the point that England and France would not intervene, giving reasons why they would not. He mentioned a number of reasons, and I missed just that portion, in its elaboration, in the other reproductions of the speech.
DR. SIEMERS: In the version of the speech Document 798-PS or Exhibit USA-29 it says verbatim: “I am only afraid that at the last moment some swine will offer me some plan of arbitration.” Were those words used in the speech at that time?
RAEDER: In my recollection, certainly not. The Führer was not accustomed to using expressions like that in speeches which he made to the generals.
DR. SIEMERS: On the other hand, the version put forth by Böhm shows that Hitler had, by this time, decided to attack Poland. I am asking you to give us briefly the impression, which the speech made on you at the time. Tell me also why, despite this speech which even in this version is severe, you retained your office as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy.
RAEDER: Without doubt, I had the impression that the situation was serious and tremendously tense. The fact, however, that Hitler in his speech put too great a stress on proving that France and England would not intervene, and the second fact that Herr Von Ribbentrop, the Reich Foreign Minister, left for Moscow on the same day to sign a pact there, as we were told—these things filled not only me but all listeners as well with the strong hope that here again was a case of a clever move by Hitler, which in the end he would successfully solve in a peaceful way.
Therefore I saw no reason to resign my office at that moment. I would have considered that pure desertion.
DR. SIEMERS: May it please the Tribunal, in this connection I would like, because of their chronological correspondence, to submit the two documents Exhibits Raeder-28 and 29, and I ask that the Tribunal only take judicial notice without my making further reference to them.
The Prosecution have cited Document C-155 and have accused you, through this document...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, of the documents to which Dr. Siemers has just referred—Documents Raeder-28 and 29—the first is a memorandum of General Gamelin and the second is a letter from General Weygand to General Gamelin of 9 September 1939.
Your Lordship will remember that the Prosecution objected to these documents as being irrelevant, and, My Lord, the Prosecution maintain that objection.
I do not wish to interrupt Dr. Siemers’ examination any more than is necessary. If at the moment he is merely asking the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the documents and does not intend to use them, it would probably be convenient—in order not to interrupt the examination-in-chief—that I merely indicate formally that we are maintaining our objection to the document. Of course, I am at the disposal of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this the position, that they were allowed to be translated and put in the document book but that no further order of the Tribunal has been given?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No further order has been given and therefore, My Lord, it is still open to us to object, as I understand the position.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, perhaps we had better deal with it now, then.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.
DR. SIEMERS: May I make a few remarks on this point? I believe...
THE PRESIDENT: But we had better hear the objection first, had we not? And then we will hear you afterwards.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, Mr. President, as you wish. This is a purely formal point. I believe that Sir David erred slightly in referring to Document Raeder-28. There was no objection to this document by the Prosecution, but only against Document Raeder-29.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My friend is quite right; we did not object to the translation of 28. However, My Lord, it falls into the same category as 29, and I would still raise an objection. I apologize to Your Lordship if I conveyed the impression that we had made an objection before.
My Lord, the Number 28 is a letter from General Gamelin to M. Daladier on the 1st of September 1939, in which General Gamelin gives his views as to the problem of the neutrality of Belgium and Luxembourg and contrasts that view with the view of the French Government.
Now, My Lord, I submit that that expression of opinion on the part of General Gamelin is in itself intrinsically too remote from the issues of this Trial to be of any relevance or probative value.
Then, apart from its intrinsic nature, the position is that this was a document which, as I understand from Dr. Siemers’ verification on Page 158, is taken from the White Book of the German Foreign Office, from the secret files of the French General Staff, which could not have been captured until sometime after June 1940. Therefore, as a secondary reason, it can have no relevance to any opinion formed by the Defendant Raeder in September of 1939.
My Lord, the second document is, as I said to the Tribunal, a letter to General Gamelin from General Weygand, who was then the Commander-in-Chief of the French Army in the Levant. It describes a plan which General Weygand had in mind with regard to possible operations in Greece. Nothing came of these operations before June 1940 when an armistice was made by Marshal Pétain on behalf of part of the French people—although not, of course, of the whole—and it can have no relevance to October 1940 when Greece was invaded by Italy, or to the position at the end of 1940 and the beginning of 1941 when the invasion of Greece begins to be considered in the German directives and operational orders which have been put in before the Tribunal.
That is the first point. And the same secondary point applies, that it was also a captured document which could not have been captured before June 1940; therefore, it can have no relevance to this defendant’s state of mind in August or September of 1939.
My Lord, as a matter of convenience, I have just made a list of the documents to which objections will be made and, My Lord, there are one or two additions which my French and Soviet colleagues have asked me to make, and I will deal with them when they arise.
My Lord, I would just like the Tribunal to have in mind that there are four geographical groups of documents as opposed to the groups under which they are arranged here, which the Tribunal will have to consider. One is formed by documents relating to the Low Countries, the second, which is Group G on the list which I have just put before the Tribunal, deals with Norway; a third deals with Greece, of which Document Raeder-29 is an example; and a fourth is Group E in the list which I have just put in, dealing with tentative proposals and suggestions made by various military figures with regard to the oil field in the Caucasus or operations on the Danube.
My Lord, the same objections which I have made particularly with regard to Documents Raeder-28 and 29 will apply generally to these groups, and I thought that I ought to draw the Tribunal’s attention to that fact. In addition, my friend Colonel Pokrovsky has intimated to me some special objections which we will have to certain documents on which he can assist the Tribunal himself when they arise.
But, My Lord, I do take these specific cases, 28 and 29, as objectionable in themselves, and I draw the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that they are also typically objectionable as belonging to certain groups.
The decision of the Tribunal, Your Lordship, is given in the morning session of 2 May 1946. Your Lordship said, “The question of their admissibility will be decided after they have been translated.”
M. CHARLES DUBOST (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): May it please the Tribunal, I would ask the Tribunal for an opportunity to associate myself publicly with the declaration just made by Sir David and to propose a few examples which will show the degree of importance which should be attached to the documents in question.
The Defense is asking that the Tribunal take into account a document published in the German White Book Number 5, under Number 8. This document reports a statement by a French prisoner of war who is supposed to have said that he had been in Belgium since 15 April. However, the German White Book gives neither the name of this prisoner nor any indication of his unit. We have none of the information which we need in order to judge whether the statement is relevant. We are therefore faced with a document which is not authentic and which has no value as evidence.
The Defense is asking that Document Raeder-102 of the same document book be admitted by the Tribunal. I ask the Tribunal to let me make a few observations to show the one-sided manner in which these documents have been assembled by the German authorities in the White Book.
I would say, first of all, that this Document Raeder-102 has not been quoted at length. The French Delegation has referred to the text of the German White Book. We have read it carefully. This document is only a preparatory order in view of defensive preparations organized by the Belgians on the French-Belgian frontier facing France. We have consulted the Belgian military authorities. This order was a manifestation of the Belgian Government’s determination to defend Belgium’s neutrality on all its frontiers.
It is therefore contrary to the truth to try to prove by means of this document the existence of staff contacts between Brussels, London, and Paris, which, if they had existed, would have been contrary to the policy of neutrality.
The commentary made by the German Minister for Foreign Affairs in the introduction to the German White Book, Page 11 of the French text, took the counsel by surprise and certainly did not mislead Admiral Raeder, who is a serviceman. In fact, it is at the price of a lie that the official commentator affirms, on the one hand, that the expression “les forces amies” (friendly forces) used in this document means French and British troops, whereas in reality it is a regular expression used in the Belgian Army to describe Belgian units in the immediate vicinity of those actually fighting. On the other hand, the German commentator claims, and I quote, “The general line Tournai-Antoing, of the canal from Mons to Condé, Saint Ghislain and Binche, is partly in Belgian and partly in French territory.” It is sufficient to look at a map to see that all those localities are in Belgian territory and they are all at least some dozens of kilometers distant from the French-Belgian frontier, and in places, 60 kilometers from the French frontier.
I ask the Tribunal to excuse this interruption. I thought it was advisable to enlighten them by giving a convincing example of the value of the evidence furnished by the German White Book.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal thinks the most convenient course would be to hear your argument now upon these documents, not only upon 28 to 29, but upon the other documents specified in Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe’s list, and then the Tribunal would consider these documents after the adjournment and would give its decision tomorrow morning.
DR. SIEMERS: May it please the Tribunal, I should be very grateful if it would be possible to proceed in a somewhat different manner. I should like to call attention to the fact that a rather lengthy debate regarding documents has already taken place, and the decision of the Court followed. I believe that if I comment upon all the documents at this point a great deal of time will be lost, since the coherence of the documents will emerge of itself later during my presentation of evidence. If I now deal with the list submitted by Sir David, I would, in order to show my reasons, have to set forth all that which will appear again in the regular course of testimony later on. I thought that the decision of the Tribunal first to present the documents in the document book was specifically to save time, and then objections could be made one by one as individual documents are presented.
THE PRESIDENT: I know; but there are a very great number of documents. The Tribunal will have to hear an argument upon each document if we do what you suggest, reading the list of Sir David. There are 30 or 40 documents, I suppose.
DR. SIEMERS: Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe has already stated that he will be guided according to different geographical groups. Therefore, there will not be objections with regard to each document but rather with regard to each group of documents and each group of questions—for instance, an objection in the Norway case against all Norwegian documents or in the Greek case against all Greek documents. It would be easier to deal with matters that way, since in my testimony I shall be dealing with Greece and Norway anyway, whereas if I do so now I shall have to say everything twice. But I shall of course be guided by the decision of the honorable Tribunal. I only fear that an unnecessary amount of time will be lost that way.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I only want to say one word on procedure. I did hope that Dr. Siemers and I had already occupied sufficient of the Tribunal’s time in arguing this point because, of course, the arguments as to relevancy must be the same. Whether they are so obviously irrelevant as not to be translatable, or whether they are inadmissible, at any rate my arguments were the same, and I did not intend to repeat the argument which I had made before the Tribunal.
Dr. Siemers already assisted the Tribunal for an hour and a half on this point, which we discussed before, and I hoped that if I stated as I did state that I have maintained the points which I put before the Tribunal in my previous argument, that Dr. Siemers might be able on this occasion to shorten matters and to say that he relied on the—if I may say so—very full argument which the Tribunal had on the other occasion. That is why I thought it might be convenient if we dealt with them now and put this problem out of the need for further consideration.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal thinks that you must argue these questions now, and it hopes that you will argue them shortly, as your arguments have already been heard in favor of them. But we think that you must argue them now and not argue each individual document as it comes up, and it will consider the matter. It already has these documents, but it will consider the matter again and decide the matter tonight.
COLONEL Y. V. POKROVSKY (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): My Lord, inasmuch as the Tribunal decided to have Dr. Siemers argue the point which was expressed by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe and other prosecutors, I think it is my duty to name three documents to which our Prosecution object.
The Soviet Prosecution would like to object altogether to five documents. Two of them—I have in mind Documents Raeder-70 and 88—have already been included by my friend Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe in the list which has been given to the Tribunal. So all I have to do now is to name the three remaining numbers, so that Dr. Siemers would have it easier in answering all together. I name Documents Raeder-13, 27, and 83.
Document Raeder-13 is a record of a report of Captain Lohmann. There is an idea expressed in this report which I cannot call other than a mad and propagandist idea of a typical Nazi. The idea is that the aim of the Red Army is world revolution, and that the Red Army is really trying to incite world revolution. I consider that it would not be proper if such nightmares and politically harmful ideas were reflected in the documents which are to be admitted by the Tribunal.
My second objection is in connection with the Document Raeder-27. This is a record which was made by a voluntary reporter, Böhm, of an address of Hitler’s at Obersalzberg. The Tribunal already rejected Dr. Siemers’ application to include two documents pertaining to the same questions and emphasized the fact that the Tribunal does not wish to compare the authenticity of different documents pertaining to or dealing with the same question.
I consider that inasmuch as the Tribunal already has at its disposal among documents which were admitted two records dealing with Hitler’s address at Obersalzberg, therefore, there is no necessity to admit the third record of his speech, especially since in this third version there are altogether shameless, slanderous, and calumnious remarks against the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union and the leaders of the Soviet Government. Neither the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union nor we as representatives of the Soviet State would ever agree to have such remarks included in the record.
The third document is Document Raeder-83. Document 83 is an excerpt from the German White Book. Since the authenticity of this White Book has already been questioned by Dr. Dubost, I consider it material which cannot be relied upon, and in particular with regard to the Document Raeder-83. There are several remarks, harmful to the Soviet Union, which have absolutely no political basis—that is, the passage pertaining to the relations between the Soviet Union and Finland. So on the grounds of such general political motives, I would ask the High Tribunal to exclude as evidence Document Raeder-83 from the list of documents which were presented to the Tribunal by Defense Counsel Siemers. Furthermore, strictly speaking, it is absolutely clear that this document is irrelevant. That is all I want to say.
DR. SIEMERS: May it please the Tribunal, I note to my regret that we are back at the beginning again in our debate about documents; for we are disputing about documents now which were not mentioned at all in the original debate concerning documents, which took place on 1 May. I had believed, however, that I could rely on this one principle, that at least those documents which at that time were not objected to would be considered granted. Now, however, I find that those documents which were not discussed at that time at all are under dispute. It is extremely difficult...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal thinks you are entirely in error in that, because it is obvious that a document which has not been translated cannot be finally passed on by the Prosecution or by the Tribunal, and the fact that the Prosecution does not object to it at that stage does not prevent it from objecting at a later stage when it has been translated.
DR. SIEMERS: There were some documents to which I was told that the Prosecution did not object, and with regard to them I believed at any rate that that was final, just as with reference to some documents...
THE PRESIDENT: I thought I had made myself clear. What I said was this: The Prosecution in objecting or not objecting to a document before it is translated does not in any way bind them not to object to it after it is translated. Is that clear?
DR. SIEMERS: Then I shall take these documents one by one. First of all, I would like to start with those documents which Colonel Pokrovsky...
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal will not listen to these documents taken one by one. If they can be treated in groups they must be treated in groups. They have been treated in groups by Sir David, and I am not saying you must adhere exactly to the same groups, that the Tribunal is not proposing to hear each document one by one.
DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon. Then it is a misunderstanding. I wanted to discuss those documents at the beginning, because there are some things which are not clear and which were objected to by Colonel Pokrovsky. I did not realize that Colonel Pokrovsky mentioned the documents in groups. I believe he mentioned five documents—three of them individually—and I believe that, though I have not understood everything, I can deal with these individually mentioned documents one by one. However, I shall be glad to start with the group laid down by Sir David if that is to be dealt with first. Shall I first...
THE PRESIDENT: When you said you were going to deal with the documents one by one, you meant all the documents one by one? I am not suggesting that you...
DR. SIEMERS: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You can deal with Colonel Pokrovsky first if you like.
DR. SIEMERS: Colonel Pokrovsky has as his first objection Document Raeder-13. This deals with a document dated 1935. Certainly Colonel Pokrovsky can offer some objection to the contents of this document, but how a document can be classed as irrelevant just because a certain sentence allegedly contains propaganda is not quite clear to me. I believe I could find sentences in other documents which have been submitted during these past 6 months which might be interpreted in some way as propaganda. I cannot quite imagine that that is an objection, and I would like to remind the Tribunal that right at the beginning of the proceedings, when we were dealing with Austria, the Tribunal rejected an objection made by the Defense regarding a letter. The Defense objected because the author of the letter was available as a witness. Thereupon, the Tribunal, and justly so, decided that the letter was evidence. The only matter for debate is the probative value. The Tribunal admitted this document. And in connection with this I should like to mention that a lecture at a university which is set down in writing is a document. The lecture deals with the naval agreement, and I believe that therewith the relevancy...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, have you not made your point on Number 13? You said the majority of the thing is clearly relevant, though there is one sentence which may be alleged to be propaganda, and, therefore, the document ought not be struck out. Is that not your point?
DR. SIEMERS: No, I am saying that it is a document which has a bearing on the evidence used in this Trial, and the Soviet Prosecution cannot dispute it because it was a lecture given in 1935. I cannot at all understand the use of the word “propaganda” by Colonel Pokrovsky in connection with this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I do not understand what you say in the least. I thought I put the point you had made. I thought you made it clear that the document in itself was relevant and could not be rejected because it contained one sentence which was alleged propaganda. That is your point, and I shall want it stated in one or two sentences, and the Tribunal will consider it. I do not see why the time of the Tribunal should be taken up with a long argument about something else.
DR. SIEMERS: Colonel Pokrovsky secondly, if I understood the interpreter, objected to Document Number Raeder-27. In this instance we are concerned with the speech of Hitler at Obersalzberg on 22 August 1932. It is Exhibit Raeder-27. It is very hard for me to comment on this document since I do not understand the objections of Colonel Pokrovsky. It deals...
THE PRESIDENT: The objection was that there was no necessity for a third record of the speech. There were two records which you objected to, and he said there was no necessity for a third.
DR. SIEMERS: I would like to add to that then, Your Honor, that the Soviet Delegation does not agree with the Delegation of the United States. In the record at that time the representative of the American Delegation said that if any one had a better version of that speech, he should present it. Therefore, I agree with the opinion of the American Prosecution and I believe, aside from that, that not a word about the relevancy of a speech which was made shortly before the outbreak of the war is necessary.
Document Raeder-83 is the third document objected to by Colonel Pokrovsky. This contains the sixth session of the Supreme Council on 28 March 1940, the drafting of a resolution with the heading “Strictly Secret.” In this document the Supreme Council—that is, the constituents of the Allied leadership—agreed that the French and British Governments on Monday, 1 April, would tender a note to the Norwegian and Swedish Governments. The contents of this note is then given, and there is a reference to the point of view of vital interests, and it says there then the position of the neutrals would be considered by the Allies as one contrary to their vital interests, and that it would evoke an appropriate reaction.
Under Figure 1c of this document, it says:
“Any attempt by the Soviet Union which aimed at obtaining from Norway a position on the Atlantic Coast would be contrary to the vital interests of the Allies and would provoke the appropriate reaction.”
THE PRESIDENT: You do not need to read the document, do you? I mean you can tell us what the substance of it is. It appears to be an objection to any further attack upon Finland, which would be considered by the Allies to be contrary to their vital interests. That is all.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, just this expression “vital interests” is the decisive one. I do not wish, as the Prosecution always seem to think, to bring up some sort of objection from the point of view of tu quoque. I want to show only what the situation was according to international law, and that at the same time when Admiral Raeder was entertaining certain thoughts regarding Norway, Greece, and so forth, the Allied agencies had the same thoughts and were basing these thoughts on the same concept of international law which, as I recently said, was upheld by Kellogg—namely that the right of self-preservation still exists. Now I can prove my point through these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: The point made against you by Sir David was that the document could not have come into the hands of the German authorities until after the fall of France.
DR. SIEMERS: Now I shall deal with the groupings designated by Sir David.
Sir David made certain fundamental statements. Regarding Document Numbers Raeder-28 and 29, he pointed out specifically that in one case they were the thoughts of General Gamelin and in the other case those of General Weygand, and that these ideas were not known to the Germans at that time since these documents were not yet in our hands. The latter point is correct. The concept and the plan of occupying Greece, of destroying Romanian oil wells, those thoughts were known to the Germans—namely, through their intelligence service. The Prosecution did not present the data of the German High Command which show these reports. Since I do not have these documents, I believe it would be just if I am given the possibility of presenting the actual facts which were known to Germany and in this way prove them. I have no other proofs. That it is agreeable to the Prosecution to deprive me of the documents which I need for the defense, I can understand; but the Prosecution must also understand the fact that I consider it important that those documents which are definite proof of certain plans remain at my disposal.
The charge has been made against Admiral Raeder that it was an aggressive war—a criminal war of aggression—to formulate plans for the occupation of Greece. Document Raeder-29 shows that General Weygand and General Gamelin on 9 September 1939 concern themselves with planning the occupation of neutral Salonika. So if this is the case, I cannot understand how one can point an accusing finger at Admiral Raeder, on the German side, for having concerned himself with such plans a year and half later. I believe, therefore, that these and similar documents must be granted me, for only from them can the military planning and the value of the military planning, or the objectionable side—that is the criminal side of the planning, be understood. The strategic thinking of the defendant can be understood only if one knows approximately what strategic thinking prevailed at the same time with the enemy. The strategic reasoning of Admiral Raeder was shut up in an airtight compartment but depended on the reports received about the strategic planning of the opposition. It is a reciprocal activity. This reciprocal activity is necessary for an understanding. Therefore, in view of this very essential point, I ask to be granted this kind of document since, as I have recently stated, I do not know how I can carry on my defense at all in the face of these grave accusations regarding Greece and Norway if all of my documents are stricken. I believe that I am understood correctly when I do not assert that we were cognizant of these documents. But Germany knew the contents of these documents, and I believe that is sufficient.
May it please the Tribunal, we are once again at Document Raeder-66 in Group A. This Document Raeder-66 is the opinion of Dr. Mosler, an expert in international law, about the Norwegian operation as judged from the standpoint of international law.
Since we are always talking about saving time in this courtroom, I would have my doubts about rejecting this article, for a refusal would force me to set forth the trend of thought point by point in detail, and I believe that it is much easier for the Tribunal, for the Prosecution and for me, if I submit general legal arguments in this connection.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, this is a document which is a matter of legal argument. If the Tribunal thinks it would be of any assistance to have the argument in documentary form, I willingly withdraw my objection to that. That is on quite a different project than the other one, and I want to help in any way I can.
While I am before the microphone: I did mention that there were two other documents that fall into the same group. Document Raeder-34 falls into Group B, and Document Raeder-48 into the Group E.
My Lord, I did mention 28 when I was addressing the Tribunal.
DR. SIEMERS: May it please the Tribunal, I do not wish to dispute Document Raeder-66, I have really done this just to ease the situation for everyone. The additional documents in this group are Raeder-101 to 107. I cannot say that this is a homogeneous group. One document deals with Norway, another deals with Belgium, a third deals with the Danube. The unity of this group escapes me. Basically these documents have this point in common: that, as I have already stated, a plan existed in the Allied General Staff, as well as in the German, and all were based on the tenet of international law regarding the right of self-preservation and vital interests.
In order to be brief at this point I should like to refer to Document Raeder-66 particularly, and to save time I ask that the quotations from this document be considered the basis for my remarks today on the right of self-preservation. I am referring to the quotations on Page 3 and Page 4 of this expert opinion. The legal situation is made very clear therein, and it is set forth very clearly in this expert opinion that, with regard to the question of the occupation of Norway, we are not concerned with whether the Allies had actually landed in Norway but only whether such a plan existed, that we are not concerned with the fact whether Norway agreed or did not agree. The danger of a change of neutrality according to international law gives one the right to use some compensating measure or to attack on one’s own accord; and this basic tenet has been maintained in the entire literature which is quoted in this document, and to which I shall refer later in my defense speech.
Out of group 101 to 107, I have to mention Document Raeder-107 especially. Document Raeder-107 is not concerned at all with the White Books as the other documents are. 107 is an affidavit by Schreiber. Schreiber was naval attaché at Oslo from October 1939 onward. From the beginning I have said that I needed Schreiber as a witness. In the meantime, I dispensed with Schreiber because even though we tried for weeks, we could not find him. I discussed this matter with Sir David and with Colonel Phillimore. I was advised that there would be no objection on this formal point since Schreiber suddenly and of his own accord reappeared again.
If, as the Prosecution wish, this piece of evidence is taken from me—namely, the affidavit of Schreiber about the reports which Admiral Raeder received from Oslo and, in addition to that, the documents from which the authenticity of these reports may be shown—then I have no evidence for this entire question at all. Besides, Schreiber was in Oslo during the occupation and he has commented in his affidavit with regard to the behavior of the Navy and the efforts of Admiral Raeder in connection with the regrettable civil administration of Terboven. Therefore, I am asking the High Tribunal to grant this affidavit to me or to grant Schreiber as a witness so that he can testify personally. This latter course, however, would take up more time. I have limited my evidence through witnesses to such a degree that I believe that, in view of the entire span of 15 years with which we are dealing, in the case of the Defendant Raeder at least, such an affidavit should be granted me.
With regard to Group B, I should like to refer to the remarks which I have already made. As far as I can see, the group seems to be thoroughly heterogeneous, but I believe they are all documents taken from the White Book. The same ideas should be applied which I have recently expressed to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I think Sir David recognized that there was a certain degree of lack of identity in these groups, but he suggested that they all fall into geographical groups: one group, the Low Countries; one group, Norway; one group, Greece; and one group, the Caucasus and the Danube—which agrees with “E.” That is what he said. Could you not deal with them in those geographical groups?
DR. SIEMERS: Very well.
I have already talked about Norway and in that connection I therefore refer to the remarks I have already made. I have already briefly mentioned Greece. I would like to say that there was a double accusation made: One, that neutral ships were sunk—namely, neutral Greek ships, and secondly, the accusation of an aggressive war against Greece—that is, the occupation of all Greece.
With regard to the last point, I have already made a few statements. Dealing with the Greek merchantmen I would like to say only that in this case the action and attitude of the defendant appears justified in that he received reports which coincided with the documents which were found a month later in France. The same reports were received by Raeder when he expressed his views to Hitler. I would like to prove that these reports which came to him through the intelligence service were not invented by the intelligence service but were actual facts. The same applies to the oil regions. Plans existed to destroy the Romanian oil wells and furthermore there was a plan to destroy the Caucasian oil wells; both had the object of hurting the enemy; in the one case Germany alone—as far as Romania was concerned—and in the second case Germany and Russia, because at that time Russia was on friendly terms with Germany.
These plans are—and this is shown by the documents—in the same form as all other documents presented by the Prosecution. These documents as well, in their entirety, are “top secret,” “personal,” “confidential.” Just as the Prosecution have always said, “Why did you do everything secretly? That is suspicious.” These documents contain ideas based on strategic planning just as do the documents presented by the Prosecution. That is something which arises from the nature of war and which is not meant to be an accusation on my part, nor should it be construed as an accusation against Admiral Raeder by the Prosecution.
Then the group of Ribbentrop documents follows. I can say only what I said recently. And as I glance at it cursorily now, the documents in the Ribbentrop document book are not as complete as they are here. Therefore, I believe it is important to take the documents and to investigate their complete content from the point of view of Raeder rather than the point of view of Ribbentrop. That perhaps may have taken place, as the High Tribunal suggested the other day. Then I believe, however, it is not an objection which can be used by the Prosecution to say that in the case of Ribbentrop they were partially admitted and partially rejected. For some documents which were granted Ribbentrop were refused me.
Then we turn to Group “E,” and that is tu quoque. I believe I have already spoken sufficiently on that point just recently. I dispute it again and I cannot understand why the Prosecution will not agree with me on that. I do not wish to object. I am not saying tu quoque; I am only saying that there is strategic planning which is carried on in every army and there are tenets in international law which applied to the Allies exactly in the same way as to us, and I beg to be granted these possibilities of comparison in foreign politics.
I believe herewith that I have dealt with all points so far as it is possible for me to define my position in such a brief period of time with regard to about 50 documents, and I am asking the High Tribunal not to make my work more difficult by refusing these documents to me.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will carefully consider these documents and your arguments.
The Tribunal will now adjourn.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 17 May 1946, at 1000 hours.]
ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SECOND DAY Friday, 17 May 1946
Morning Session
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal have given careful and prolonged attention to the consideration of the documents offered by Dr. Siemers on behalf of the Defendant Raeder; and they, therefore, do not wish the documents which they propose to admit to be read because they have already read them all.
I will now deal with the documents individually.
Document 66 is admitted for the purposes of argument, and not as evidence; Document 101 is denied; Documents 102 to 105 are admitted; Document 106 is denied; Document 107 is admitted; Document 39 is denied; Document 63 is admitted; Document 64 is denied; Document 99 is denied; Document 100 is admitted; Documents 102 to 107 are admitted; Document 38 is denied; Document 50 is denied; Document 55 is denied; Document 58 is denied; Documents 29, 56, 57, 60, and 62 are denied. I should have included in that group Document 28, which is also denied. Documents 31, 32, 36, 37, and 39 are denied; Document 41 is admitted; Document 99 has already been denied, and Document 101 has already been denied; Document 59 is admitted; Document 68 is denied; Document 70 is denied; Document 72 is denied; Document 74 is denied; Document 75 is admitted; Document 77 is admitted; Document 79 is admitted; Document 80 is admitted; Document 84 is admitted; Document 85, which is on Page 82 of Volume V, is admitted; Document 87 is denied; Document 88 is admitted; Document 91 is admitted; Document 13 is admitted; Document 27 is admitted.
The Prosecution may, if they wish it, apply to cross-examine the witness who made that document.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Francis Biddle, Member for the United States): That is Admiral Böhm.
THE PRESIDENT: Admiral Böhm, yes.
Document 83 is admitted; Document 34 is admitted; Document 48 is denied.
Have I gone too quickly for you, Dr. Siemers? You have the last few?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, I heard everything.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, yesterday afternoon the Tribunal asked that we ascertain the origins, if possible, of Document 1014-PS. Some question was raised about it by Dr. Siemers. It is Exhibit USA-30.
I have had a search made, and I have some information that we are prepared to submit concerning this document. I should like to point out that 1014-PS and 798-PS and L-3 are documents all concerning this same speech made at Obersalzberg on 22 August 1939. They were offered in evidence by Mr. Alderman of the American staff on the 26th day of November 1945.
I should like to point out that L-3, to which Dr. Siemers made reference yesterday, was offered only for identification, as the record shows for the proceedings of that day on the 26th of November, and has received the mark Exhibit Number USA-28 for identification only. Mr. Alderman pointed out, as appears in the record, that he was not offering it in evidence, that it was a paper which came into our hands originally through the services of a newspaperman, and that later on the Documents 798-PS and 1014-PS were found among captured documents. They referred to the same speech in Obersalzberg. Mr. Alderman offered these two at that time.
Now Document 798-PS, Exhibit Number USA-29, and Document 1014-PS, Exhibit Number USA-30, were both found by the forces of the United States in this fashion:
They had been taken from the OKW headquarters in Berlin, and in the course of various journeys in those days they finally arrived at one place and were stored, it now appears, at various places by the OKW under the control of a General Winter of the German forces; and they were transported in three railway trains to Saalfelden in the Austrian Tyrol. Subsequently, General Winter ordered that all documents in his possession be turned over to the Allied forces and they were. These particular documents, together with some other papers, were turned over by General Winter and members of his staff at that time; and on the 21st day of May 1945, they were removed from Saalfelden where they were under the control of General Winter and taken to the Third U.S. Army Document Center at Munich. While at Munich they were sorted and cataloged by Department G-2 Supreme Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Force with the assistance of clerks from the OKW and OKH. On the 16th of June 1945 these documents, together with others, were removed on six trucks from the headquarters of the Third Army at Munich and were taken to the U.S. Group Control Council Number 32 at Seckenheim, Germany, which was located in the former offices of the I.G. Farben Company, and were placed on shelves on the third floor of the building and kept under guard. Between the 16th of June 1945 and the 30th of August 1945, the task of collecting, sorting, assembling and cataloging these documents was carried out under the supervision of the British Colonel Austin, with personnel of the Supreme Headquarters and the G-2 Document Center of the G-2 Operational Intelligence Section, 6889 Berlin Document Section, and the British Enemy Document Unit, and the British Military Intelligence Research Section. Beginning on the 5th day of July 1945, and continuing until the 30th of August 1945, these documents were screened at that place by members of the staff of the United States Chief Counsel. Lieutenant Margolies, who is here in the courtroom and a member of our staff, personally picked these documents out of your file 798-PS and 1014-PS from the OKW captured files, brought them to Nuremberg, and lodged them in the document room where they have been kept under strict security ever since.
Now, that is the history of these two documents about which Dr. Siemers raised some question yesterday—a considerable question I might say—and inferred there was something strange about their contents. I think the story which I have given in the form of a statement over the signature of Lieutenant Commander Hopper clearly establishes the source and where they have been ever since; and I think it is only fair to say that, since Dr. Siemers saw fit to point out that this language sounded extremely harsh and was attributed to Hitler, these documents were offered to show these people were actually talking about aggressive war. The reading of the three documents by the Tribunal will clearly show they are all in agreement in substance; of course, there are differences in phraseology, but the important thing and purpose for which they were offered was to show that these people were talking aggressive war. I might say I am not surprised to find my friend is sensitive about the remark, but I think the unanswered proof in the case thus far shows that not only were these things said but they were done.
M. DUBOST: May it please the Court. No doubt it is a mistake in translation. We understood 106 had been rejected the first time and admitted the second time in the Group 102 to 107.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid it was my mistake. I did say that the Group 102 to 107 were admitted; but I have also said 106 was rejected, and it is rejected. It is entirely my mistake. 106 is rejected.
M. DUBOST: 106 is thrown out and 102 to 107 are also rejected, are they?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I will state the exact numbers: 102, 103, 104, 105, and 107 are admitted.
M. DUBOST: Very good. Mr. President, we want to offer further explanations on 102 to 107 during the course of the proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I say a few words concerning the statement made by Mr. Dodd?
I had no doubts, and I certainly have no doubt now, that since these documents were found they have been handled very correctly and Mr. Dodd spoke only about that. I believe it is important to establish: Whether one can determine the connection these documents had with other documents, because in that way one can see whether these were documents belonging to a certain adjutant. For instance, were they together with the Hossbach papers or together with the Schmundt file? If, for instance, the documents were with the Schmundt documents it is probable that they belonged to the adjutant.
THE PRESIDENT: That all goes to the weight of the document, does it not? No doubt, a document which is signed has more weight than a document which is not signed. All those matters the Tribunal will take into account when considering the documents, but the admissibility of the document depends upon its being a German document found and captured.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I wanted to say this only because it is unpleasant to have the American Delegation misunderstand my motion concerning the document. I make no charges concerning the manner in which the document was found, I merely say that it is undecided among which papers it was found. It came to my attention that Mr. Dodd treated the three documents concerned in quite the same way, whereas Mr. Alderman on Page 188 of the record (Volume II, Page 286), states that one of these three documents, L-3, was evidently not in order because of its doubtful origin. And therefore he withdrew the document.
May I then, if it please the Court, continue with the examination of the Defendant Raeder?
[Turning to the defendant.] Admiral, we have a few final questions concerning the conspiracy. I believe it will not take much time. I ask you to look at the Document C-155. That is Exhibit GB-214, in Document Book 10, Page 24—Document Book 10 of the British Delegation, Page 24.
It is your letter of 11 June 1940, which was sent to 74 Navy offices and which the Prosecution has called a letter of justification. The Prosecution wants to deduce from this that you knew that a war was to be expected as early as the summer of 1939. I should like you to answer this charge very briefly.
RAEDER: There is manifold proof to show that I was not expecting a war in the fall at all, and in view of the small extent of rearmament of the German Navy this was quite natural. I have stated quite clearly in my speech before the U-boat officers in Swinemünde that we could not count on it.
DR. SIEMERS: And what was the reason for that letter, C-155?
RAEDER: The reason was that a number of torpedo boats had misfired and this could be traced to the fact that torpedoes had not yet been as perfectly developed as they should have been at the beginning of a war. An additional reason was that, now that the war had so suddenly broken out, many officers believed that it would have been better to have developed the submarine weapon as much as possible first, so that at least this weapon would be ready in large numbers in the event of a war. I objected to that opinion precisely because such a war was not to be expected. And on Page 6, 8th paragraph, I emphasize again—in the second line—that the Führer hoped until the end to postpone the imminent dispute with England until 1944 or 1945. I am speaking here of an imminent dispute. An imminent dispute is not exactly something to strive for, it is rather to be feared.
DR. SIEMERS: There is another key document, that is, Document 789-PS, Exhibit USA-23, the very long speech made by Hitler on 23 November 1939 before the commanders-in-chief.
The document, Mr. President, is in Document Book 10a on Page 261. This is again a Hitler speech where there is no indication of who recorded it. Signature and date are missing.
[Turning to the defendant.] Since this is similar to the other documents I do not have to question you on that point. I would merely like to know, Admiral, did that speech also betray a definite background, a certain mental reservation on the part of Hitler?
RAEDER: Yes. There was at that time a rather severe conflict between Hitler and the commanders-in-chief of the Army, and also a difference of opinion with the leading generals concerning the offensive in the West. The Führer assembled all the leaders in order to give them his opinion about this whole matter. He stated—and I was present myself—that up to that time he had always been right in his decisions and that he would also be right in the opinion that the western offensive had to be undertaken in the fall if possible. Toward the end he used very harsh words; in the third from the last paragraph of the document he states: “I shall not be afraid of anything and I shall destroy everyone who is against me.” That was directed against the generals. Actually the western offensive did not take place until the spring because the weather conditions delayed them.
DR. SIEMERS: We have heard details of that during previous proceedings, and I believe we do not have to go into that now. In this connection we come to the last document, that is C-126, which you also have in front of you, GB-45. It is in Document Book 10a on Page 92.
With regard to the preparation of the war against Poland, the Prosecution has submitted this document of the High Command of the Armed Forces dated 22 June 1939 and signed by Keitel, because that document contained a timetable for “Case White”; that is, the case of Poland. Did that document or that directive indicate to you a definite aggressive intention?
RAEDER: No. Not a definite intention of aggression at all. In all cases certain long-range questions had to be cleared up, such as, for instance, whether our training ships which used to put to sea in summer should leave, or whether they should wait. This decision, however, was only to be made in the beginning of August. In connection with that order I issued the order of 2 August also pertaining to that document, to the individual higher Naval offices, namely, an operational directive for the use of Atlantic submarines in the Case White. May I be permitted to read the first lines, because the wording is important:
“Attached is an operational directive for the employment of U-boats which are to be sent out into the Atlantic by the way of precaution in the event that the intention to carry out Case White should remain unchanged. F.d.U. (Commander of the U-boat fleet) is to hand in his operation orders to SKL by 12 August. The decision regarding the sailing of U-boats for the Atlantic will probably be made before the middle of August.
“If the operations are not carried out, this directive must be destroyed by 1 October 1939 at the latest.” (Document C-126, Exhibit GB-45)
Thus it was not definite that such operations would take place. It was rather a precautionary measure which had to be taken under all circumstances in connection with the Case White.
DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, you have said that Hitler assured you repeatedly, particularly when you spoke to him personally, that there would not be a war?
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Particularly there would be no war against England?
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Now, then, on 3 September 1939 war did start with England. In connection with this did you speak to Hitler about that question—and if so, when?
RAEDER: On the 3 September in the morning, I believe between 10 and 11 o’clock—I cannot remember the exact hour—I was called into the Reich Chancellery. The SKL had already informed me that the ultimatum had been received from England and France. I came into the study of the Führer where a number of persons were assembled. I only remember that Deputy of the Führer Hess was present. I could not say who else was there. I noticed that Hitler was particularly embarrassed when he told me that despite all his hopes, war with England was imminent, and that the ultimatum had been received. It was an expression of embarrassment such as I had never noticed on Hitler.
DR. SIEMERS: I come now to the charge made by the Prosecution that you, Admiral, agreed with National Socialism and strongly supported it.
May I be permitted to ask the Tribunal to look at Document D-481, which is GB-215 in Document Book 10a, Page 101. This deals with the oath of civil servants and the oath of soldiers.
[Turning to the defendant.] The Prosecution, with reference to this document, has stated that on 2 August 1934, in a special ceremony, you took an oath to Adolf Hitler, and not to the fatherland. In the transcript, of 15 January 1946, Page 2719 (Volume V, Page 262), we read, “The Tribunal will see that Raeder”—in his oath—“put Führer in the place of fatherland.”
I do not understand this and I will ask you to explain, whether it is correct that you had any part in changing the oath from “fatherland” to “Hitler.”
RAEDER: No. I cannot understand that accusation at all. The entire matter was not particularly a ceremony. I do not know who is supposed to have observed it so that he could make such a statement. The Commander-in-Chief, Von Blomberg, and the three commanders-in-chief of the Armed Forces were called to Hitler on the morning of 2 August. We were in his study and Hitler asked us to come to his desk without ceremony or staging. There we took the oath which he, as Chief of State and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, read to us. We repeated that oath. None of us participated in the writing of that oath and no one had asked us to do so. That would have been quite unusual. The oath referred to the person of Hitler. No previous oath had ever been rendered to the fatherland as far as the words were concerned. Once I took an oath to the Kaiser as Supreme War Lord, once to the Weimar Constitution, and the third oath to the person of the Chief of State and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces—Hitler. In all three cases I took the oath to my people, my fatherland. That is a matter of course.
DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, when you were ordered to that meeting on 2 August, did you know before what it was to deal with?
RAEDER: Well, I would assume that his adjutant informed my adjutant that I was to come in connection with the taking of the oath. I could not speak with certainty now, but I assume so.
DR. SIEMERS: It was the morning after the death of Hindenburg?
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: On the day after the death of Hindenburg?
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Did you know about the wording of the oath?
RAEDER: No, but the oath was written on a piece of paper and I assume that we were informed of the wording before, at the desk, there.
DR. SIEMERS: May I say at this time, Mr. President, that the wording is contained in the document that I have mentioned and represents a Reich law.
[Turning to the defendant.] The Prosecution asserts that on 30 January 1937 you became a Party member by virtue of the fact that you received the Golden Party Badge. Will you answer briefly to this point, which has been discussed previously in other cases?
RAEDER: When the Führer gave me the Golden Party Badge he said, specifically, that this was the highest decoration which he could give at the time. I could not become a Party member at all because it had been stated that soldiers could not be members of the Party. That was generally known, and for this reason that assertion likewise is incomprehensible.
DR. SIEMERS: The membership of soldiers was prohibited by the Constitution?
RAEDER: Yes, prohibited. May I say one more thing to prevent any misunderstanding? It was prohibited both by the Weimar Constitution and the decrees which Hitler had issued.
DR. SIEMERS: Were you in opposition to the Party because of your staunch Christian and Church attitude, which was generally known? Briefly, how did it work out? Did you have any difficulties with the Party because of it?
RAEDER: In general I had no great difficulties with the Party, which I think is best explained by the fact that the Navy had considerable prestige in the Party, as it did in all Germany. I always had the higher officers, at least the chiefs of bases and fleet commanders, settle any friction which occurred in the lower echelons, through the proper authorities. If they were more important they were brought to my attention and I took care of them; if they dealt with matters of principle I passed them on to the OKW. Since I never let anything slip through, in case of incitement by the Party, the entire relations soon became very smooth and I could prevent all sorts of friction, so that before long they rarely occurred. In that respect we had the advantage in the Navy because there were no territorial matters to administer. We were concerned with the sea and only worked in the coastal cities where actually everything concerned the Navy. I did have difficulties because of Heydrich, whom I had removed from the Navy in 1928 or 1929 after a court of honor had sentenced him for unscrupulous treatment of a young girl. He was very resentful toward me for a long time and he tried on various occasions to denounce me to the leadership of the Party or to Bormann and even to the Führer. However, I was always able to counteract these attacks so that they had no effect on my situation in general.
This attitude of Heydrich communicated itself in some way to Himmler, so that here also, from time to time, I had to write a strongly worded letter; but it was precisely the strong wording of those letters which was of help in most cases.
I should not like to waste any time by mentioning various instances, such as the one with the SD; however, there were no direct attacks because of my position in regard to the Church. There was only the statement made by Goebbels, which I learned of through my Codefendant, Hans Fritzsche, that I was in disfavor with the Party on account of my attitude toward the Church; but, as I have said, I was not made to feel it in a disagreeable way.
DR. SIEMERS: I believe I do not need to ask you to waste any time in explaining the importance which you placed on religious matters in the Navy. I will submit an affidavit to this effect without reading it. It was made by Chief Navy Chaplain Ronneberger, whom you have known for many years and who described the situation and thus clarified everything. In that connection, however, may I put one question: Did you emphasize repeatedly to Hitler that a religious attitude was necessary for the soldiers and the Navy?
RAEDER: Yes, that happened frequently, and I kept to this course in the Navy until the end without hesitation.
DR. SIEMERS: In this connection, Mr. President, I might submit Exhibit Number Raeder-121 (Document Raeder-121). It is in my Document Book Raeder Number 6, Page 523. I should not like to take the time of the Tribunal by asking questions about the contrasting views between the Party and the Navy in matters of the Church. I believe that this document makes it sufficiently clear that a bond between Church and National Socialism was not possible. In this field Bormann is the most outstanding figure, and I should like to read only the first paragraph of the exposé which I have submitted:
“National Socialistic and Christian concepts are incompatible. Christian churches are built on the ignorance of man and are at pains to sustain the ignorance of as large a part of the population as possible, for only in this way can the Christian churches maintain their power. In contrast to this, National Socialism rests on scientific foundations.”
In the second paragraph, the last sentence:
“If therefore in the future our young people do not learn anything more about Christianity, the teachings of which are far inferior to our own, then Christianity will disappear of itself.”
And, on the second page at the end:
“Just as the harmful influence of astrologers, soothsayers, and other swindlers are eliminated and suppressed by the State, so the possibilities for the Church to exert its influence must also be entirely removed. Only when this has happened will the State leadership have full influence over the individual citizen. Only then will the existence of the people and the Reich be guaranteed for all time.”
Since the religious and Christian attitude of the defendant is generally known, I believe this is enough to show the contrast between the Party and the defendant in these matters.
[Turning to the defendant.] Concerning the conspiracy, the Prosecution has also accused you of being a member of the Secret Cabinet Council and the Defense Council. Will you please answer quite briefly, because these questions have been discussed so often that I assume that no one in this Court wishes to hear anything further about these things. Were you a member of the Reich Government?
RAEDER: No.
DR. SIEMERS: According to Document 2098-PS, which is GB-206, Document Book 10, Page 39, a decree of the Führer of 25 February 1938, you and the Commander-in-Chief of the Army were made equal in rank to the Reich Ministers. The Prosecution asserts that therefore you were a member of the Cabinet and were permitted to and did participate in the meetings. Is that correct?
RAEDER: No. I was not a Reich Minister but only equivalent in rank. The reason for that was, I believe, that General Keitel was made equal in rank with the Reich Ministers because, in administering the affairs of the War Ministry, he was frequently in contact with them and had to be on the same level in order to negotiate with them. And since Brauchitsch and myself had seniority over General Keitel we also received the same rank. I was not a member of the Cabinet at all, but the decree states that on the order of the Führer I could participate in a Cabinet meeting. It was probably intended that I was to come to the Cabinet when technical matters had to be explained. However, that never occurred, since after that time there were no Cabinet meetings.
DR. SIEMERS: May I point out that in Paragraph 2 of that decree by Hitler it states: “The commanders-in-chief... on my orders shall participate in the meetings of the Reich Cabinet.”
RAEDER: Yes. And as far as the Secret Cabinet Council is concerned I need only confirm that, as Hitler told me himself the Secret Cabinet Council had only been formed in order to honor the retiring Foreign Minister, Von Neurath, in order to give the impression abroad and at home that Von Neurath would still be consulted on foreign policy in the future. However, that Secret Cabinet Council never met.
DR. SIEMERS: The Prosecution has made the charge that on 12 March 1939, on the day commemorating the heroes, you made a speech and that in that speech you came forth with a ruthless challenge to fight against Bolshevism and international Jewry.
May I state, if it please the Court, that unfortunately the speech was entered in the document book by the Prosecution only from an excerpt which was selected from a certain point of view; and I believe that it would be well to know the context of the entire speech. Of course, I shall not read it, but I should like to submit it as Exhibit Number Raeder-46. The sentence is in my Document Book Number 3, Page 235, the page from which the Prosecution took the quotation. Will you please briefly express your opinion of that.
RAEDER: May I in doing so read a few short sentences which will characterize the entire speech?
DR. SIEMERS: I have no doubt that the Tribunal will permit that. I only ask you to use only a few significant sentences, just as the Prosecution have done.
RAEDER: On Page 7, Line 6, it says...
DR. SIEMERS: Excuse me. That is on Page 235, the same page which contains the quotation of the Prosecution.
RAEDER: Shortly before the quotation of the Prosecution we read on Line 6:
“He has given back self-confidence and confidence in their own ability to the German people, and thereby enabled them to retake, by their own strength, their sacred right refused to them during the time of their weakness and, beyond that, to approach the tremendous problems of the times with courage, and to solve them. Thus the German people and the Führer have done more for the peace of Europe and the world than some of our neighbors are able to realize today.” (Document Number Raeder-46)
Then we come to the sentence where I speak about the announcement of the fight against Bolshevism and international Jewry which has been quoted by the Prosecution. I should like to state briefly in connection with it that after the experiences of the years 1917 to 1919, communism and international Jewry had destroyed the resistance of the German people to a considerable degree and had gained an excessively large and oppressive influence in German affairs, in affairs of state as well as in economic affairs, as for example also in the legal field. Therefore, in my opinion, one could not be surprised that the National Socialist Government tried to loosen and, as far as possible, remove this large and oppressive influence. Although in pursuing this course the National Socialist Government took rather severe steps which led to the Nuremberg Laws—the exaggerations of which I regretted, of course—nevertheless, in the course of the speech which I made in public at the orders of the Reich Government, I could not find it compatible with my conscience to express my personal opinions, which were basically different. It must also be considered that such a speech had to fit into a general framework. That, however, was only one short sentence, whereas other points were considerably more in the foreground. In that connection I ask for permission to read two more short sentences:
“And this is the reason for the demand for equal rights and equal respect with all other nations which alone can guarantee that the nations will live peacefully together on this earth.”
Then the last sentence, on Page 235:
“Within the bounds of German national community the Führer has assigned us our tasks as soldiers to protect our homeland and our peaceful national reconstruction and to train the young manhood, fit for military service, which was entrusted to us and which has to pass entirely through our hands.”
The next sentence was quoted by the Prosecution, because there I spoke of the fact that we should not only train these young people technically in the sense of the technical use of arms but also educate them in the sense of National Socialist ideology and philosophy, and I stated that we had to march shoulder to shoulder with the Party.
I have always taken the view that the Armed Forces should not be a completely extraneous body in the State. It would be impossible to have a republican armed force in a monarchist state or an armed force with monarchist tendencies in a democratic state. Thus our Armed Forces would have to be incorporated into the National Socialist State to the extent necessary to create a real people’s community, and it would be the task of the commanders of the Armed Forces to educate their branches of the forces in such a way that they would recognize and live up to the good national and socialist ideals of the National Socialist State. This would be done in the same way as I did it as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. In this way it was possible to incorporate the Armed Forces in an orderly manner, to keep them from all exaggeration and excesses, and at the same time to form a people’s community within the State.
And then on the bottom of Page 236:
“This nation needed a new, a true peace, the peace of justice and honor, peace without hatred. The world also needs peace. Because a weak Germany could not obtain peace, a strong one has won it for herself. It is the proud task of the German Wehrmacht, to secure this peace for the German nation against everybody.”
And quite at the end of the document, the 11th or 12th line from the bottom of the page:
“But the soldier over there, whom we respect as the valiant representative of his country, may accept a soldier’s word: What Germany needs and wants is peace. These are not just words but it has been proved by practical examples. The construction work of Germany requires many years of quiet development.”
I think that this is sufficient...
DR. SIEMERS: I believe that is sufficient.
May I point out to the High Tribunal that in the English translation, on Page 236, as far as I remember, one sentence was underlined. That is: “The Wehrmacht and Party are one indivisible entity.” The Prosecution has submitted that. Apart from that, nothing is underlined.
I wish to say in passing that in reality, in the original, many other passages are underlined, particularly those sentences which Admiral Raeder has just read which deal with peace.
[Turning to the defendant.] Admiral, the Prosecution has accused you with having connections with all the political activities of National Socialism. Therefore I am compelled to ask you briefly concerning your participation in actions in those countries where participation by the Navy is certainly surprising.
In what way were you connected with the measures concerning the annexation of Austria?
RAEDER: The Navy had nothing to do with the Anschluss of Austria at all and did not take part in any way.
DR. SIEMERS: Did you make any preparations?
RAEDER: No. In the case of Austria, no preparations were needed. The case of Austria was mentioned in Document C-175, but that dealt only with the directive of 1 July 1937 for the unified preparation of the Armed Forces for war.
DR. SIEMERS: May I point out that C-175 is USA-69, in the Document Book of the British Delegation, 10a, Page 117.
[Turning to the defendant.] The Prosecution considers this document important and therefore I should like you to say a few words about it.
RAEDER: It deals with a statement, which, according to my knowledge, is made in every state for every year and in which, according to the political situation, such cases are mentioned which may arise in the course of the year and for which, of course, certain preparations have to be made. For the Navy, however, that document had no sequel as far as Austria was concerned.
DR. SIEMERS: So it is a document which numerous...
THE PRESIDENT: I am not sure that we have the reference to that right. It came through, I thought, C-157, USA-69, 10a, and then I did not get the page.
DR. SIEMERS: Page 117.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that C-157 or 175?
DR. SIEMERS: C-175.
[Turning to the defendant.] Does this concern strategic preparations for various eventualities?
RAEDER: Yes; various cases are mentioned here, for instance, the “Case Red” and the special “Case Extension Red-Green.” All these had to be dealt with but they did not necessarily lead to any consequences.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, in that connection I wanted to submit various documents, Raeder exhibits, from which it can be seen that the same type of preparations, since they are necessary for military and strategic reasons, were also undertaken by the Allies—only to show their necessity. At this moment I should like to forego that because I cannot determine so quickly which of these documents are admitted and which have been rejected. Perhaps I may therefore submit the connected documents at the end in order that no misunderstanding may occur now by my quoting the wrong figures.
[Turning to the defendant.] In what way did you and the Navy participate in measures concerning the Sudetenland?
RAEDER: In a directive...
DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon. May I ask you to look at the document of the Prosecution 388-PS. It is USA-126—no, excuse me—USA-26. It is in the Document Book of the British Delegation, 10a, Page 147. It is a draft for the new directive “Grün” of 20 May 1938.
RAEDER: Yes, I have the directive here. It is of 20 May 1938 and says with regard to the Navy:
“The Navy participates in the operations of the Army by employing the Danube flotilla. That flotilla is put under the command of the Commander-in-Chief of the Army. In regard to the conduct of naval warfare, at first only those measures are to be taken which appear to be necessary for the careful protection of the North Sea and the Baltic against a sudden intervention in the conflict by other states. Those measures must be confined to what is absolutely necessary, and must be carried out inconspicuously.”
The entire course of action at the end of September and beginning of October made the special measures unnecessary, so the Danube flotilla which we had taken over from Austria was put under the command of the Army.
DR. SIEMERS: What was the size of the Danube flotilla?
RAEDER: It consisted of some small river craft, one small gunboat and minesweepers.
DR. SIEMERS: That is the total extent to which the Navy participated?
RAEDER: Yes, in which the Navy participated.
DR. SIEMERS: In what way did you and the Navy participate in the preparations for the occupation of what the document calls the “remainder of Czechoslovakia”?
This concerns Document C-136, USA-104 in the Document Book of the British Delegation, 10a, Page 101. It is of 21 October 1938. The Prosecution points out that according to that you had already been informed in October that Czechoslovakia was to be occupied after some time, that is in March, as actually happened. Will you please tell us something about that?
RAEDER: That directive looks suspicious at first but the way in which it is drafted shows that this again refers to possible cases. Point 1 deals with the securing of the borders of the German Reich and protection against surprise air attacks.
Points 2 and 3 are “Liquidation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia,” “Occupation of the Memel Country.”
Number 2, “Liquidation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia”: The first sentence reads, “It must be possible to shatter the remainder of Czechoslovakia at any time if her policy should become hostile toward Germany.”
That is the prerequisite in case of any action against Czechoslovakia; that did not mean that it was certain that any action would be taken.
In the same manner, under Number 3, mention is made of the occupation of the Memel country, where it says: “The political situation, particularly warlike complications between Poland and Lithuania, may make it necessary for the German Armed Forces to occupy the Memel country.”
DR. SIEMERS: Excuse me. May I point out that, according to my document, the part which the witness has just read is missing in the English translation—so that you will not look for it unnecessarily.
[Turning to the defendant.] So here again this is a possible eventuality?
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: On 3 September 1939, at the beginning of the war, the Athenia was sunk. From the military point of view that case has already been clarified by Herr Kranzbühler, but I should like you as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy to state your position and give an explanation of the incident with special consideration of the fact that the Prosecution, especially in this case, has raised a very severe and insulting accusation. They have made the accusation that you, purposely and in violation of the truth, held England and Churchill responsible for the sinking of the Athenia, although you knew perfectly well that the Athenia had been sunk by a German U-boat. As proof, the Prosecution has submitted the article of 23 October 1939 from the Völkischer Beobachter.
Mr. President, that is Document Number 3260-PS, GB-218. Document Book 10 of the British Delegation on Page 97.
[Turning to the defendant.] I would like you to explain that point.
RAEDER: The fact is that on 3 September at dusk the young submarine commander of the submarine U-30 met an English passenger ship which had its lights dimmed and torpedoed it because he assumed, by mistake, that it was an auxiliary cruiser. In order to avoid misunderstanding I should like to state here that the deliberations of Kapitänleutnant Fresdorf, which have been mentioned here concerning the torpedoing of dimmed ships in the Channel, did not yet play any part in the Naval Operations Staff at that time and that this commanding officer could not have known anything about these deliberations. He knew only that auxiliary cruisers had their lights blacked out, and he assumed that this was an auxiliary cruiser at the entrance of the northwest channel, England-Scotland. He did not make a report since it was not necessary. The information that a German U-boat had torpedoed the Athenia was broadcast by the British radio, and we probably received the news during the night of the 3d to the 4th, and transmitted it to the various news services.
In the morning of 4 September we received that news at the offices of the Naval Operations Staff, and I requested information as to how far our nearest submarine was from the place of the torpedoing. I was told, 75 nautical miles. At about the same time, State Secretary Von Weizsäcker in the Foreign Office, who had been a naval officer in the first World War, learned of this situation and made a telephone call to the Naval Operations Staff, asking whether it was true. He did not call me personally. He received the answer that, according to our information, it could not be right. Thereupon he sent for the American Chargé d’Affaires—I believe Mr. Kirk—in order to speak to him about the matter because the radio broadcast had also mentioned that several Americans had been killed in that accident. From his experiences in the first World War it was clear to him how important it was that there should be no incident involving America. Therefore, he told him what he had heard from the Naval Operations Staff. I personally told the same thing to the American Naval Attaché, Mr. Schrader, and that certainly in good faith. I believed that I could tell him that in good faith because we had no other information. State Secretary Von Weizsäcker then came to see me personally, if I remember correctly. We were very close friends, and he told me what he had told the American Chargé d’Affaires. He apologized, I believe, for not having spoken to me personally and that concluded the case for the time being.
The matter was such that, if it had been reported in a normal way, we would not have hesitated to admit and to explain the reason. We would not have hesitated to apologize to the nations concerned. Disciplinary measures would have been taken against the officer. I also reported the incident to the Führer himself in his headquarters and told him that we were convinced such was not the case, and the Führer ordered that it should be denied. This was done by the Propaganda Ministry, which had been informed of the order by my press department.
The submarine returned on 27 September...
DR. SIEMERS: Excuse me if I interrupt. That date, Mr. President, is identified by Document D-659, which was submitted by the Prosecution, it is Exhibit GB-221 in Document Book 10 on Page 110.
RAEDER: The submarine commander returned on 27 September to Wilhelmshaven. Admiral Dönitz has already described how he received him and how he immediately sent him to me to Berlin by air.
The U-boat commander reported the entire incident to me and confirmed that it was a sheer mistake, that it was only through all these messages he had heard that he himself discovered that it was not an auxiliary cruiser that was concerned but a passenger steamer.
I reported the facts to the Führer because they could have had severe political consequences. He decided that, as it had been denied once, we had to keep it utterly secret, not only abroad but also within official circles and government circles. Consequently, I was not in a position to tell State Secretary Von Weizsäcker or the Propaganda Ministry that the facts were different. My order to the Commander of the U-boat fleet reads:
“1. The affair is to be kept strictly secret upon orders of the Führer.
“2. On my part, no court-martial will be ordered because the commanding officer acted in good faith and it was a mistake.
“3. The further political handling of the matter is to be attended to by the High Command of the Navy, as far as anything has to be done.”
With that the commander returned to Wilhelmshaven and Admiral Dönitz has already reported that he was punished by disciplinary procedure. To our great surprise, about one month later that article appeared in the Völkischer Beobachter in which Churchill was accused of being the author of that incident. I knew absolutely nothing about that article beforehand. I would certainly have prevented its appearance because, knowing that our submarine had torpedoed that ship, it was out of the question to lay the blame on the enemy, on the First Lord of the Admiralty of all people.
I found out later that the order to publish such an article was issued by Hitler and reached the Propaganda Ministry through the Reich Press Chief. As far as I remember I was told that the Propaganda Minister had himself drafted that article. Later I could not prevent it. I did not see the article nor did any of my officers of the High Command of the Navy see it. They would certainly have come to me at once so that I could have prevented its publication. We had no reason to expect such an article 4 weeks after the torpedoing of the Athenia. That is the case of the Athenia.
DR. SIEMERS: You just said that you had discovered that Hitler knew about the article. When did you discover this?
RAEDER: Here, from my Codefendant, Hans Fritzsche.
DR. SIEMERS: Not at that time then?
RAEDER: No, by no means.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will sit again at a quarter past two.
[The Tribunal recessed until 1415 hours.]
Afternoon Session
DR. SIEMERS: In the meantime I have perused my documents and I am therefore in a position to carry out the original plan, that is, of submitting the documents during the examination.
In connection with the documents which we dealt with last, Document C-126, “Strategic Preparations,” I should like to submit the following documents which are contained in the White Books, documents which have been granted me for my use and which also concern strategic preparations on the part of the Allies. We are dealing with Exhibit Number Raeder-33. It is the document dated 9 November 1939; and also Exhibit Number Raeder-34, General Gamelin to General Lelong, 13 November 1939; and also Exhibit Number Raeder-35, two extracts from the Diary of Jodl, 1809-PS, which concern the measures taken by the Luftwaffe regarding the Caucasus. It is not necessary for me to comment on this. I would just like to call your attention to the questions which I put to the witness Reich Marshal Göring on 18 March; he has already testified regarding the plans of the Allies for the destruction of the Caucasian oil fields. And finally in this connection, Exhibit Number Raeder-41, to be found in the Document Book 3, Page 205, and the following pages, a report of the Commander-in-Chief of the French Army, General Gamelin, dated 16 March 1940, it deals with the war plans for the year 1940 concerning the tightening of the blockade, the plans regarding the Scandinavian countries and, in addition, the plans for the destruction of the Russian oil wells in the Caucasus.
[Turning to the defendant.] Admiral, before I deal with the separate campaigns of Greece, Norway, and so forth, I would like to ask you to answer a question which relates to you personally. What decorations did you receive from Hitler?
RAEDER: I received from Hitler in the autumn of 1939 in addition to the Golden Emblem, which I have already mentioned, the Knight’s Order to the Iron Cross. Furthermore, in the year 1941 on the occasion of my 65th birthday I received a donation of 250,000 marks. This donation was given to me by Hitler through an adjutant and in connection with that he sent a document.
When I thanked him on the very first occasion, he told me that he was giving me this donation as a means of decoration in the same manner as the former rulers of Prussia had given their generals similar donations, whether as sums of money or as a country estate; then he emphasized that Field Marshals Von Hindenburg and Von Mackensen had received donations from him as well.
DR. SIEMERS: Now I shall turn to the passage “Greece.” With regard to Greece, the Prosecution has quoted Document C-12, which is GB-226. This is to be found in Document Book Number 10, Page 1. This document deals with the decision on the part of Hitler which was transmitted through the OKW, dated 30 December 1939, signed by Jodl, and we read under Number 1.:
“Greek merchant ships in the area around England, declared by the United States to be a barred zone, are to be treated as enemy vessels.”
This decision on the part of Hitler was made on the basis of a report by the SKL. What caused you to make this report even though Greece was neutral at the time?
RAEDER: At that time we had received a large number of intelligence reports from our intelligence service that Greek shipping companies apparently with the knowledge of the Greek Government were allowing Greek ships to be chartered by England under favorable conditions. Therefore, these Greek ships were in the service of England and thus were to be treated in the same way as we were treating the English merchantmen. These intelligence reports were confirmed later on to an even greater degree than had been the case in the beginning.
DR. SIEMERS: In this connection I would like to submit to the High Tribunal Exhibit Raeder-53, to be found in my Document Book 3, Page 258. This document deals with the War Diary kept by the SKL in the month of December 1939.
On Page 259, under the date of 19 December, the following entry is made:
“Greece has hired out about 20 vessels to ply between the United States, Le Havre and Liverpool.”
This is confirmed by the reports just mentioned by the defendant. The next entry, on the same page under the date 30 December:
“Justified by the sales and chartering of numerous Greek ships to England it has been decreed, with the agreement of the Führer, that Greek ships in the zone from 20 degrees West to 2 degrees East and from 44 degrees North to 62 degrees North shall be considered as hostile craft by U-boats. Attacks to be made invisibly as far as possible.”
I also submit the following document, Number Raeder-54. This document is taken from the White Books. It is dated 23 January 1940, and it is a report from the German Embassy at the Hague to the Foreign Office. The heading is: “The Contemplated Chartering of 50 to 60 Greek Ships to the British Government.” It is not necessary for me to read it. I should like merely to quote the beginning of the first sentence:
“After the British press brought reports at the end of November last year”—that is, 1939—“about the alleged charterings of Greek vessels to British companies”—and so forth—then follows the statement that these 50 to 60 ships are now chartered by British companies.
Even though it is not quite accurate historically, I would now like first of all to conclude the question of Greece. In historical sequence Norway should follow now first, but for the sake of coherence I should like to deal with Greece and the occupation of Greece first.
In the Document C-152, identical with C-167 or Exhibit GB-122, in the Document Book of the British Delegation Number 10, Page 23, the Prosecution has charged you with the Figure 9 of this lengthy document, specifically Figure 9.)B.)f.). It says there:
“The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy requests confirmation of the fact that the whole of Greece is to be occupied even in the case of a peaceful solution. The Führer: Complete occupation is a stipulation for any settlement.”
This document concerns your report to Hitler of 18 March 1941. What were the reasons for your making this proposal?
RAEDER: In the beginning I had but little knowledge of the political intentions of the Führer as far as Greece was concerned, but I did know of his Directive Number 20, dated 13 December 1940.
DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon, I would like to mention for the assistance of the Court that we are dealing with Document 1541-PS, that is GB-117, Document Book of the British Delegation 10a, Page 270. This directive is dated 13 December 1940.
RAEDER: In this directive the Führer, for the reasons given in Paragraph 1, said that his intention was, as set forth in Paragraph 2:
“b.) After the setting in of favorable weather, probably in March, to employ this group of forces to occupy the north coast of the Aegean by way of Bulgaria, and if necessary to occupy the entire Greek mainland (‘Operation Marita’). The support of Bulgaria is to be expected.”
The next time I heard about these things again was when I heard that the British had landed in southern Greece on 3 March. We learned that on about 5 or 6 March. For this reason I asked the Führer that he occupy all of Greece in order to prevent the British from attacking us from the rear, by air, and from erecting air bases, all of which would hamper the conduct of our war not only in Greece but also in the eastern Mediterranean.
The fact was that when a political decision had been made by Hitler of his own accord and without having consulted anyone, I, as Chief of the Naval Operations Staff, always had to draw my strategic conclusions from this political decision and then had to make to him my proposals on naval and on other warfare as far as they concerned me.
Since in December he had already considered the possibility that all of Greece would have to be occupied, the case had now actually arisen for me to make this proposal to him for the reason I have already mentioned. When I said “all of Greece,” that implied to me and the Naval Command the entire Greek coast, where the British forces might land.
DR. SIEMERS: Your proposal was made about 2 weeks after British troops had landed in Greece?
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: In this same connection I would like to submit Exhibit Raeder-58, in my Document Book 3, Page 271. This is a document contained in the White Book, according to which on 4 January—I beg the Tribunal’s pardon. Sir David is right. Document 58 has been rejected and I withdraw it.
In this connection I would like to submit Exhibit Number Raeder-59. It is to be found in Document Book 3, Page 273 and is an extract from the White Book: It is the minutes of the French War Committee of 26 April 1940. This document deals with the decision of the War Committee regarding Norway, the Caucasus, Romania, and Greece.
I also submit Exhibit Number Raeder-63, in Document Book 3, Page 285, which is an address by the British Secretary of State for India, Amery, dated 1 December 1940. This document also shows plans regarding Greece, a year and a quarter before the time just mentioned by the witness.
Now I shall turn to the topic of Norway.
[Turning to the defendant.] The British prosecutor, Major Elwyn Jones, considers the attack against Norway a special case in the series of aggressive wars waged by the Nazi conspirators. In this connection he pointed out that, in this case, Hitler did not think of this himself but rather was persuaded by you. Since his point is very important, I should like to ask you to describe this event exactly, and therefore I ask you first of all: When was the first conversation about this matter between you and Hitler?
RAEDER: The first conversation between Hitler and myself concerning the question of Norway was on 10 October 1939, and that was at my request. The reason for this was that we had received reports at various times during the last week of September through our intelligence service of the offices of Admiral Canaris that the British intended to occupy bases in Norway.
I recall that after reports to this effect had reached me several times Admiral Canaris visited me himself on one occasion—something he did in very important cases only. And, in the presence of my chief of staff, he gave me a coherent explanation concerning the intelligence reports which had been received. In this connection air bases were constantly mentioned, as well as bases in the south of Norway. Stavanger was mentioned constantly with the airport Sola, and Trondheim was usually mentioned and occasionally Christiansand.
During the last days of September I had a telephone conversation with Admiral Carls who was the commander of Navy Group North and was therefore in charge of operations in the Skagerrak, the Kattegat and in the North Sea. This man had obviously received similar reports. He informed me that he had composed a private letter addressed to me, in which he dealt with the question of the danger of Norway’s being occupied by British forces and in which he was in a general way dealing with the question as to what disadvantages such a step would have for us, and whether we should have to forestall such an attempt, and also what advantages or disadvantages the occupation of Norway—that is, of the Norwegian coast and the Norwegian bases—by our forces would have.
Up until that point I had not concerned myself with the Norwegian question at all, except for the fact I had received these reports. The arrival of this letter at the end of September or the beginning of October, it must have been about then, impelled me to show it to the Chief of Staff of the SKL and to instruct him to deal with all dispatch with the question of the occupation of Norwegian bases by England, and the other questions which Admiral Carls had dealt with, and to have the questions discussed in the SKL. The advantages and disadvantages of an expansion of the war towards the North had to be considered, not only of an expansion on our part but, above all, an expansion on the part of England; what value, what advantage would accrue to us if we acted first; what disadvantages would result if we had to defend the Norwegian coast?
The result of this was the questionnaire mentioned in C-122, GB-82, where the questions were asked: What places were to be used as bases; what the possibility of defense by us would be; whether these ports would have to be developed further; and also, what advantages would result so far as our U-boats were concerned?
These questions, as I have already stated, were put to Admiral Dönitz as well, but his answers arrived only after I had made the report on 10 October. I would like to say, by way of introduction, that it was entirely clear to me that if we undertook to occupy these bases we would violate neutrality. But I also knew of the agreement which existed between the German and Norwegian Governments of 2 September regarding neutrality, and I knew the concluding sentence, in this aide memoire, which is Document TC-31, GB-79, dated 2 September 1939.
DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon, but I should like to point out, Mr. President, that this document is found in the Document Book of the British Delegation 10a, at Page 330.
[Turning to the defendant.] You have that document before you?
RAEDER: Yes, I have it before me, and I would like to quote the concluding sentence.
DR. SIEMERS: It is the last document in the book, Your Honor, at Page 329.
RAEDER: [Continuing.] The last sentence:
“Should the attitude of the Royal Norwegian Government change so that any such breach of neutrality by a third party recurs, the Reich Government would then obviously be compelled to safeguard the interests of the Reich in such a way as would be forced upon the Reich Cabinet by the resulting situation.”
Then, within the next few days, I asked the Chief of Staff of the SKL to submit to me the data which the SKL had prepared during the preceding days and I reported to Hitler on 10 October, because I considered this problem particularly important. It was entirely clear to me that the best possible solution for us would be that Norway should maintain a steadfast neutrality, and I expressed my opinion, as may be seen in Document C-21, GB-194.
This is an extract from the War Diary of the SKL.
DR. SIEMERS: It is in the Document Book of the British Delegation 10a, Page 6.
RAEDER: It says here, on Page 3 of the German version, the next but last paragraph, under the date of 13 January: “Situation discussion with the Chief of the SKL.”
DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon, Mr. President. C-21 was not entirely translated by the Prosecution. This document may be found in my document book under Exhibit Number Raeder-69, and I should like to submit it herewith. It is in Document Book 3, Page 62.
THE PRESIDENT: Document Book 3 only goes to 64, is that not right? It must be Document Book 4.
DR. SIEMERS: There must be a mistake in the document book then. At first, due to an oversight, the table of contents was only completed as far as 64 by the Translation Section, but since that time it has been corrected and supplemented. It is in Document Book 4, Page 317.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Page 317, at the top.
DR. SIEMERS: [Turning to the defendant.] Please comment on this document.
RAEDER: In the next but last paragraph, it says:
“In complete agreement with this point of view, the Chief of the Naval Operations Staff is therefore also of the opinion that the most favorable solution would doubtless be the maintenance of the present situation which, if strictest neutrality is exercised by Norway, will permit the safe use of Norwegian territorial waters for the shipping vital to Germany’s war effort without the attempt being made on the part of England to seriously endanger this sea lane.” (Document Number Raeder-69)
I maintained this point of view when reporting to Hitler. In that report I first mentioned the intelligence reports which we had at hand. Then I described the dangers which might result to us from a British occupation of bases on the Norwegian coast and might affect our entire warfare, dangers which I considered tremendous. I had the feeling that such an occupation would gravely prejudice and imperil the whole conduct of our war.
If the British occupied bases in Norway, especially in the South of Norway, they would be able to dominate the entrance to the Baltic Sea from those points, and also flank our naval operations from the Helgoland Bight and from the Elbe, Jade and Weser. The second outlet which we had was also gravely imperiled, affecting the operations of battleships as well as the courses of our merchantmen.
In addition to that, from their air bases in Norway, they might endanger our air operations, the operations of our pilots for reconnaissance in the North Sea or for attacks against England.
Furthermore, from Norway they could exert strong pressure on Sweden, and that pressure would have been felt in this respect, that the supplies of ore from Sweden would have been hindered or stopped by purely political pressure. Finally, the export of ore from Narvik to Germany could have been stopped entirely, and it is known how much Germany depended on supplies of ore from Sweden and Norway. They might even have gone so far—and we learned about this subsequently that such plans were discussed—as to attack and destroy the ore deposits at Lulea, or to seize them.
All of these dangers might become decisive factors in the outcome of the war. Aside from the fact that I told Hitler that the best thing for us would be to have strict neutrality on the part of Norway, I also called his attention to the dangers which would result to us from an occupation of the Norwegian coast and Norwegian bases, for there would have been lively naval operations near the Norwegian coast in which the British, even after our occupation of bases, would try to hamper our ore traffic from Narvik. A struggle might ensue which we, with our inadequate supply of surface vessels, would be unable to cope with in the long run.
Therefore, at that time I did not make any proposal that we should occupy Norway or that we should obtain bases in Norway. I only did my duty in telling the Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht about this grave danger which was threatening us, and against which we might have to use emergency measures for our defense. I also pointed out to him that possible operations for the occupation of Norwegian bases might be very expensive for us. In the course of later discussions I told him that we might even lose our entire fleet. I would consider it a favorable case if we were to lose only one-third, something which actually did happen later on.
There was, therefore, no reason for me to expect that I would gain prestige by such an enterprise—I have been accused of this ambition by the Prosecution. As a matter of fact, the exact opposite might easily result.
DR. SIEMERS: I should like to call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that these things may be seen in documents which date from the time of the war, one of which is Exhibit Number Raeder-69, of 13 January 1940, which has just been handed over. This document is a study, and it is claimed that this study is based on the consideration that if England were to have the bases in Norway, the situation would be impossible for the conduct of the war by Germany and such a situation could be prevented only if we forestalled England by occupying Norway ourselves. What the witness has just said is stated in exactly the same way in the War Diary.
In the same connection, I should like to refer to the document of the Prosecution, Document C-66, GB-81, which may be found in British Document Book 10a, Page 35. This document is dated 10 January 1944. May I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the fact that there, under the code name “Weserübung” (Weser Maneuver)—that was the name covering this action—the substance of the statements the witness has just made is to be found. I do not wish to read all of them since we would lose valuable time thereby.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean C-66? That is about the Plan Barbarossa. Is that the one you mean?
DR. SIEMERS: The last page, under the heading “Weserübung,” Page 39 of the English document book. Mention is made there of the letter by Admiral Carls, spoken of by the witness, and of his thoughts in connection with this matter. In the German original there is the heading, “Appendix 2.”
A clearer version is found in Document Raeder-69, since that dates from January 1940, 3 months later, and in the meantime new reports had come in. This, on the other hand, is a description dating from October 1939.
[Turning to the defendant.] Admiral, I must once more refer to Document C-122, which you have already mentioned.
The Prosecution, in that document, accuses you of saying:
“The Chief of SKL deems it necessary to tell the Führer as soon as possible of the ideas of the SKL on the possibility of expanding the sphere of operations in the North.”
They think they may conclude therefrom that your primary thought was to expand the operational sphere of the Navy.
RAEDER: I have already said that by the possibility of expansion of the operational zone to the North I meant an expansion of British operations and its consequences, and also the possibility of our forestalling this, thus gaining bases which would be of certain importance to us.
DR. SIEMERS: What did Hitler reply at this discussion on 10 October 1939?
RAEDER: Hitler had not yet concerned himself with this question. The question was very far from his mind, for he knew very little about matters of naval warfare. He always remarked that he did not have an over-all picture of these things, and therefore felt somewhat uncertain. He said that he would deal with this question and that I should leave the notes with him, which I had worked out on the basis of statements made by the SKL, so that he might use them as a basis for his deliberations on this problem.
It was typical and really speaks very much against the character of the conspiracy, that on this occasion Hitler, when confronted with the problem of Norway, did not say a single word about the fact that previously, the last time evidently in the summer of that year, he had already dealt with Norwegian questions prompted by Rosenberg. I gather from a document which I saw for the first time here that on 20 June 1939, Rosenberg had submitted to the Führer a comprehensive report about his connections with Norwegian political circles, but I heard of these connections for the first time on 11 December.
It would have been a matter of course for me if the Führer, who was dealing with Norwegian strategical matters, had told me on this occasion: “I have such and such information about Norwegian matters.” But he did not do that—there was always a considerable lack of collaboration. The Führer told me that we should await the arrival of further reports and that he would deal with these questions.
DR. SIEMERS: In the subsequent period of October and November, up until 11 December, did you discuss this question with Hitler again?
RAEDER: No, the question was not discussed at all during those months, but in September Korvettenkapitän Schreiber, who had first been appointed assistant attaché in Oslo and later, naval attaché, gave me further reports at that time about conditions in Norway, and so did the intelligence service. He told me of reports which were circulating there about a possible British landing. Later on Kapitän Schreiber was actually my chief collaborator in these Norwegian problems, and he showed a particular understanding of the whole situation.
DR. SIEMERS: In this connection, I should like to submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Raeder-107, an affidavit of the naval attaché who has just been mentioned, Richard Schreiber. This may be found in my Document Book 5, Page 464.
According to that document, Schreiber was drafted on 7 September 1939 as a reserve officer and was sent to Oslo as a naval attaché. He states that he held that post there since the autumn of 1939.
With the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to read a portion of this, under I, on Page 465, at the bottom.
THE PRESIDENT: We told you that we had read all these documents which were objected to. We let in this document, so it is not necessary for you to read it again.
DR. SIEMERS: Very well. Then in this connection, may I refer to the first part of this affidavit, Part I?
Mr. President, I should like to point out a small but misleading error in translation on Page 466. In the second paragraph, second line, the word “deutsch,” (German) is missing: “...there were clear directives of the German Foreign Office that Norwegian neutrality should be particularly respected by the Germans...” In the English text it says: “of the Foreign Office.” It should read “of the German Foreign Office.” I should be very grateful if this mistake would be rectified.
[Turning to the defendant.] Admiral, you know the affidavit given by Schreiber?
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Different reports are contained therein. You have already referred to them in part. Did any additional special reports come in during those 2 months? Was Narvik mentioned in addition to the other ports already mentioned?
RAEDER: As far as I remember it was Kapitän Schreiber who expressly mentioned Narvik for the first time. Kapitän Schreiber had very quickly made himself acquainted with conditions there. He had established good connections in Norwegian circles. A confirmation of all that I had known up to that point came on 11 December.
DR. SIEMERS: Now, would you please describe your meeting with Quisling on 11 December 1939?
RAEDER: May I first ask whether the Documents 004-PS and 007-PS, which I believe were submitted by the Prosecution, may be used in this connection? For example, the minutes of the conference of 11 and 12 December, an accompanying letter by Rosenberg referring to these minutes, and similar matters?
DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, I believe that you will be permitted to use these documents. But since they are known you only need to mention the points that you remember.
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: On this occasion I should merely like to ask whether you did not know the documents by Rosenberg, 004-PS and 007-PS?
RAEDER: No, I did not know those documents.
DR. SIEMERS: Did you see them for the first time here?
RAEDER: I saw them for the first time here. But the reports contained in these documents were already known to us at that time as is proved by the dates of the documents.
DR. SIEMERS: Please tell us only what you heard at that time from Quisling.
RAEDER: Up until 11 December I had neither connections with Herr Rosenberg—except for the fact that I had seen him on occasion—nor, above all, did I have any connections with Quisling about whom I had heard nothing up to that time.
On 11 December my Chief of Staff, Schulte-Mönting, reported to me that Major Quisling, a former Norwegian Minister of War, had arrived from Oslo. He was asking for an interview with me through a Herr Hagelin, because he wished to tell me about Norwegian conditions.
Herr Hagelin had been sent to my chief of staff by Herr Rosenberg. Rosenberg had already known Hagelin for some time as I have mentioned before. Since reports from such a source on Norwegian conditions seemed to be of great value to me, I declared myself ready to receive Herr Quisling.
He arrived on the same morning and reported to me at length about the conditions in Norway, with special reference to the relations of the Norwegian Government to England and the reports on the intention of England to land in Norway, and he characterized the whole situation as especially critical for, according to his reports, the danger seemed to be imminent. He tried to fix a date. He thought it should occur before 10 January, because then a favorable political situation would arise.
I told him that I was not really concerned with the political situation, but I would try to arrange to have him give his information to the Führer. I would be concerned only with the military and strategic situation, and in that connection I could tell him right away that it would not be possible to take any measures from 11 December until 10 January, first because the time was too short and secondly because it was winter.
I considered his expositions to be of such importance that I told him I would try to arrange for him to report to the Führer personally, so that these reports would reach and influence him directly.
Then on the 12th—that is on the next day—I went to Hitler and informed him of the conversation between Quisling and me, and I asked him to receive Quisling personally so that he might have a personal impression of Quisling. On this occasion I told him—and this is written down in one of the documents—that in cases of this kind one would have to be especially cautious, since one could not know to what degree such a party leader would try to further the interest of his party. Therefore our investigations would have to be especially careful. And I again called the attention of the Führer to the fact that an attempt to occupy Norway would bring with it greatest risks as well as certain disadvantages for the future situation. In other words, I carefully presented both sides of the picture in a neutral manner.
Hitler then decided to receive Quisling together with Hagelin on one of the following days. The two gentlemen then were obviously in touch with Rosenberg. I believe they stayed with him, and Rosenberg sent me, by letter, a record of a meeting which had apparently been drawn up by Quisling and Hagelin and also a description of Quisling’s personality.
In this letter, which is here as a document but which was not read by the Prosecution, it says specifically that Rosenberg knew what the political conditions were but that, of course, he would have to leave the military side entirely to me since I was the competent authority on that.
DR. SIEMERS: If it please the High Tribunal, in this connection I would like to submit Exhibit Raeder-67, to be found in my Document Book 4, Page 309. That is the letter from Rosenberg to Raeder dated 13 December 1939, which was not mentioned by the Prosecution. The Prosecution merely mentioned the appendix mentioned in the letter—that is, a note by Rosenberg, under Number C-65, the same as GB-85. According to its contents C-65 belongs to Exhibit Raeder-67.
THE PRESIDENT: You say there was another besides Raeder-67 which you were referring to?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes; I am referring to Raeder-67.
THE PRESIDENT: I got that. But you said some other document as well.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, the document submitted by the Prosecution, C-65, and that is an appendix to this letter; the two belong together. The latter document, C-65, is to be found in the Document Book of the British Delegation 10a, Page 33. If these two documents are taken together, it can be seen that the political side is not mentioned in either document; and this explains what the witness meant when he said that he was not concerned with the political side of the question but only with the military side. It is for that reason that Rosenberg had sent it to him.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it would be a good time to break off.
[A recess was taken.]
MR. DODD: Mr. President, with respect to the case of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, counsel and representatives of the Prosecution have been conferring with respect to his application for documents. We have agreed on a great number, but there are 20 upon which we are unable to agree.
THE PRESIDENT: 20?
MR. DODD: 20. I think we could do it in 30 minutes if the Tribunal will set some time aside; it might take a little more. Sir David has reminded me that the translators are waiting on us to go ahead with their translation work.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, I think the best thing would be to take it tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock.
MR. DODD: Very well, Mr. President. It has been suggested also that the case of Seyss-Inquart precede that of Defendant Von Papen. I understand that is the wish of the counsel, and it is very satisfactory to us as well.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SIEMERS: We have to refer briefly to Document 1809-PS, the Diary of Generaloberst Jodl. It is GB-88 in the Document Book of the British Delegation 10a, Page 289.
May I first ask when were the plans for the occupation of Norway drafted?
RAEDER: I may say that on the basis of the conference which Quisling had with the Führer in my presence on 14 December the Führer ordered the OKW to deal with the matter and study it. The Führer had two more conferences with Quisling on 16 and 18 December at which I was not present. The matter was then handled by the OKW according to the directives and an initial plan known as “North” was drafted. Document C-21, which I have mentioned before, shows that this Plan North was received by SKL on 13 January and then, in the course of January, the date 27 January was mentioned, the draft of a directive for the Plan North was made. That draft was made in the OKW in the usual way. Kapitän zur See Krancke as expert for the Navy took part in it. The directive was completed on 1 March 1940, and was issued to the three branches of the Armed Forces. In the meantime, a large number of reports had been received, and it was possible to use these as a basis for the drafting of the directive. These reports besides coming from Kapitän Schreiber now also came direct from Quisling, who sent them to the Führer. They mentioned the preparatory work carried out by the English and the French—special mention was made of the Navy Attaché Kermarrec—in Norwegian ports for finding out the possibilities of landing, measurements of quays, and the height of the bridges between Narvik and the Swedish border and similar things.
These reports which reached us showed clearly that within a reasonable time a landing was intended. Also political reports reached us which Hagelin received through his connections in Norwegian circles, reports which in part came directly from members of the Storting—and from members of the Government and their entourage.
All of these reports confirmed that the pretext of aid for Finland in the dispute between Finland and Russia played a certain role. The danger was discussed that England under pretext of aid for Finland would proceed to a bloodless occupation of Norway. The directive for the case Norway, therefore, was issued on 1 March. In the further course of the month of March more reports were received. In the meantime, the Altmark incident had occurred, and it was observed by Hagelin too that the behavior of the Norwegian commander was a pretense, and it was clear that in the case of any encroachment on the part of Great Britain, the Norwegian Government would protest only on paper.
DR. SIEMERS: You said just now the directive is dated 1 March. This is correct. The Prosecution submitted a quotation of 5 March from Document 1809-PS. That is an entry in Jodl’s Diary: “1500 hours big conference with the three commanders-in-chief regarding Weserübung. Field Marshal, having no knowledge about plans, is furious.” How is it possible, Admiral, that Reich Marshal Göring had not been consulted at a time when the directive was already issued?
RAEDER: I cannot explain that at all. I had no authority to speak about it and I cannot say why he was not consulted.
DR. SIEMERS: It is in the nature of conspiracy that the second man in the Reich would be informed about it from the beginning. Has he not ever spoken to you about that matter?
RAEDER: No, not that I remember, but that shows how little, especially in the Führer’s entourage, one can speak of a conspiracy. The Foreign Minister, Von Ribbentrop, also was not present during any of the Quisling conferences or receptions and I had no authority, to speak to him about these matters.
DR. SIEMERS: Then I should like to know your position regarding Jodl’s entry of 13 March, in which he stated: “Führer does not give the order for ‘W’ (Weserübung). He is still trying to find a justification.”
I ask you to explain these words to us as you understand them.
RAEDER: Yes. The English translation as far as I can remember says “Looking for an excuse.” But he needed neither justification nor excuse, because in the first paragraph of the directive of 1 March—that is to say, 2 weeks before that—he had stated what circumstances made it necessary to occupy Norway and Denmark with certain forces of the Wehrmacht. British encroachments in Scandinavia and the Baltic were to be prevented thereby, our ore deposits in Sweden safeguarded, and the bases against England for the Navy and the Air Force were to be expanded.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I point out that is the Document C-174; that is, GB-89, Document Book of the British Delegation 10a, Page 113. That is the directive for case “Weserübung” of 1 March 1940, which as the witness has mentioned, already contains the justification for it.
May it please the Tribunal, to prove that the information received by the witness through the intelligence service of Admiral Canaris, through Kapitän Schreiber and so on, is objective and in agreement with facts, may I be permitted to submit several documents—and that Exhibit Number Raeder-75 from the White Book dated 17 February 1940, which mentions the landing of British troops in Bergen, Trondheim and Narvik, and several appendices to it, which show the trends of thoughts at that time in regard to the Swedish ore; Document Exhibit Raeder-77...
THE PRESIDENT: This is 75, Pages 43 and 44?
DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon. Not page, but Exhibit Raeder-75. It is Page 340. Document Book 4.
Then Exhibit Number Raeder-77, also from the White Book: “The French Premier and Minister for Foreign Affairs Daladier to the French Ambassador in London, Corbin.”
In Document Book 4, Page 352. I have seen that there is a mistake in the English document book. On Page 353 the heading is missing or rather on Page 354. I may point out that this document bears the date 21 February 1940. That is contained in the original document under the heading “Intervention in Scandinavia.” It concerns the occupation of the most important Norwegian ports, et cetera, and mentions again the question of the Swedish ore.
Then I come to the Document Exhibit Raeder-78; Document Book 4, Page 357, an excerpt from the War Diary of the Naval Operations Staff of 4 March in which in connection with the case of the Altmark it is explained that a defense by Norway against British military action is not possible.
Then Exhibit Raeder-79, Document Book 4, Page 359, note by the Commander-in-Chief of the French Army, General Gamelin. Here also there is a mistake in the translation. The heading of the document was omitted on Page 360. I would be grateful if the Tribunal would note that the original document bears the date 10 March 1940. It is top secret and is based on the fact that the general plan for armed intervention in Finland existed since 16 January and therefore as a precautionary measure the ports and airfields on the Norwegian coast should be occupied. I refer to the remaining contents of document.
Then may I submit Exhibit Number Raeder-80, a report about negotiations of the Scandinavian Commission of the Inter-Allied Military Study Commission of 11 March 1940, top secret, concerning landing at Narvik.
[Turning to the defendant.] Then, Admiral, we are finished with Norway. I believe you said already that the reports increased considerably in the month of March. When did Hitler give the final order for the occupation?
RAEDER: At the end of March or beginning of April. I cannot recall the exact date.
DR. SIEMERS: I believe that is sufficient.
RAEDER: May I also mention a particularly important report which I remember now. Quisling reported in February that Lord Halifax had told the Norwegian Ambassador in London that an operation on the part of the British for the acquisition of bases in Norway was planned for the near future. That report also reached us at that time. I should like to add, as I emphasized before, that being fully conscious of my responsibility I always tried to show the Führer both sides of the picture and that the Führer would have to be guided by my documentary proof when deciding, to take or refrain from taking that tremendous step. But that does not mean to say that because I pointed out to my Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces that particular danger, I in any way decline to accept responsibility. Of course, I am in some measure responsible for the whole thing. Moreover, I have been accused because in a letter submitted here under C-155 I had told my officers’ corps that I was proud of the way in which this extraordinarily dangerous enterprise had been executed. I should like to confirm this, because I believe I was entitled to be proud that the Navy had carried out that operation with such limited means and in the face of the entire British fleet; I still stick to that.
DR. SIEMERS: Did reports reach the SKL in March about violations of the neutrality of Norway? That is incidents in territorial waters?
RAEDER: Yes. In the second half of March repeated attacks were made by British planes and naval forces against our merchant ships bringing the Swedish ore down from Narvik.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, in that connection may I submit some more documents? Exhibit Raeder-81, Document Book 5, Page 372, War Diary of the Naval Operations Staff which contains several entries showing that towards the end these incidents became more and more frequent and that the Norwegian neutrality was violated by British air and naval forces. As that document is known there is no need to read anything from it.
Then Exhibit Raeder-82 in Document Book 5, Page 377, also War Diary of 27 March, also concerning violations of neutrality. Furthermore, Exhibit Raeder-83, Page 379, a draft resolution of the sixth session of the Supreme Council, dated 28 March 1940, which was already mentioned yesterday. It deals with vital interests from the standpoint of international law and with the laying of mines in territorial waters on 5 April.
Then Exhibit Raeder-84, Page 384, and Exhibit Raeder-85, Page 386, both of which are documents from the White Book. May I only point out that it mentions that the first transport is to leave on J.1. day, that is actually on 5 April; in other words, 4 days before the occupation by Germany.
Exhibit Raeder-86 is an excerpt from the War Diary, of which I ask you to take official notice and which concerns the chartering by England of 90 percent of the Norwegian tankers.
To conclude Norway, may I ask you to look at two Documents, C-151 and C-115. Those are Exhibits GB-91 and GB-90, respectively, Document Book of the British Delegation 10a, on Pages 106 and 62. The dates are 30 March 1940 and 4 April 1940. The documents show that the ships which were to carry out the landing should carry the British flag for camouflage reasons. The Prosecution uses that document also to support its accusation.
[Turning to the defendant.] What do you say about it?
RAEDER: That is quite a regular ruse of war, that warships carry a foreign flag. A requisite for the legality of that act, however, is that at the moment of an enemy action, the moment fire is opened, their own flag must be hoisted in time. That has always been done in the German Navy, especially in the case of our auxiliary cruisers, which frequently sailed under a foreign flag in order to avoid being reported by merchant ships, but which always lowered that flag in time. That is a matter of honor. It must be added that in this case, as the War Diary shows...
DR. SIEMERS: 8 April.
RAEDER: ...that on 8 April, on account of certain considerations, we rescinded that order, because we had the report that an English action was under way, and we feared that complications would arise from that. So this order was not carried out in the long run. I believe the document can be found which contains that.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I submit, in this connection, Exhibit Number Raeder-89 (Document Raeder-89), Document Book 5, Page 400, where we find under 8 April: “The previous order is rescinded, the British flag is not to be used.”
RAEDER: You also asked about Document C-115, which says that the blockade runners camouflaged as merchant ships with dimmed lights should enter Oslo Fjord unobtrusively. This too is quite a regular ruse of war against which, from the legal point of view, no objection can be made. Likewise there is nothing to be said against English names given in answer to signals of identity.
I did not finish answering one question because I was interrupted. That was the question concerning the expression “justification” or “excuse” in the War Diary of Generaloberst Jodl. As I have shown, it was not a question of the justification, which had been expressed a long time before by Hitler, but I believe that I am right in saying that the question was that the diplomatic note which, at the moment of the execution of the enterprise, had to be presented to the Norwegian and Danish governments, giving the reason for his action, had not yet been drafted, especially as he had not yet spoken to the Foreign Minister at that time at all. The Foreign Minister received the information, as he has said himself, only on 3 April.
DR. SIEMERS: With this I should like to conclude the question of the occupation of Norway. May I still submit the approved document, Exhibit Raeder-66, which was approved for the purpose of argument? It is an opinion expressed by Dr. Mosler, and it can be found in Document Book 4, Page 291; and in this connection, concerning the use of flags, may I draw special attention to Figure 7, Page 304, from which we may see the legal reasoning. Furthermore, may I submit Exhibit Raeder-90, Document Book 5, Page 402, and the series of documents as far as they are approved: Exhibit Raeder-91, Admiral Darlan to the French War Minister Daladier on 12 April 1940; Exhibit Raeder-92, Page 412. This document contains the English-French note to the Norwegian Government of 8 April 1940. I have submitted that document because this note expresses the same legal points of view as expressed in the legal opinion of Dr. Mosler.
Exhibit Number Raeder-97 and Exhibit Number Raeder-98: Number 97 concerns the White Book and the planning of 7 February 1940, concerning the Allied bases in Norway; and Number 98 is an excerpt from the War Diary concerning the orders which, at the time of the occupation of Norway, were found and from which it could be seen that an English landing was imminent and the so-called plan under the camouflage name “Stratford Plan,” which was prepared by the British Admiralty.
[Turning to the defendant.] Concerning Norway, may I ask you the following: During and after the occupation did you intervene to see that the Norwegian population was treated decently, and what was your view of the political question in Norway with regard to the attitude of Germany to Norway?
RAEDER: From the very beginning I was for good treatment of the Norwegian population. I knew that Hitler had given Gauleiter Terboven, whom he had unfortunately appointed Reich Commissioner for Norway and to whom he had entrusted the civil administration, instructions that he, Terboven, should bring the Norwegian people to him; that is to say, make them favorably disposed, and that he had the intention, finally, to maintain Norway as a sovereign state in a North Germanic Empire.
Terboven was opposed to that. He treated the Norwegian population in a very unfriendly manner, and by his treatment he actually sabotaged the aims of Hitler. In close understanding with Admiral Böhm, who became the naval commander in Norway and who had taken Kapitän Schreiber, the former attaché, on his staff as liaison officer to the Norwegian population, I tried to counteract these intentions of Terboven. On the basis of the reports of Admiral Böhm I repeatedly approached the Führer and told him that with Terboven he would never achieve his purpose. The Führer designated Quisling chief of the Government. I cannot remember exactly when he became Minister President, but Terboven also sabotaged Quisling in his activities by making it extremely difficult for him, and even discredited him among the population. Terboven’s chief reason was, in my opinion, that he wanted to remain Gauleiter of Norway. All our endeavors were unsuccessful, in spite of the fact that Admiral Böhm tried very hard to achieve with the help of the Navy what Hitler had expected, that is, to win over the Norwegian people.
I did not understand how on the one side one wanted to gain the sympathy of the Norwegians and on the other hand one sabotaged Hitler’s intentions.
That went on until 1942, at which time Böhm made a final report to me, in which he explained that things could not go on like that, and that Hitler’s intentions would never be realized. I submitted that report to Hitler, but since it did not bring about any change—it was in the late autumn of 1942—this failure of mine became one of the reasons which finally led to my retirement.
DR. SIEMERS: Did you ask Hitler specifically to dismiss Terboven?
RAEDER: Several times. And I suggested that he should appoint General Admiral Böhm as commander of the armed forces for Norway and give him far-reaching powers so that he could carry out his—Hitler’s—aims. I suggested that the Führer should as soon as possible conclude a peace with Norway because only in that way could he bring about co-operation between Norway and Germany and make the population turn to him. I told him the attempts of sabotage by the Norwegian emigrants would lose their meaning and cease and that possibly the Norwegian emigrants who were leaning toward England at that time could be induced to return, because they might be afraid that they might “miss the bus”; especially from the point of view of economic advantages. The task of defending Norway would be considerably easier if a state of peace could be brought about.
DR. SIEMERS: In conclusion, may I refer to Exhibit Raeder-107 which is already known to the Tribunal. It is the affidavit by Schreiber under Roman Numeral II. There Schreiber has mentioned in detail the utmost endeavors of the Navy to prevent the regrettable terror regime of Terboven and explained that Raeder, for the last time in 1942, used all his efforts to get Hitler to conclude a peace between Norway and Germany. I believe that the Navy had a good reputation in Norway, that I can assume this is historically known without my having to prove it. To be on the safe side I applied for a witness, but consent was not given.
May I also submit Exhibit Raeder-108 (Document Raeder-108), Document Book 6, Page 473, a letter from Raeder to Admiral Böhm of 23 October 1942. Raeder writes:
“To my regret I have to send you enclosed, for your personal information, a letter from Reich Minister Dr. Lammers to Prime Minister Quisling.”
On Page 476 there is the letter from Lammers to Quisling which says—I quote only one sentence:
“The Führer, therefore, desires that during the war there shall be no conferences or discussions concerning a final or a preliminary peace between the Greater German Reich and Norway, or concerning other measures fixing or anticipating Norway’s position to the Reich after the end of the war.”
This is the letter which the witness mentioned, which finally brought to nought all his endeavors and those of Admiral Böhm.
Admiral, you had little to do with France, and therefore we can be very brief. May I merely ask you, did you attempt at any time to influence the political relations between Germany and France?
RAEDER: This influence, when there was any, was in the first place directed as much as possible towards improving the defense of the country. In the second place, there were above all humanitarian reasons. I often visited naval and submarine bases in France. During these journeys I got some knowledge of conditions in France. I saw that in 1940 and still in 1941 the population lived just as if it were at peace, completely undisturbed. Consequently I believed, since the Führer had shown so much moderation on the occasion of the Armistice, that a basis could be found which would draw France—whose government was after all collaborationist—closer to us.
I was informed that Laval was really sincere in his opinion that only co-operation between France and Germany could guarantee a lasting peace in Europe for the future. Therefore I suggested to him whether he himself could not try to do something in that direction. He did not intend to do this, and I referred to it again when I heard that Admiral Darlan was trying to work more closely with our naval commander in France, Admiral Schultze. That was first achieved in the field of intelligence, where his services were very useful to us.
At the end of the year 1941 he mentioned that he would like to speak to me. Admiral Schultze reported that to me and I told Hitler about it and recommended such a conversation because I thought Lt would do some good.
DR. SIEMERS: It would do what?
RAEDER: That it might bring some advantage. The Führer approved this meeting and instructed me as to his views. The meeting took place near Paris on the occasion of an official trip which I made to the French bases at the end of January or beginning of February 1942. I had the impression that the meeting was very satisfactory, inasmuch as Darlan was of the opinion that a peace would be of advantage to both nations and he also appeared to be inclined to co-operate. He stressed, however, that the whole political situation would have to be settled before peace could be concluded. I also showed that I was prepared to meet him concerning the negotiations with the Armistice Commission with respect to heavy guns for big French ships. I reported to the Führer on the results of the meeting. But in this case too the Führer was again hesitant and did not want to make a decision. He said he had to see first how the war went before he could decide upon his final attitude toward France. Besides, that would be a precedent which might have an effect on other nations. So that also was a failure. I did not obtain the relief in the defense of France which I had hoped for and so, in the case of France, this failure was the second reason which contributed later to my asking for my release, because I could not carry my plans through.
DR. SIEMERS: Now I come to the next subject where accusations are made against you, and that is Russia. When did you hear for the first time that Hitler intended to wage war against Russia, although he had concluded a Nonaggression Pact with Russia?
RAEDER: May I first remind you that in the summer of 1940, that is to say, July, August, and September, we in the Navy were very much occupied with preparations for a landing in England; therefore it never entered our heads that there could be any plans for action in another direction. In August I heard from some Army office, possibly that of the Commander-in-Chief, that considerable troop transports were going to the East. I asked Hitler what that meant and he told me it was a grandiose camouflage for his intentions to invade England. He knew that I would be against it right away if he were to speak about an enterprise against Russia. In September—I cannot recall the date exactly—he finally admitted to me that he had certain intentions against Russia. In September I reported to him at least twice, my more important report was 26 September, when I did everything I could to dissuade him from any undertaking against Russia. In that report which I made in the presence of Field Marshal Keitel and Colonel General Jodl I emphasized particularly the strategic military side; first, because I could do that in all clarity in the presence of other people, and then because I assumed that such military reasons, that is, the possibility of failure of an operation against Russia at a time when the struggle was on against England, would impress him and dissuade him from that plan. On 26 September, after making this official report, I asked for a personal conference alone with Hitler. Keitel and Jodl can testify that I always did this when I wanted to discuss something particularly important with the Führer, where I had to go beyond the conventional procedure and which I could only do if nobody else was present. One could tell Hitler a lot of things if one was alone with him, but one could not make any such statements in a larger group. Field Marshal Keitel and Colonel General Jodl know that very well, particularly well, because they were the ones who in such cases always had to leave the room. On that occasion I gave Hitler my views in detail; first, that it was not possible to break the pact with Russia, that it would be morally wrong, that it would serve no purpose because the pact gave us great advantages and was a basis for a sound policy for Germany later on. Then I told him that under no circumstances could he start a two-front war, as it was he who had always emphasized that he would not repeat the stupidity of the government of 1914 and that, in my opinion, it could never be justified. Then I put to him again the difference of the forces on each side, the absolute necessity for the Navy to concentrate on the war against England and particularly at that moment when all resources were strained to the utmost to carry out the invasion.
On that day I had the impression that Hitler was inclined to listen to my argument because later, or the next day, the naval adjutant, Kapitän Von Puttkamer, reported to me that Hitler had spoken in very much the same vein as I had spoken, and had appreciated my argument.
That went on for several months. I presented many such reports, returning always with the same arguments. I believed again in November that I had been successful. To my utter surprise, however, on 18 December, Directive Number 21 (Barbarossa) came out, which dealt with the case of a war with the Soviet Union before the termination of the war against England. It is true, of course, that it was a directive for an eventuality. It is Document 446-PS, USA-31, of 18 December 1940.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, that is in Document Book 10a, Page 247.
[Turning to the defendant.] Admiral, the Prosecution asserted that the Navy and you assisted in drawing up this directive. Is that correct?
RAEDER: That is in no way correct. Such directives were drafted in the OKW after the Führer had taken his political decision, in the Armed Forces Operations Staff; and in that Armed Forces Operations Staff there was also one naval officer and one or more Air Force officers who, under the Chief of the Armed Forces Operations Staff, dealt with matters concerning the Navy and Air Force when such directives were being drafted. The directive then went to the Commanders-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and they were ordered, for their part, to work out and present suggestions for the execution of the orders of the Führer. They had no influence on the directive itself and did not see it at all beforehand.
May I add one more thing? I have been accused by the Prosecution that I used my influence with the Führer not for moral and ethical reasons but that I tried in a cynical way first to settle the account with England and then to assail Russia. I have said before that I told all my reasons to the Führer whenever I had the chance, but that I could not do that in a public meeting or in the presence of other people, nor could I write it down in my war diary, because the sharp words which fell there must not become known to other people by means of the war diary. I want to point to Document C-170, Exhibit USA-136, which dates from 23 August 1939 to 22 June 1941. It is a compilation of many excerpts from the War Diary of the Naval Operations Staff—and from my minutes of conferences with Hitler in which the Russian question was dealt with. This is not a literal reproduction of my statements or word for word excerpts from the War Diary, but it is a summary of excerpts by the naval archivist, Admiral Assmann. I will not read details from these many entries, but I should like to point out that precisely this document, C-170, shows in a large number of entries contained therein that, since the beginning of the war in 1939, I continuously used my influence with the Führer to maintain good relations with Russia for the reasons which I have previously mentioned. It would lead us too far if I were to start quoting several entries here. But the document, I would like to emphasize, is entirely convincing.
DR. SIEMERS: You had nothing to do with the Directive 21, which is signed by Hitler, Keitel, and Jodl?
RAEDER: Absolutely nothing.
DR. SIEMERS: But following that, you made some preparations in accordance with the directive? As they concerned the Navy they were in any case not so important here.
RAEDER: Yes. We had the first conference in January, as can be seen from one of these entries in C-170. I had reported to the Führer on 4 February about our intentions and in March the Navy began with certain preparations. I have said already that the Navy throughout the first period was hardly concerned with major operations, but only with the cutting off of the Gulf of Finland by mines and light naval forces. I do not know whether that is in Directive 21 or somewhere else but the Führer, at my urgent request, had ordered that the center of gravity of the naval warfare should still be in the direction of England. Consequently, we could use only relatively small forces for the war against Russia.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, we had better break off now.
The Tribunal rather understood that you hoped to finish by midday today. We realize that you had 2 hours of today taken up with your documents, but when do you think you will be able to finish now?
DR. SIEMERS: I believe I will need only about three-quarters of an hour, between half an hour and an hour.
THE PRESIDENT: Tomorrow at 10 o’clock we shall deal with the documents of Seyss-Inquart, and we are told that will only last 30 minutes.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 18 May 1946 at 1000 hours.]
ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-THIRD DAY Saturday, 18 May 1946
Morning Session
MR. DODD: Mr. President, with respect to the application for documents of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, 87 documents altogether have been submitted to the Prosecution, and we have gone over them in the German. After numerous conferences with counsel for the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, we find we are unable to agree now on 17 of these documents. As of yesterday the number was 20, as I so stated, but we have now reduced it to 17.
Document Number 5 in the defendant’s list is a copy of a resolution of the German National Assembly on the 21st of February 1919, advocating Anschluss between Austria and Germany. We have told counsel we object to it as being really irrelevant here and immaterial. It is a resolution of a German parliamentary body, and it doesn’t seem to us to make any difference what they were thinking of Anschluss in 1919.
Document Number 10 is an extract from a newspaper article published in October 1945 and written by a man named Walford Selby. It is a critical article criticizing the Treaty of St. Germain for not avoiding the obliteration of the Austro-Hungarian economic entity, and it discusses what it describes as the mistakes of 1919, and so on. We understand that it is intended to explain, with other documents, the economic background of the Anschluss movement. Whatever may be said for that type of proof, there are at least five other documents on the same basis and we made no objection to them. But we did feel that somewhere this sort of thing, even if relevant, certainly became cumulative. Documents 7, 12, 26, and 33 are all on the same subject, the economic background of Anschluss, and this is a long one. Therefore, we feel that it certainly is not necessary, doesn’t add very much, merely creates a lot of paper work, and is cumulative.
Document Number 11 is a speech delivered by a Dr. Schober, giving the area and population of the Republic of Austria. We haven’t any very serious objection to this type of thing excepting that there probably are better sources if the defendant wishes to establish the area and population of Austria in 1921. Further, it seems to us that the Tribunal could very well take judicial knowledge of the area and population of Austria as of that date from reliable publications.
Document Number 14 is a statement by the former Chancellor of Austria in 1922 to the effect that Austria belongs to Germany. Our objection is again based on the cumulative feature of this document, because there are at least three other documents with almost identical statements by Dr. Renner to which we have made no objection.
Document 19 is an extract from a book written by a man called Kleinschmied, and the extract purports to show that a number of politicians lived or prospered on the Anschluss movement in Austria. That doesn’t seem to us to be very important here or likely to help the Tribunal very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, what exactly does “lived from the propaganda” mean? That they made their living by reason of propaganda, or what?
MR. DODD: Yes. It purports to show that they made it a vehicle for carrying on political activities, and made an issue of it and sustained themselves politically.
Number 21 is an extract from Kunschak’s book Austria 1918-1934, and it gives the increase in the National Socialist votes in Austria between 1930 and 1932. That didn’t seem to us to be very material or very helpful or likely to be helpful to the Tribunal. We objected to it on the grounds that it was irrelevant and immaterial.
Document Number 22 is an extract from an article in the New Free Press of August 1932, opposing the League of Nations loan. This again is submitted to prove the flow or the continuity of the Anschluss movement. There is at least one other document, Number 23, which purports to establish the same principle on the same kind of proof.
Number 27 is an extract from an article written by Martin Fuchs, “Un Pacte avec Hitler,” and it discusses the Yugoslav policy with respect to Anschluss between Germany and Austria. Again that doesn’t seem to the Prosecution to have any direct bearing or any helpful bearing upon the issues here, whatever the Yugoslavs thought about it.
Number 31 is an extract from the Neue Zeitung of the 11th of January of this year wherein Gordon Walker states that the celebration in Austria after the Anschluss was genuine. Well, that is Mr. Walker’s opinion, and there is some other substantial opinion on the other side. We doubt very much that his opinion is material here or competent.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is he?
MR. DODD: I understand he is a member of the Labor Party in Great Britain, and a writer.
Number 39 is an extract from the Archiv of 1938. This sets forth a statement made by Senator Borah, of the United States, that the Anschluss was a natural and inevitable affair and had nothing to do with the United States. This was not a speech made by the late Senator Borah in the Senate; it was his own opinion, and it does not seem to us that it would be very helpful. Some later opinions of Senator Borah were not so helpful, and this doesn’t seem to be very likely to be helpful to the Tribunal with respect to this issue.
Number 47 is an extract from Zernatto’s book The Truth about Austria. Zernatto was one of the State Under Secretaries of Austria, as the Tribunal knows. He left the country after the Anschluss and went to the United States and wrote this book. He makes a number of statements, I might say, about the Defendant Seyss-Inquart. The Tribunal would be interested in knowing that this Document 47, and Documents 48, 50, 54, 55, 60, and 61 are all extracts from the same book. Now, we felt that wherever he reports a conversation with Seyss-Inquart, that would have bearing and relevancy before the Court; but where he expresses his opinion, we have more doubt about its relevancy. This one statement, Number 47, seems to be his opinion. He doesn’t cite any conversation or anything other than what appears to be his impression that Seyss-Inquart disassociated himself from Leopold’s efforts.
Now, we do not object to 48, and to 50, or to 54, because although we originally thought we would object, on reviewing them they appeared to set out actual conversations between Zernatto and Seyss-Inquart, and it might be helpful to the Tribunal. Therefore, we do not object to the next three.
But 55, again, is a statement in Zernatto’s book that, in Zernatto’s opinion, Seyss-Inquart was a figure on the chess board and was double-crossed by the Nazi or new Party leadership. We object to that for the reason that I have stated; it is the author’s opinion. He is deceased, by the way, and is certainly not available. In any event, we do not think his opinion can be very helpful.
Number 60 is also a statement from Zernatto’s book and it sets out a conversation with an unnamed Austrian Nazi. We felt that was altogether too vague and would not be of value or helpful. In Number 61, again, the author Zernatto expresses his opinion that Seyss-Inquart was afraid of shouldering responsibility. I don’t want to stress our objections too heavily to these extracts. I don’t think they are very harmful, certainly, but I rather object because we would like to cut down some of this printing, and I do not think they will be very helpful to Seyss-Inquart.
Number 68 is the first document on anti-Semitism, and it is an excerpt from the publication entitled The Elements of National Socialism by Bishop Alois Hudal. It explains anti-Semitism in Germany and Austria; and it goes on to discuss matters that the Tribunal has heard very much about through other defendants, the disproportionate position of the Jewish population in Germany, and so on. We object to it as not being helpful and not material.
Again 69 is another extract from Zernatto’s book on the causes, as some of these people see it, of anti-Semitism. It is his opinion and does not to us seem to be helpful or material here. Number 71 is on the Slovak question. I doubt that there has been any serious claim made anywhere in this case that at various times the Slovaks have not claimed autonomy. This extract from the Archiv of 1938, insofar as we can discover, seeks to establish that they did want autonomy. Well, we don’t think that is very important here, and it will not be helpful to the Tribunal or to Seyss-Inquart.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it a document of state?
MR. DODD: Well, it is a document from the Archiv, and in that sense it is a public document.
THE PRESIDENT: After Slovakia had been taken over by the Reich?
MR. DODD: No, not afterwards, it’s in 1938, and it preceded the taking over.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes.
MR. DODD: These are our objections, Mr. President. I do think we have tried to be rather...
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, Mr. Dodd, we are only considering now the question of objections to translation. We are not considering the question of admissibility, nor are we binding you not to object to them after they have been translated.
MR. DODD: Yes, I am aware of that, Mr. President. We tried to be, I think, fairly generous about this list. The excerpts, or most of them, are not too long. We did think we would have to call a halt somewhere, and I do not think our 17 objections out of the 87 listed are very strict or are pinching, really, the Defendant Seyss-Inquart.
DR. GUSTAV STEINBAUER (Counsel for Defendant Seyss-Inquart): Your Lordship, High Tribunal, I know that you value my small country, Austria, not only because of its ancient culture and its scenic beauty, but also because it was the first country which lost its freedom through Hitler. However, with all respect which you have for this country, I cannot expect of you that, as representative of great powers, you know the history of my country to the last detail. I do believe that it is of the utmost importance for the defense of Seyss-Inquart that you understand fully on the basis of what background and what motives this man acted the way he did.
I myself can see three reasons which led to the Anschluss.
First of all, the desperate economic situation which runs like a red thread from 1918 right up to—I am sorry to say—and through the year 1946.
The second reason, and I shall be very brief with regard to the documents...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer, will you come to the actual documents as soon as possible, because you will remember we are only discussing the question of whether they should be translated or not.
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes. The second reason was the disunity of the democratic parties. The third reason was the attitude of the surrounding powers. From these points of view I have assembled my documents.
The first document is a resolution of the Weimar National Assembly, and I am of the point of view that it is important in respect to a final judgment that the Anschluss was not only a wish of the Austrian population, but an all-German postulate. It is very short and I request that it be admitted.
The second document is by Selby, who for many years was the British Ambassador in Vienna, a genuine friend of our country. In this article he refers to the economic background and conditions in Austria, which led to the Anschluss. That was the reason for my including this document.
The next document is a speech delivered by Federal Chancellor Schober who was held in great esteem by the world. In this speech he refers to the fact that the burdens imposed on Austria are too great for her to carry. He described the situation as a whole as a case of bankruptcy.
The next document is a statement by the present Federal Minister, Dr. Karl Renner, in 1922. At that time Dr. Seipel went to Geneva and with great difficulty put through a loan at the League of Nations which was of great importance to us because at the same time it was demanded of Austria that we should forego independence for 10 years’ duration. That meant that we were not to take any steps to change the conditions for an Anschluss. Renner opposed Seipel in Parliament at that time. This document is in no way cumulative to Document 33, since in Document 33 I want merely to describe the economic situation as it obtained in the year 1938.
The next document is Point 2 of my evidence; namely, the strong political propaganda for the Anschluss. In any event, I must dispute most strongly the assertion that Document Number 21, which is very short, is irrelevant. I consider it extremely important to prove that this new, very young party, which grew in the fertile soil of a desperate economic situation, increased tenfold, as far as the number of votes was concerned, in the years 1930 to 1932; thus all the time there existed a recognized political opposition to the government.
The next Document, Number 22, is an article which again illustrates the economic situation in Austria at a very essential period of history, namely, the moment when Federal Chancellor Dollfuss went to Lausanne in order to negotiate another loan from the League of Nations, and we again were forced to suppress thoughts of an Anschluss for another 10 years. This Document, Number 22, as well as the next one, Number 23, is not cumulative, since the one shows the political and the other the economic position of the members of Parliament with respect to the League of Nations’ loan of the year 1932.
The next document is only an extract from the views taken by the various surrounding states to the Anschluss question. I selected only Yugoslavia, for Yugoslavia was the country which most strongly supported the idea of Anschluss in her foreign policy.
As far as Document 31 is concerned, I should like to remark, supplementing the remarks made by the Prosecution, that Gordon Walker is not only a member of the Labor Party, but—and this point is much more important—during the entire war years he was head of the British Radio Division Austria, and he was himself in Austria in the year 1938 and he witnessed the Anschluss. His judgment therefore is of extraordinary importance since it is the judgment of a prominent foreigner.
The same remark also applies to the following document, the statement by Senator Borah who for 25 years was the Chairman of the American Committee on Foreign Affairs. His opinion is surely deserving of notice.
The next documents concern statements made by Dr. Zernatto. I should like to add that Dr. Zernatto was Federal Minister, General. Secretary of the Fatherland Front and Schuschnigg’s right-hand man during the period of the Anschluss. He was one of the spiritual fathers of the Schuschnigg plebiscite. I am sorry to say that he died an emigrant in 1940, and I cannot produce him as a witness here; but his book is a document and actually tells what this man experienced in those critical days.
I urgently request that the remaining three documents, which are very brief, be left in the book.
The next two documents, which concern anti-Semitism, I included very unwillingly in order to avoid any accusation of anti-Semitic propaganda. I included them because in the trial brief my client is accused of being a member of an anti-Semitic organization. This accusation is unjustifiable insofar as more importance is attached to this organization than it actually deserves. If this matter is not further emphasized by the Prosecution, I shall not attach any particular importance to these two documents myself.
The last document which is being objected to, Number 71, contains the Agreement of Pittsburgh which was concluded between Masaryk and Hlinka, the Slovak leader, at which occasion Masaryk solemnly promised autonomy to the Slovaks, a promise which was not kept according to the letter of the agreement and which gave rise to a strong demand for autonomy in Slovakia, which was supported by Hitler. For these reasons I ask that this document also be approved.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer, the Tribunal will consider the question of these documents.
Now, Dr. Siemers.
[The Defendant Raeder resumed the stand.]
DR. SIEMERS: May it please the Tribunal, yesterday in connection with Norway I submitted on one occasion Documents 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, and 86. I beg the Tribunal’s pardon, but I forgot to submit one document pertinent to this matter, and I should like to remedy this omission.
The document, which has already been granted me, is Exhibit Number Raeder-88, which likewise is an extract from the White Book and is printed in my Document Book Number 5, on Pages 392 and following. This document shows the British order of 6 April 1940, regarding the plans for the occupation of northern Swedish ore fields, proceeding from Narvik.
Since the Tribunal is familiar with this document, it will not be necessary for me to read from it.
[Turning to the defendant.] Admiral, yesterday we had arrived at the topic of Russia. You had answered my question regarding Directive Number 21, Document 446-PS, of 18 December 1940, to the effect that the Navy had not worked on this directive. You further stated that the Navy undertook preparations in January in accordance with the command.
RAEDER: May I make a brief remark on this directive to the effect that yesterday I believe you made a mistake when you said that this directive was signed by Hitler, Keitel, and Jodl. This was the copy of the operational staff which Hitler had signed; but Keitel and Jodl only countersigned. Thus there is no question of a signature of these two; when such directives were issued they were signed only by Hitler, and the others could merely countersign.
DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon, and I thank you for the correction.
In this connection, I should like to ask the Tribunal to consider Document C-35, USA-132. This document is found in the Document Book of the British Delegation, Number 10a, on Page 16. It is an extract from the War Diary with the date of 30 January 1941. It describes the preparations by the Navy, in accordance with Hitler’s command of 18 December, where Hitler under Number IV of the directive commanded that precautionary measures be taken in case Russia should alter her previous attitude toward Germany, that is, only in case of this possibility.
[Turning to the defendant.] Admiral, in connection with your representation of the Russian situation, the Prosecution has submitted Document C-66, which corresponds to GB-81. This is your report of 10 January 1944 to Admiral Assmann for the historical archives of the Navy. The document will be found in the Document Book of the British Delegation, Number 10, Page 13. There you will find the basic position taken by Raeder with respect to “Fall Barbarossa.” This is set forth under “a” of the document under Number 1...
I have just heard that this document is also to be found in the Document Book 10a, on Page 35. There you wrote:
“At this time the Führer had made known his ‘unalterable decision’ to conduct the eastern campaign in spite of all remonstrances. Accordingly, further warnings, as long as completely new situations had not arisen, were completely without purpose, as one knew from experience. As Chief of the Naval Operations Staff I was never convinced of the ‘compelling necessity’ for Barbarossa.”
Do you have anything to add to these statements which you made at that time?
RAEDER: I should like to say in this connection that despite the fact that the directive had been issued on 18 December, I made a comprehensive report at the end of December, as can be seen from Document C-170, which I mentioned yesterday on several occasions, in order to convince the Führer of the wrongness of this decision. This shows that I have gone very far, for when the Führer had issued a directive, even if it applied only to a hypothetical case, it was generally impossible to approach him with basic considerations against this directive. Everything else I mentioned already yesterday.
DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, yesterday, in connection with your counterproposals made to Hitler with respect to Russia, you mentioned that in the autumn the plan was still to carry through the action “Seelöwe,” that is, to land in England.
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: When, according to your strategic opinion, or the opinion of the Navy, did this possibility cease to exist? When did you have to dispense with this plan?
RAEDER: In the course of the month of September we still believed that the landing could be carried through. As a necessary condition the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and I, too, always insisted—and he realized this fully—that for a landing air superiority would have to be on our side; and therefore we were waiting to see whether we could actually produce this air superiority in time for the landing, which due to weather conditions could not be carried out later than the beginning of October. If it were not possible by then, it would have to be postponed until May of the following year. It developed that air superiority could not be produced to the necessary extent; consequently it was said that the landing was to be postponed until the spring of the following year. Further preparations were to be taken and they actually were taken. But in the course of the winter the idea of a landing was completely abandoned, and Hitler decreed that preparations in the harbors along the Channel should be carried on only to such an extent as would give the British the impression that this landing actually was to take place. In September I had the impression that Hitler no longer had any great interest in this landing and that in his own mind he was completely committed to the Russian campaign in conjunction with which he, of course, could not carry out the landing in England.
DR. SIEMERS: Now, I turn to the accusation raised against you by the Prosecution that you demanded that war be waged against America. The Prosecution has submitted in this connection Document C-152, or GB-122, which is to be found in the Document Book of the British Delegation, Number 10, Page 23. This is an extract from the War Diary of the Naval Operations Staff dealing with a report of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy—that is, you—to the Führer on 18 March 1941. Under Figure 11 of this document, it is stated, and I quote:
“Japan must proceed to take Singapore as soon as possible, since the opportunity will never again be so favorable (preoccupation of the entire British fleet elsewhere; the unreadiness of the United States to carry on a war against Japan; the inferiority of the United States fleet to the Japanese fleet). Japan is, indeed, preparing for this action but will carry it out, according to statements of Japanese officers, only at the moment when Germany proceeds with the landing in England. All efforts on Germany’s part must therefore aim to incite Japan to immediate action. If Japan captures Singapore, then all other Eastern Asiatic problems relating to the United States and England will be solved (Guam, Philippines, Borneo, and Dutch East Indies).
“Japan wants to avoid a war against the United States of America, if at all possible, and can do so if she takes Singapore promptly.”
The Prosecution has construed this statement of yours to mean that you wanted to lead Japan into a war against America. Is that correct?
RAEDER: It is one of the most incorrect assertions contained in the Indictment against me. It is entirely clear that, since I was involved in a naval war with England with my small German Navy, I did not want, under any circumstances, to have America on my neck as well; and it has been discussed here repeatedly that my most urgent effort during the entire first few years of the war was to avoid, under all circumstances, being involved with the United States. Admiral Wagner described here in detail the limitations which I had imposed on the German Navy in order to prevent any clashes with the United States. I imposed limitations which actually I could hardly justify when I carried on U-boat warfare with such relatively small means. On the other hand, the United States from the end of 1940 on, at the latest, and during the entire year of 1941, exerted pressure on us in our naval warfare wherever possible and committed actions which could be interpreted as definitely not neutral. I remind you merely of the repairing of British warships in the United States, something which up until that time was completely impossible and unheard of; and Roosevelt’s orders to shoot given in July and in September 1941; attacks by the American destroyers Greer and Kearney in the Atlantic on our U-boats. In two cases U-boats were pursued with depth charges for 2 hours until finally they surfaced and fired, in one case damaging one destroyer. Despite all this, in June 1941 I reported to Hitler that we were continuing not to disturb the merchantmen of the United States in any way—with the result that United States merchantmen were crossing the Atlantic completely unmolested on sea lanes of their own choosing, were in a position to give reports about our U-boats and our sea warfare without our preventing them from doing so; because of this the British were in a position to camouflage their ships as American ships. That they did. The first time our pocket battleship Admiral Scheer, while crossing the Atlantic, searched a ship flying the American flag it turned out to be the British ship Canadian Cruiser. Despite all this I recommended to the Führer, and he fully approved my suggestion, that we should take no measures against American ships. That we did not go to Halifax to lay mines Admiral Wagner has already mentioned. I need not mention that any further.
DR. SIEMERS: Was this proposal that Japan capture Singapore only for the purpose of having assistance and an ally against England, with whom we were already at war?
RAEDER: That is actually the case, and I should like to picture very briefly the development which led to this proposal. This was not anything that I did on my own initiative, but rather at the beginning of the year 1941 political negotiations were carried on with Japan partly by the Führer and partly by the Foreign Minister. I was not even called into these negotiations, and I must say regrettably so, for at these negotiations many things were discussed which were not correct. However on the other hand this shows again that there can be no talk about a conspiracy. Contact was made, and then the visit of the Foreign Minister Matsuoka took place, I believe, in March.
On the basis of this entire development the Führer, on 5 March 1941, issued Directive Number 24. That is Document C-75, USA-151, of 5 March.
DR. SIEMERS: I should like to call the attention of the High Tribunal to Document C-75, which is the same as USA-151, to be found in the Document Book of the British Delegation, Number 10a, Page 58. In this Directive, Number 24, it says under Figure 3a:
“As the joint object in the war it is important to defeat England quickly and in that way keep the United States out of the war.”
And three paragraphs farther down, under “d,” it says:
“The capture of Singapore...”
THE PRESIDENT: That on Page 58 is Instruction Number 54, concerning collaboration with Japan.
DR. SIEMERS: I have just been advised—to my surprise—that only a part of this directive is to be found in the English translation. I ask that the Tribunal grant me permission, under these circumstances, to submit the complete directive later as a Raeder document.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got it in your Raeder book, Dr. Siemers?
DR. SIEMERS: No, not up until now; for I did not know that only a part had been translated. I am asking for permission to submit this whole document later as a Raeder document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SIEMERS: Thank you. This may be found under Figure 3a, and the next quotation will be found under Figure 3d, and it says:
“The capture of Singapore, which is the key position of England in the Far East, would be a decisive achievement in the war effort of the three powers. Beyond that, attacks on other bases of British and American sea power, if the entry of the United States into the war cannot be prevented, will serve to shatter the might of the enemy in that zone....”
I ask the Tribunal to note the fact that already on 5 March, which is the date of this directive, Hitler decreed the capture of Singapore. Consequently, the suggestion made by Admiral Raeder in Document C-152, dated 18 March, cannot be considered decisive, since a Hitler decree was already in existence.
RAEDER: May I make a brief remark about that? The same thing seems to apply to all the cases which are being mentioned here: First of all, the political decision by Hitler, the head of the State; then the directive of the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces to the Armed Forces; then the conclusions drawn by the commanders-in-chief of the separate branches of the Wehrmacht. So, after I received the directive of 5 March, I had to contemplate how Japan, after entering the war, could strategically be used with the best results. And that depended on how we could most effectively wound our main opponent, England, on the sea. In this connection I had to insist most urgently that Japan move against Singapore since there were also circles who were of the opinion that Japan should attack Vladivostok, which would have been a grave mistake.
England’s power center in East Asia had to be attacked. But the very fact that I believed that the capture of Singapore would cause the United States of America to shy away from the war occasioned this proposal of mine, and not the opposite.
DR. SIEMERS: In this same connection, I refer to Document 1877-PS which was submitted in the special Indictment against you. It is USA-152 and may be found in the Document Book of the British Delegation, Number 10, Page 320. It is a conversation between the Japanese Foreign Minister, Matsuoka—I am just told now that 320 is incorrect. It should be 319.
THE PRESIDENT: And it should be 10a, I think.
DR. SIEMERS: 10a, I beg your pardon.
It is a conversation between Matsuoka and Von Ribbentrop on 29 March 1941. We have already discussed this matter. On Page 8 of this document, the following is said:
“The Reich Foreign Minister again referred to the problem of Singapore. Because of the fear expressed by Japan that there might be U-boat attacks from the Philippines and that the British Mediterranean Fleet and Home Fleet would join the attack he had discussed the situation once more with Admiral Raeder. The latter told him that the British fleet would be so completely occupied in the home waters and in the Mediterranean this year that she would not be able to dispatch even a single ship to the Far East.
“The American U-boats were described by Admiral Raeder as being so inferior that Japan would not have to concern herself about them at all.”
[Turning to the defendant.] Herr Von Ribbentrop, in reply to my question on 1 April 1946, declared that he had been mistaken, that the statement was probably made by Hitler. Will you please clarify this statement once and for all?
RAEDER: I can only confirm that I never discussed such questions with Herr Von Ribbentrop, for unfortunately there was no connection between the Foreign Office and the High Command of the Navy especially since the Führer had forbidden that any information be given by the Foreign Office to the military authorities. I would never have made such statements since they were in direct opposition to my own opinion, and especially since in this case I had no basis for any such statements.
DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, were not, on the other hand, questions frequently dealt with in the Naval Operations Staff as to the industrial and military strength of the United States, and that for these reasons any entrance of the United States was to be feared?
RAEDER: This was fully clear to us, even to the last detail.
DR. SIEMERS: Did you at any time during the war see this Document 1877-PS, which is before you?
RAEDER: No, no.
DR. SIEMERS: Were you advised about these discussions between Herr Von Ribbentrop and the Foreign Minister Matsuoka or the discussion with Oshima?
RAEDER: No; I was merely told by the Führer, and that is shown in the Document C-170, dealing with the results of this discussion with Matsuoka. But I had no discussions with Herr Von Ribbentrop.
DR. SIEMERS: May it please the High Tribunal, I have just been asked to correct a word which I have just used; in order to be fair, I should like to do so. I said that Hitler, in his directive of 5 March 1941, “decreed” that Singapore be taken. The expression is not correct. He naturally could not give any orders to Japan. The mistake arises because the directive starts with the words: “The Führer has commanded the following for our co-operation.” And under Figure 3 it says: “The following directives apply in this case.” And among these directives the taking of Singapore is mentioned.
Admiral, in any conversation did you suggest to anyone at any time that Japan attack Pearl Harbor?
RAEDER: No, we never talked about that at all.
DR. SIEMERS: Did you hear anything about this plan before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor?
RAEDER: Never. It was a complete surprise for me and the Naval Operations Staff that this attack took place; and it is a complete mistake in judging the mentality of the Japanese to assume that they would have spoken of such a plan to anyone, even inside Japan, who was not directly connected with it. In 1904 they likewise attacked Russian ships “out of the blue” without anyone suspecting anything at all.
DR. SIEMERS: May it please the Tribunal, in this connection I should like to submit three documents which have been granted me, first Exhibit Number Raeder-19, to be found in Document Book 2, Page 108. This document deals with the report by the American General Marshall which has been placed at my disposal through the help of the Court.
In this report, dated 1 September 1945, General Marshall stated the following; and I refer to Page 116:
“In order to establish for the historical record where and how Germany and Japan failed I asked General Eisenhower to have his Intelligence officers promptly interrogate the ranking members of the German High Command who are now our prisoners of war. The results of these interviews are of remarkable interest. They give a picture of dissension among the enemy nations and lack of long-range planning that may well have been decisive factors of this world struggle at its most critical moments.”
And two paragraphs further:
“No evidence has yet been found that the German High Command had any over-all strategic plan. Although the High Command approved Hitler’s policies in principle, his impetuous strategy outran German military capabilities and ultimately led to Germany’s defeat. The history of the German High Command from 1938 on is one of constant conflict of personalities in which military judgment was increasingly subordinated to Hitler’s personal dictates. The first clash occurred in 1938 and resulted in the removal of Blomberg, Von Fritsch, and Beck and of the last effective conservative influence on German foreign policy.
“The campaigns in Poland, Norway, France, and the Low Countries developed serious diversions between Hitler and the General Staff as to the details of execution of strategic plans. In each case the General Staff favored the orthodox offensive, Hitler an unorthodox attack with objectives deep in enemy territory. In each case Hitler’s views prevailed and the astounding success of each succeeding campaign raised Hitler’s military prestige to the point where his opinions were no longer challenged. His military self-confidence became unassailable after the victory in France, and he began to disparage substantially the ideas of his generals, even in the presence of junior officers. Thus no General Staff objection was expressed when Hitler made the fatal decision to invade Soviet Russia.”
And on Page 118, there is an extract dealing with Germany and Japan. I quote:
“Nor is there evidence of close strategic co-ordination between Germany and Japan. The German General Staff recognized that Japan was bound by the neutrality pact with Russia but hoped that the Japanese would tie down strong British and American land, sea, and air forces in the Far East.
“In the absence of any evidence so far to the contrary, it is believed that Japan also acted unilaterally and not in accordance with a unified strategic plan.”
And further, in the documents which were also granted me, Exhibit Raeder-113 and 114, in the Document Book 6, Page 491 and Page 497...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, I think you should ask the witness whether he agrees with General Marshall’s appreciation.
DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, do you agree with the opinions of the American General Marshall?
RAEDER: I have not completely absorbed these statements. In general they are the lines of thought which we also had pursued, but I cannot vouch for each single point. In order to speak with certainty I would have to look at them or they would have to be read to me again.
DR. SIEMERS: I believe the general confirmation is sufficient. In Document Raeder-113 I should like to refer to the heading:
“Army Foresaw Japan’s Move, Marshall Says:
“Washington, December 11 (AP)—General George C. Marshall, formerly Army Chief of Staff, acknowledged last night that the Army knew more than 10 days before December 7, 1941, that a Japanese move toward Pearl Harbor might take them past the deadline where the American chiefs believed the U.S. should fight.”
In order to save time I shall not read the particulars; but it can be gathered from the report by Marshall that the American Army knew about it and later the date of November 25 and 26 is mentioned. In addition Marshall testifies that preparations had been worked out in the United States before the war for the construction of landing strips for American bombers in Rabaul, Port Moresby, and Singapore.
In Exhibit Number Raeder-114, which I am also submitting, Henry L. Stimson, the former United States Secretary of War, made a statement under date of 21 March.
“Henry L. Stimson, former U.S. Secretary of War, disclosed that the late President Roosevelt’s War Cabinet had discussed and rejected—9 days before Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor—an American attack on the Japanese forces without further warning...
“Stimson related that he had received on November 28, 1941 information of Japanese movements along the Asiatic coast. On the same day, he said, the Cabinet met and discussed the possible meaning of the Japanese move.”
He further said that:
“...if the Japanese got into the Isthmus of Kra, the British would fight, and that if the British fought we would have to fight.”
According to this, Admiral, did the United States know about these Japanese plans before you did?
RAEDER: Apparently, yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Then I shall turn to the last accusation by the Prosecution, and that concerns Brazil. In this connection, the Prosecution has submitted Document 1807-PS, GB-227, to be found in the Document Book of the British Delegation 10a, Page 288. This is Jodl’s diary, the entry of 16 June 1942. I have to beg your pardon, I am told it is Page 287, not 288. This entry reads:
“The Naval Operations Staff applied on 29 May for permission to attack the Brazilian sea and air forces. It considers that a sudden blow against the Brazilian naval and merchant ships is expedient at this moment when defensive measures are still incomplete and there is the possibility of surprise, since Brazil is to all intents and purposes waging naval warfare against Germany.”
[Turning to the defendant.] The Prosecution is accusing you of violating neutrality and violating international law because you made that proposal at a time when Brazil was neutral. I call your attention to the fact that the war with Brazil broke out 2 months later on 22 August 1942. Please tell me briefly from memory just how you came to make this proposal.
RAEDER: The relations between Brazil and Germany at this time could not have been worse. The Germans were very much persecuted and treated very badly. Germany’s economic interests were heavily impaired. The Brazilians were already completely on the side of the United States. They had allowed United States air bases to be established along the Brazilian coast, and also intelligence stations. They themselves confirmed that they had destroyed a German U-boat; and, on the other side, the German U-boats had also attacked Brazilian ships, for the Brazilian ships were not illuminated according to regulations and consequently could not be recognized as Brazilian ships. Germany had previously asked all of the South American countries to illuminate their ships in such a way that their nationality could be distinguished at night. Then there were air attacks on U-boats of the Axis Powers, and they could have been carried out only from Brazilian bases. At this request of the Naval Operations Staff to the Führer, the Führer decreed that once again we should ask the Italians what intelligence reports they had received; and Italy in turn confirmed that some weeks before Italian U-boats, which had been operating together with ours, had been attacked near the Brazilian coast. Likewise the Brazilian Air Ministry had made known the fact that Brazilian aircraft or United States aircraft coming from Brazilian air bases had attacked Axis U-boats.
On the basis of that confirmation the Führer permitted the use of weapons against Brazilian ships along the Brazilian coast. A plan was worked out, according to which a certain wave of U-boats, which left the French coast in June to proceed into the Atlantic, was to go to the Brazilian coast. The Führer had ordered in particular that this was not to be mere pin-pricks but rather a serious enterprise. This operation was later stopped and not carried through. I am sorry that I am not able to say for what reason. But it can be seen from our document which gives the statements made in the War Diary.
DR. SIEMERS: May it please the Tribunal, I believe that the entire accusation of the Prosecution regarding this planning would not have been raised if Document 1807-PS, Jodl’s diary entry of 16 June, had been submitted in toto. Only the first part was submitted. Therefore, I submit this entry as Exhibit Number Raeder-115, to be found in Document Book 6, Page 500. From the further statements made by General Jodl in his diary we may conclude that the situation was correctly investigated.
The first part, which was submitted by the Prosecution, that is, the first two sentences, I have already read. The rest of the entry is as follows:
“Ambassador Ritter of the Foreign Office declares that an aggravation of the conflict with Brazil is undesirable in view of the attitude of Argentina and Chile and that, previous to measures of war against Brazil, consultations must be held with Italy and Japan. Acting on the report of the Chief of the Armed Forces Operations Staff, the Führer has ordered on 30 May, that the Naval Operations Staff is to ascertain, by inquiring in Rome, whether the Brazilian reports about warlike actions against Axis U-boats are correct. The inquiry by the Naval Operations Staff shows that Italian U-boats were attacked on 22 and 26 May at the northeast corner of Brazil by airplanes which beyond a doubt had started from a Brazilian air base. The Naval Operations Staff transmit, moreover, the text of the official communiqué of the Brazilian Air Ministry about the fighting and propose to put into action near the main Brazilian harbors during the period from 3-8 August 10 U-boats to sail from 22 June to 4 July from ports in western France, along with the tanker U-460. The order for execution must be given to the U-boats by 15 June at the latest. After the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy had reported this to the Führer at the Berghof on the afternoon of 15 June, the Führer declared himself in agreement with the intentions of the Naval Operations Staff but ordered, however, that before any final decision is made, the political situation be examined once again by the Foreign Office.”
I believe that this proves that we were careful enough; and I refer further to Exhibit Number Raeder-116 which I should like to submit herewith, in the same document book, Page 503, which is an extract from the War Diary. Under date 6 June there is an entry which states that the development has gone so far that:
“...a latent state of war is practically already in existence, (Brazil entirely on the side of USA; most severe damage to all German interests; individual Brazilian steamers not properly illuminated sunk by U-boats; increasing agitation in Brazil; Brazilians claim they have already sunk German U-boat while patrolling the coast).”
And a further extract from the War Diary, Exhibit Raeder-117, which I should like to submit herewith, to be found in the same document book, Page 509. I ask the High Tribunal to take notice of this document and its contents and I refer only to Figures 3 and 4 in detail. Under Figure 3 it reads:
“When Brazilian ships began to provide themselves with camouflage paint and to arm, the order was given on 15 May 1942 to use arms at once against recognizable armed South Americans.”
And under Figure 4 it says:
“On the basis of the fact that Axis submarines were attacked by vessels along the Brazilian coast and that the Brazilian Air Ministry officially made known that attacks had been made by the Brazilian Air Force, the Naval Operations Staff on 29 May 1942, in Document 12938/42, Top Secret, asked the Armed Forces Operations Staff for permission to use arms against Brazilian military forces and merchant ships.”
I submit also Exhibit Number Raeder-118, Document Book 6, Page 510. I ask the High Tribunal to take notice of this document. I do not wish to quote it, since it repeats the facts we have already heard. I believe that Figure 4 of Document 117 which I have just read clarifies the matter completely and refutes every accusation against the Navy.
[Turning to the defendant.] Admiral, do you have anything to add to these extracts from the War Diary?
RAEDER: No, I have nothing to add. It is entirely clear.
DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, may I ask you now to describe to the High Tribunal—and with this I am coming to the conclusion, of my examination—how it came about that you resigned in January 1943?
Your Honors, shall we have a recess first?
THE PRESIDENT: It depends on whether you hope to finish in a few minutes. If you hope to finish in a few minutes we will sit on so that you may finish your examination.
DR. SIEMERS: I believe it will take perhaps 10 minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, go on.
DR. SIEMERS: [Turning to the defendant.] Please describe how it came about that you resigned in January of 1943; but first I should like to ask you one more question: Did you, even before this, have the idea of resigning?
RAEDER: I should like to say briefly that on several occasions before the war I asked the Führer to relieve me of my post, or I presented him with an ultimatum. I should like briefly to cite two cases as examples. In November 1938 in the presence of General Keitel I made a report to the Führer about the type of ships and our plans as to how the ships should be developed further. On this occasion the Führer, in a manner defying explanation, began to attack everything that we had built and were building, including the plans for the Bismarck, and to declare them wrong. Later I found out that things like that happened whenever some persons of his entourage, who knew very little about such things, gave him their opinion, that he always followed it up, probably wanting—as I told myself later—to check whether the things he had been told were actually correct.
This case, however, was so extreme that I could not do anything else but simply pick up my plans, put them in my brief case, and leave the room. General Keitel was present. The Führer followed me to the door, asked me to come in again, softened his accusations, and asked me not to resign now under any circumstances.
The second case was a purely personal one, but it is rather typical. His naval adjutant, who had just been appointed, wanted to marry a young girl who had a very unsavory reputation at the University of Kiel. I told him I would never consent to the marriage. The Führer had the girl introduced to him and decided he had nothing against the marriage; I left the Berghof and sent the Führer a letter via a staff officer in which I told him that I would refuse my consent, that the officer would not remain in the Navy should he marry, or else I would not remain. I asked the officer who acted as my courier to bring back the answer since I wanted to reach a decision at once. The Führer had the officer wait 2 days at the Berghof and then sent him back to me with a letter saying:
“Very well, the officer cannot marry and remain in the Navy and he will not be used further as a naval adjutant; someone else will be put in his place. He will become some sort of leader in my National Socialist Motor Corps and will then serve as one of my Party adjutants.”
It was also typical of the Führer that, to a certain degree, he wanted to see his will carried through; but this man was out of the Navy, and I could make my conviction felt in this case. Under these circumstances I declared myself ready to continue in office. That was at the beginning of 1939; in the course of the spring, however, I asked again whether I could not be relieved of my position now, since I had served for many years in the Navy and I did not believe I would be able to maintain the dignity of the office much longer. I suggested to him that perhaps in October 1939 I should leave my post. The Führer refused at the time, and on 1 October we were at war, and in time of war I did not believe that I could leave the Navy under any circumstances unless it was very urgent, especially since I considered myself totally responsible for all preparations and for the training of the Navy. In the course of the war our co-operating which up until then, aside from such incidents, had been quite congenial, since the Führer had always made an effort to show me respect, our connection gradually became very strained during the war. The Führer became more nervous when I made reports, flared up in rage when there were divergences of opinion or if there had been any incidents, as, for instance, a technical defect or poor performance by a ship. It happened again and again that his entourage influenced him before I could actually explain matters to him, and I was called in subsequently to set him straight on these matters. In that way unpleasant scenes ensued which wore me out.
One point about which the Führer was especially sensitive was the large ships. He was always uneasy when our large ships were out on the high seas and were carrying on raids against shipping. The loss of a ship, such as the Graf Spee or later the Bismarck, he considered a tremendous loss of prestige; and matters like that, therefore, excited him tremendously. That went on until the end of 1942. Then there came—and this particularly impressed me—my defeat in the consultation with the Führer on questions dealing with Norway, France, and above all, Russia. In the final analysis he always listened more to the Party people as, for example, Terboven, than to an old officer. That led to a situation which could not be tolerated for any length of time. One of the basic characteristics of the Führer was a tremendous suspicion toward anyone and everyone, but especially directed against old officers who had come from the old Wehrmacht and of whom he always assumed—despite all well-intentioned treatment—that in their hearts they did not share these feelings which he had to demand of them. Especially the case of Russia had led me to so many conflicts with him that our relations were strongly influenced thereby. Indeed, the man who compiled all these war diaries and minutes, Admiral Assmann, summed it up on one occasion at the conclusion of such a discussion with the words: “The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, therefore, is in complete opposition to the Führer in this matter.”
At the end of 1942, just after I had had to put an end to the entire Norwegian question, an incident occurred which led to the end. There was to have been an attack on a convoy which was going to Murmansk or Archangel from England. It was in December at a time when in those northern regions there are just 1 or 2 hours of light and hence no favorable weather for fighting by large ships when up against large numbers of destroyers. The ships, together with the destroyers, had started on their journey and had reached the convoy while it was still light. But since daylight soon disappeared and darkness fell and since the convoy was guarded by many destroyers, the admiral considered it expedient to withdraw the big ships from the battle. That was the only correct decision for he might have lost them all by torpedo attack. This fact, and secondly the fact that unfortunately the radio connection between this admiral and the Naval Operations Staff was made difficult and at times completely broken off by static, caused the Führer to become extremely excited in his headquarters where I reported to him everything I found out myself. The whole day was spent with questions back and forth, and even in the evening I could not give him a clear picture. This excited him extremely. Through Admiral Krancke he had all sorts of insults transmitted to me and demanded that I report to him immediately; and I could see that very strong friction would result. I arranged it so that I did not need to report to him until 6 days later on 6 January so that the atmosphere could first cool off a little. On 6 January I could go to him with a complete report; and in the evening, at a discussion at which Field Marshal Keitel was also present, he made a speech of about an hour’s duration in which he made derogatory remarks about everything that the Navy had done so far, in direct contrast to every judgment passed on the Navy up until this time. From this I saw that he was anxious to bring about a break.
I personally was firmly prepared to seize this opportunity to resign, especially as it became ever clearer that the war was becoming a pure U-boat war, and I could therefore feel that I could leave at this moment with a clear conscience.
After the Führer had concluded his speech I asked to be permitted to speak with him alone. Field Marshal Keitel and the stenographers left and I told him that I was asking for my resignation as I could see from his words that he was entirely dissatisfied with me and therefore this was the proper moment for me to leave. As always, he tried at first to dissuade me but I remained adamant and told him that a new Commander-in-Chief of the Navy who would have complete responsibility would definitely have to be appointed. He said that it would be a great burden for him if I were to leave now since for one thing the situation was very critical—Stalingrad was impending—and secondly, since he had already been accused of dismissing so many generals. In the eyes of the outside world it would incriminate him if I were to leave at this point. I told him that I would do everything I could to prevent that happening. If he wanted to give the appearance as far as the outside world was concerned that I had not resigned because of a clash, then he could make me a general inspector with some sort of nominal title, which would create the impression that I was still with the Navy and that my name was still connected with the Navy. This appealed to him at once and I told him on 6 January that I wanted to be dismissed on 30 January. At this point I had concluded 10 years of service as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy under him. He agreed to this proposal and asked me to suggest two successors so that he could make a choice.
On 30 January he then personally dismissed me by appointing me Admiral Inspector of the Navy. He said that he would still on occasion ask me for advice; but that never happened. I was merely sent out twice, once to Bulgaria when the King of Bulgaria was buried and once to Hungary, to the Hungarian Regent Horthy to bring him a gift from the Führer.
DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, you otherwise performed no tasks as Admiral Inspector?
RAEDER: I had no functions and received no orders.
DR. SIEMERS: Then my last question: Did you have the impression, on the occasion of your conversation of 6 January 1943 with Hitler, that he in a way was glad to get rid of you in view of the many differences of opinion and the fact that you contradicted him frequently on technical naval and political matters concerning Norway, France, Russia?
RAEDER: I do believe that he wanted to get rid of me at this time, for I was in a certain way an inconvenience for him. This one case which I described, where I had my way in the end, he had never forgotten.
DR. SIEMERS: Thank you very much.
This concludes my examination of Admiral Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will sit today until half past one. It will adjourn now for 10 minutes.
[A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants’ counsel want to ask questions?
FLOTTENRICHTER OTTO KRANZBÜHLER (Counsel for Defendant Dönitz): Admiral, you recall the memorandum of the Naval Operations Staff of 15 October concerning possibilities for an intensification of the economic war. That is in the Document Book of the British Delegation, Number 10, on Pages 96 and 97 of the English text. Admiral Wagner has already testified about it here. Can you add anything to that statement concerning the purpose and the meaning of that memorandum?
RAEDER: Since the war against England came as a complete surprise to us, we had up until then dealt very little with detailed questions of submarine warfare. Among other things we had not yet discussed the question of so-called unrestricted submarine warfare which had played such a very important part in the previous war. And from that fact it developed that on 3 September that officer who was recently mentioned here was sent to the Foreign Office with some points for discussion on the question of unrestricted submarine warfare, so that we could clarify with the Foreign Office the question as to just how far we could go. And that is the document which recently played a role here, D-851, GB-451, of 3 November.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: 3 September, you mean.
RAEDER: Yes, 3 September. This touches upon all these questions. Then discussions with the Foreign Office took place and this U-boat memorandum mentioned by you was worked out in the High Command of the Navy on the basis of these discussions and released on 15 October. I believe that on 15 October I presented it to the Führer who in principle agreed to the contents. But the very fact that a memorandum about submarine warfare concerning possibilities for an intensification of submarine warfare was issued only on 15 October shows how little we were prepared for that eventuality.
That memorandum contains near the beginning that sentence which has been quoted by the Prosecution concerning our position with respect to international law, where reference is made to highest ethics of warfare, adherence to international law, and the desire to base all military measures on existing laws wherever possible. But if this is not possible or when by deviation it is possible to achieve decisive military results, and we could take the responsibility for this deviation, then in case of necessity we must depart from existing international law. That means that also a new international law may have to be developed.
However, this entire memorandum represents merely a constant search for possibilities for conducting submarine warfare with the least damage to neutrals and the greatest possible adherence to international law and in such a way that it would become a decisive factor in the outcome of the war.
Various cases are discussed as to how an intensification can be reached, but it always was a question of finding countermeasures against enemy measures. Such possibilities as blockade or the new concept to lay siege to England by submarine warfare are examined in all directions; but the draft always states the conclusion that in view of the number of submarines and other misgivings it is not yet possible to conduct such operations.
And the final result of that entire memorandum, as set down in that document, can be found in the two last pages. Unfortunately I have only the German copy in front of me where under the last Paragraph D the final opinion, the following sentences which I should like to quote, are worthy of notice...
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the extract?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: On Pages 99 and 100 in the Document Book 10, GB-224.
Mr. President, another excerpt from the same document has already been mentioned and that is in the Document Book Dönitz 3, on Pages 199 to 203; but I do not believe that it is necessary to refer to it because the witness will only read one or two sentences.
RAEDER: [Continuing.] Now, the last paragraph “Conclusions” reads:
“1.) The manner in which economic warfare has been conducted until now, in accordance with Prize Regulations, does not meet with military demands for ruthless severity.
“A large part of enemy mercantile trade including all exports in neutral ships is not covered.
“The requirements of naval law that neutral merchantmen be stopped and searched can no longer be fulfilled, in view of the strength of aerial reconnaissance and U-boat countermeasures in the enemy’s coastal approaches. Economic warfare according to Prize Regulations has therefore to be limited and in the North Sea and the Baltic must be left to surface craft only. In the Atlantic the U-boats in enemy coastal waters will limit their activities to attacks without warning on convoys, troop transports, and once it has been approved, armed and all enemy merchantmen, and will conduct economic warfare according to the law governing prizes only in exceptional cases. The use of the Operational Air Force for economic warfare is not possible. Economic warfare is conducted within the framework of international law. A possibility of controversy with neutral states is ruled out.”
Then one more sentence:
“If the Supreme War Command for political reasons should not be able at present to decide to wage the economic war in the most vigorous form possible by having recourse to a siege, it will be possible to increase the effectiveness of the policy of stopping enemy trade by a ruthless increase in the use of mines and by air attacks on enemy port installations. One cannot, however, expect a decisive result from the economic war in its present form.” (Document C-157, Exhibit GB-224)
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: The immediate result of that memorandum and of your report to the Führer was the order of 17 October?
RAEDER: Yes, and that provided: Firstly, that all enemy merchantmen could be torpedoed; and secondly, as a severer measure, that passenger ships in convoys could be torpedoed a short time after an announcement to that effect had been made. That was all done in connection with the intensification, measure for measure, which we had brought about in answer to individual acts of the enemy.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbühler, that long passage that the defendant has just read, if it has not been put in evidence yet, must be offered in evidence by you. I understand it is not in evidence at present.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I can help. I shall be using this document and I shall put it in.
THE PRESIDENT: Has it been offered in evidence?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Only part of it, not the part that the defendant has referred to. But, in view of that I shall refer to it later on.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Admiral, you mentioned that before 1935 certain preparations were made for the construction of a German submarine weapon. Did Admiral Dönitz participate in any way in these preparations?
RAEDER: In no way whatsoever. As was said before, he was abroad during the last year; but even before that he had nothing to do with it.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: You have reported about your dismissal as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. Would you please tell me how it came about that Admiral Dönitz became your successor?
RAEDER: The Führer had ordered that I propose two admirals as successors. I suggested in writing first, as the elder...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbühler, how does this arise? I mean, what relevancy has it to anything we have to decide as to how Admiral Dönitz became head of the Navy?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: That has significance, Mr. President, in view of the Prosecution’s assertion that Admiral Dönitz became the successor of Admiral Raeder on the basis of political relations or services rendered.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Please continue, Admiral.
RAEDER: I’ll be very brief. I suggested, first, Admiral Carls, who was the senior and has vast knowledge of the entire conduct of naval policy. In the event that the Führer should want to manifest that he now was placing U-boat warfare in the foreground I suggested Admiral Dönitz, who was the greatest authority in that field. Political considerations of any kind were not mentioned at all; it was purely an official, technical appointment.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I have no more questions.
DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): Mr. President, the Tribunal, through its letter of 26 March, has consented that an affidavit be submitted by the Codefendant Raeder for the Defendant Keitel, provided the Prosecution has an opportunity to question Admiral Raeder on his statements in cross-examination.
I have sent the affidavit to the Prosecution, and the Prosecution has raised no objection. I ask to be permitted to submit this affidavit which is concerned with the functions and position of the Defendant Keitel as Chief of the OKW, as Exhibit Number Keitel-19, after Admiral Raeder has confirmed that he signed this affidavit and that he agrees to its being submitted.
[Turning to the defendant.] Admiral, you are acquainted with the questions which I put to you and which, after a conference with your counsel, you answered and signed on 19 March?
RAEDER: That is about the position of Field Marshal Keitel in the OKW?
DR. NELTE: Yes.
RAEDER: I am quite familiar with that.
DR. NELTE: Then, may I submit this affidavit? The Prosecution has a copy of it.
I have a few more questions for Admiral Raeder, the answers to which can be greatly simplified with the permission of the Court. These are the same questions which on 9 May, a week ago, I put to Admiral Dönitz and which refer to the assertion made by the witness Dr. Gisevius about Keitel’s tremendous influence and the circle of silence which Keitel is said to have drawn around Hitler. I merely want to ask the witness Admiral Raeder, with the permission of the Tribunal, whether he can confirm as correct for the period before 1943 as well—that is, for the period during which Raeder was Commander-in-Chief of the Navy—the answers to my questions given by Admiral Dönitz in Raeder’s presence. I ask for the decision of the Tribunal whether I may put this general question in order to save time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
DR. NELTE: You heard what I said, and I ask you, can you confirm the answers given by Admiral Dönitz to my questions on 9 May for the period before 1943 as well?
RAEDER: Yes, that I can do.
DR. NELTE: Now, I have one final question. During your testimony Document L-79, the “Little Schmundt” file, was treated. You objected to this document as inaccurate and not of probative value?
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. NELTE: Dr. Siemers then quoted a part of that document which the Prosecution, at the time when it submitted the document, had not read. In that part of the document there is mention of a research staff in the OKW.
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. NELTE: I ask you now to tell me whether such a research staff in the OKW was ever actually created.
RAEDER: Not to my knowledge. The work was done by the Armed Forces Operations Staff in which there were officers representing all three branches of the Armed Forces.
DR. NELTE: So there was no change in the scope of tasks and in the division of jurisdiction?
RAEDER: No, definitely not.
DR. NELTE: That also concerns the question of working out strategic and operational matters between the OKW and the Armed Forces Operations Staff on one hand and the general staffs of the Armed Forces branches, including the Naval Operations Staff, on the other?
RAEDER: As far as the Naval Operations Staff is concerned, yes, there was no change.
DR. NELTE: And as far as the other branches of the Armed Forces are concerned do you know of no change or...?
RAEDER: That I cannot say. I do not know about that.
DR. NELTE: Field Marshal Von Brauchitsch and Halder have testified about that.
Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, is the affidavit that you referred to contained in your document book?
DR. NELTE: No, not yet. It will be Number Keitel-19.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Will you have translations supplied to the Tribunal?
DR. NELTE: Yes.
DR. HANS LATERNSER (Counsel for General Staff and High Command of the German Armed Forces): Admiral, you are the senior member of the group of the General Staff of the OKW, and you belonged to this so-called group for the longest time?
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. LATERNSER: In what manner did you become a member of this so-called group?
RAEDER: I was appointed Chief of the Naval Command Staff by Reich President Field Marshal Von Hindenburg. I did not join that group by doing so; rather I became Chief of the Navy. One was not aware of any group.
DR. LATERNSER: Joining and remaining in this group the Prosecution maintains was voluntary. Was there any possibility at all for military leaders to apply for any vacant posts?
RAEDER: No, there was nothing of the sort.
DR. LATERNSER: In other words, military accomplishments were the decisive factor?
RAEDER: It was a military order. There was no question, of it being voluntary.
DR. LATERNSER: Did you know the various members of the group at the time when you belonged to it?
RAEDER: No, I certainly did not know all individuals from the other branches. Of course, I knew a large number.
DR. LATERNSER: Within the purely military leadership was there ever a conference about a plan which had as its purpose the launching of aggressive wars?
RAEDER: No, there was never such a conference. Frequently it has been mentioned here how the various enterprises came about—the political decision of the Führer, a directive issued by him, and then the working out of the final order.
DR. LATERNSER: Admiral, I do not mean now by this question the meetings which took place under Hitler’s leadership. I mean meetings of purely military officers.
RAEDER: Do you mean within the various branches of the Armed Forces?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, within the various branches.
RAEDER: Of course, within the Naval Operations Staff there were meetings about various questions, but not about aggressive wars.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, my questions referred only to that. The Prosecution asserts, furthermore, that this indicted group was first established by the National Socialist Regime. Is that correct?
RAEDER: In no way whatsoever. There was no group at all, but the organization was such as has frequently been described.
DR. LATERNSER: And such as has always existed in all armies of the world?
RAEDER: Yes, as has always existed.
DR. LATERNSER: The Prosecution has furthermore asserted that, after the seizure of power by Hitler, the high military leaders had the choice either of co-operating or of accepting the consequence that the new regime would establish new armed forces, that is armed forces of their own, and that on the basis of this situation the generals decided to co-operate. Is that assertion by the Prosecution correct?
RAEDER: No. It is not true that thereupon any joining of forces took place. I know that such tendencies existed. For instance, once in 1934 I reported to the Führer that I had been informed that SA Gruppenführer Killinger, who had formerly been in the Navy and had advanced to prominence (in the SA), had the intention of becoming the Chief of Naval Operations Staff. But I was not aware of any further efforts. But above all, there was no coalition of the generals for defensive action against such an intention.
DR. LATERNSER: So the assertion made by the Prosecution is not correct?
RAEDER: No, not correct. That was not in the least a method which would have been in accordance with the sentiments of the soldier—that such a coalition be formed to avert something.
DR. LATERNSER: The Prosecution furthermore asserts that the group, above all, the generals, let themselves be won over by the regime because of the chance of conquest. Is that assertion correct?
RAEDER: That is an absolutely incorrect and farfetched assertion.
DR. LATERNSER: Was the effort of the Party to acquire for itself supreme authority ever supported or promoted by the military?
RAEDER: I do not know that that ever happened. Do you mean the seizure of power?
DR. LATERNSER: After the seizure of power was the Party supported by military leaders, as far as you know, in its efforts to attain sole domination in Germany?
RAEDER: No.
DR. LATERNSER: Yesterday, in reply to the question of your counsel, you described how you came to swear your oath to Hitler. If such an intention had existed in the mind of one of the commanders-in-chief, would it have been possible for him to refuse the oath?
RAEDER: That I cannot say, but I believe that not one of us saw any necessity for refusing that oath.
DR. LATERNSER: The Prosecution has further asserted that the high military chiefs agreed completely with the principles and aims of National Socialism. Is that correct?
RAEDER: I explained here yesterday how far one could agree with the principles of National Socialism and to what extent one trained one’s soldiers according to these principles. Anything that went beyond that was rejected and found no acceptance in the Navy. Here I can speak only for the Navy.
DR. LATERNSER: Did the officers who were subordinate to you and who were in the group ever have an insight into the political situation and Hitler’s intention so that one could speak about participation or membership in the plan?
RAEDER: No. There was an absolute prohibition on speaking to anyone about speeches in which Hitler mentioned intentions and possible developments. The officers below the rank of Armed Forces commander were informed only when things had gone so far that the directive was to be issued.
DR. LATERNSER: The Prosecution further asserts...
RAEDER: I have to qualify that. That directive was first worked out by the High Command of the Army and the Navy. Thus they received information as soon as the directive of the individual branches of the Armed Forces was issued and that always happened sometime later.
DR. LATERNSER: The Prosecution also asserts that the high military leaders were not military experts but that they knew Hitler’s intentions of aggression and willingly co-operated. Can you name any military leaders who, before they had received orders, took a positive attitude toward any aggressive action?
RAEDER: I cannot answer that. I explained yesterday how Admiral Carls pointed out to me the danger imminent in Norway; but he did not do anything more than give me the information, point out the danger, and elucidate the situation there.
DR. LATERNSER: The attitude of the former Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Von Fritsch, and of the Chief of the General Staff Beck to the question of a war is known. I just wanted to ask you, did the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Field Marshal Von Brauchitsch, have the same attitude concerning the war?
RAEDER: I believe so, yes.
DR. LATERNSER: Concerning the conference on 5 November 1937, you have already made detailed statements yesterday. I would like...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, you have been putting this class of question to every naval and military witness who has been called, and what the Tribunal desires me to point out to you is that there has been no cross-examination by any member of the Prosecution challenging any of these points, so this evidence is entirely repetitive and cumulative and is not bound to be put by you to every military and naval witness who comes into the witness box, and it is simply a waste of time to the Tribunal. When questions are answered by a witness and are not cross-examined to by the other side, it is the practice to assume that the answers are accepted.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, for me this is an extremely important question which has just been touched upon, namely, the question of whether a question is inadmissible because in the opinion of the Court it is cumulative. I should like to make a few statements concerning whether or not a question is cumulative.
THE PRESIDENT: Surely, Dr. Laternser, you can understand what the Tribunal has said to you, that it is now desired, in view of the directives of the Charter, that this Trial should be as expeditious as it can reasonably be; and it does not desire to have the same evidence adduced to it over and over again. Is that not clear?
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, if I can assume that the Tribunal accepts as true these proofs which I want to bring by means of my question, then I can of course forego these questions. But I cannot determine whether that is the case unless I know that I have succeeded in bringing definite proof...
THE PRESIDENT: What I wanted to point out to you was that you asked the same question of a great number of witnesses and that those questions have not been cross-examined, and in such circumstances you can assume that answers given by the witnesses are accepted.
DR. LATERNSER: If I am justified in drawing this conclusion, then of course I shall dispense with such questions in the future. I have only a few more questions, Mr. President.
[Turning to the defendant.] In support of the Indictment of the group of the General Staff and the OKW two affidavits have been presented by the Prosecution, one by Field Marshal Von Blomberg and one by Generaloberst Blaskowitz. In these two affidavits both generals state that as a whole, within the circle of generals before the war, the opinion existed that the question of the Corridor would have to be decided unconditionally and, if necessary, with force. Is that opinion stated by the two generals correct? Was that the general attitude at that time?
RAEDER: I never heard of such an opinion. In my presence General Von Blomberg never made any statement of that kind. The Polish question was discussed by us in the Navy only to the extent already mentioned here during the last few days, namely that an attack on Poland by Germany would have to be prevented under all circumstances. The political treatment of this question...
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant says he has never heard of this suggestion.
DR. LATERNSER: That was the reason why I put the question to the witness.
RAEDER: After 1933 political questions were handled and decided by Hitler exclusively, and he said that he made all policies.
DR. LATERNSER: It is therefore correct that this opinion which Blomberg and Blaskowitz have mentioned does not apply for the circle of generals?
RAEDER: Well, at any rate, I have never heard it expressed by the generals. It did not exist in the Navy.
DR. LATERNSER: You were present at the conferences of 23 November 1939?
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. LATERNSER: I should like to put one supplementary question concerning those conferences. Admiral, do you remember that in the course of these conferences Hitler reproached the generals because they still had old-fashioned ideas of chivalry and that these ideas had to be rejected?
RAEDER: That I cannot say with certainty. I believe that I can recall having once heard it said that Hitler was of that opinion.
DR. LATERNSER: Now, I have one last question concerning the document which your defense counsel already put to you in the course of your examination. It is Document C-66 submitted by the British Prosecution under GB-81. It is in Document Book 10, on Page 13, or 10a, Page 35. On Page 5, in the last paragraph of that page, you said the following and I quote:
“It can be seen from my statements and plans that the Führer reckoned with a definite conclusion of the eastern campaign in the fall of 1941, whereas the High Command of the Army (General Staff) was very skeptical.”
Admiral, I wanted to ask you of what this skepticism consisted?
RAEDER: As far as I know, the High Command of the Army was of the opinion that it was impossible to conclude such a tremendous campaign in so short a time; and many others shared that opinion, whereas the Führer believed that because of the new weapons and his strategy he could conclude that campaign very quickly.
DR. LATERNSER: Do you know anything about whether the High Command of the Army had any fundamental objections before the beginning of the Russian campaign?
RAEDER: As far as I know, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army was very much against it; but that too, I cannot say definitely.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you. I have no more questions.
PROFESSOR DR. HERBERT KRAUS (Representing Dr. Von Lüdinghausen, Counsel for Defendant Von Neurath): Admiral, in the course of the proceedings it has been testified, I believe by the Codefendant Göring, that Field Marshal Von Hindenburg had expressly desired that Herr Von Neurath become Foreign Minister. Do you know anything about that?
RAEDER: I learned at the time that Hindenburg had expressed that wish, and it caught my attention because Field Marshal Von Hindenburg until that time had always considered merely the appointment of the Minister of Defense and the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Navy as his privilege in the Reich Government. This was the first time that he expressed such a wish in the case of a Foreign Minister.
DR. KRAUS: So it was not the practice of the Field Marshal to make any suggestions regarding the appointments of Ministers?
RAEDER: No. He had merely acted according to his own wish to appoint the Defense Minister, even in the previous Social Democratic, Democratic, and other cabinets.
DR. KRAUS: What may have been the reason for Field Marshal Von Hindenburg’s making that exception in the case of Neurath?
RAEDER: He probably wanted to make sure under all circumstances that the peaceful policies which had prevailed in Germany up to that time would be continued. He was sure that Herr Von Neurath would continue these policies in the same direction.
DR. KRAUS: So he had particular confidence in Herr Von Neurath’s attitude up to that time?
RAEDER: Yes, beyond a doubt.
DR. KRAUS: You knew Von Neurath very well, and you were informed about his political principles, weren’t you? What were the main lines of his policies?
RAEDER: Herr Von Neurath wanted to see the gradual recovery of the German people to normal conditions and he wanted to strive with peaceful means for equal rights for the German Reich. Above all, he wanted to have good relations with England, which was also in conformity with Hindenburg’s intentions, and on this very point both of us agreed completely.
DR. KRAUS: So one can say that you considered Von Neurath an exponent of a policy of understanding with England and a peaceful policy of compromise.
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. KRAUS: Then I have a second question for you, Admiral. A Fritz Wiedemann, who was Hitler’s adjutant from 1935 to 1939, has submitted an affidavit. The Prosecution has submitted that affidavit under 3037-PS. In this affidavit Herr Wiedemann states that on 28 May 1938 a conference took place in the winter garden of the Reich Chancellery with all important people of the Foreign Office, the Army, and the Operational Staffs present, a meeting so large that one almost doubts whether all these people could get into the winter garden.
And here, he says, in addition to Göring, General Beck, General Keitel, and Von Brauchitsch, there were also present Von Neurath, Von Ribbentrop, and yourself.
In this meeting Hitler spoke among other things about Czechoslovakia and stated that it was his unshakeable intention that Czechoslovakia must disappear from the map. Do you know anything about that meeting?
RAEDER: Although I can otherwise recall every large or more important meeting, I do not have the slightest recollection of this meeting at that time. The list of those present also seems very unlikely. I have never seen Herr Von Neurath and Herr Von Ribbentrop together at the same meeting. I should also doubt whether Herr Von Neurath at that time was in Berlin at all. He was quite definitely not present at that meeting. But I also do not remember any meeting at which Von Ribbentrop was present as Foreign Minister when military matters were discussed. I think this Herr Wiedemann is mistaken because I believe also that I have never seen him at a meeting in which such matters are supposed to have been discussed. The Führer always sent this personal adjutant of his out of the room beforehand. I believe there is some mistake.
DR. KRAUS: Such an important statement by the Führer you would doubtless have remembered.
RAEDER: Yes. During that summer the Führer’s opinions fluctuated greatly. I believe that at the end of May a mobilization took place in Czechoslovakia, or something of the sort—I do not remember exactly what. But I attended no meeting, as far as I know, at which such a statement was made.
DR. KRAUS: Thank you. I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other defendants’ counsel wish to ask any questions?
[There was no response.]
Sir David, it seems scarcely worthwhile starting the cross-examination.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship please, I entirely agree.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 20 May 1946, at 1000 hours.]
ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FOURTH DAY Monday, 20 May 1946
Morning Session
[The Defendant Raeder resumed the stand.]
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Horn wishes to ask some questions.
DR. MARTIN HORN (Counsel for Defendant Von Ribbentrop): With the permission of the Tribunal I should like to put a few more questions to the witness.
Admiral, is it true that on 24 April 1941 the so-called neutrality patrol of North American warships was extended past the 300-mile limit to a distance of at least 1,000 miles?
RAEDER: I cannot remember the date, but such an extension did take place at some time.
DR. HORN: Is it true that at the beginning of June 1941 a law was passed in the United States confiscating foreign ships immobilized in North American harbors as a result of the war and including 26 Italian and 2 German ships?
RAEDER: Here again I cannot tell you the date for certain. It happened in the summer of 1941. The ships were mostly Italian, with a few German ships. I cannot swear to the exact figures.
DR. HORN: In June 1941 the United States publicly declared its willingness to give the Soviet Union every possible aid. Did you discuss this with Hitler, and what was his attitude towards it?
RAEDER: Yes, that is correct. There were some questions of a loan without interest, or some such thing. Very probably I did speak to Hitler about it, but I cannot tell you what his attitude was. I can say only that all these measures at that time in no way deterred us from the course we had pursued until then. In June I had the conversation with Hitler at which I explained to him that up to that time we had allowed American warships to go completely unmolested, and that we would continue to do so in spite of the considerable disadvantages entailed which I mentioned recently.
DR. HORN: In 1941 the American Secretary of War Mr. Stimson and the Secretary of the Navy Mr. Knox, as well as Secretary of State Mr. Hull, repeatedly advocated in public the use of the United States fleet to safeguard English transports of war material to Great Britain. On 12 July 1941, Secretary of the Navy Knox informed the representatives of the press of Roosevelt’s order to shoot at German ships. How did Hitler and you react to these actions, which were contrary to neutrality?
RAEDER: Your facts are correct. They will go down in the annals of history. Hitler did subsequently issue an express order that we were in no circumstances to open fire of our own accord, but only in self-defense. This situation actually did arise later in the case of the two destroyers Greer and Kearny.
DR. HORN: Thank you. I have no further questions.
MARSHAL: Your Honor, the report is made that Defendant Göring is absent this morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, you had read at the time of its publication the book by Captain Schüssler, The Fight of the Navy against Versailles, had you not?
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would you look at it on Page 26 of Document Book 10, Page 123 of the German document book? Captain Schüssler had told you that he was going to write such a work, had he not?
RAEDER: Yes. And I might add that this book was written because we in the Navy had been accused by National Socialist circles of not having done enough to strengthen the Navy in the period previous to 1933. That is why all these things were mentioned in that book.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And the book was circulated among senior officers in the Navy, was it not?
RAEDER: Yes; at any rate, any of the senior officers who wanted it could have it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, would you just turn to Page 127, or to Page 27 of the English book, which gives the preface? You will see at the end of the first paragraph it says that it is to give a reliable picture of the fight of the Navy against the unbearable regulations of the Peace Treaty of Versailles.
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And in the third paragraph:
“This memorandum is also meant to distinguish more clearly the services of those men who, without being known to wide circles, were ready to accept extraordinary responsibility in the service of the fight against the peace treaty.”
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Will you agree, Defendant, that that preface represents generally but accurately the feeling of the Navy with regard to invading the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles?
RAEDER: Yes, as regarding circumventing the Versailles Treaty as far as necessary to improve our defenseless position, for reasons which I explained recently here. To do this was a matter of honor for every man.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, just turn over—it is Page 28, My Lord, and it is Page 126 of your copy.
[Turning to the defendant.] It gives a summary of contents. You see, it is in four sections. The first section deals with the first defensive actions against the execution of the Treaty of Versailles, and then enumerates what they were. Don’t trouble about that. The second is independent armament measures behind the back of the Reich Government and legislative bodies.
RAEDER: In both cases it says: From the end of the war until taking over the Ruhr in 1923; from 1923 until the Lohmann case in 1927. I had nothing to do with either case.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just let us see. From 1922 to 1924 you were inspector of naval training at Kiel, were you not?
RAEDER: Inspector of the training system; the schools, the further training of officer candidates, the complete training of assistants of the Chief of Staff, that is, chief-of-staff assistants, a sort of general staff officer, and similar matters. I had nothing to do with affairs of the front.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what you were asked. You were asked whether you were inspector of training. The answer was “yes,” was it not?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As inspector of training, are you telling the Tribunal that you did not have a very complete knowledge of the weapons available for your service?
RAEDER: No, no. It was not a question of weapons visible for all to see. As I explained to you recently, that was a matter of setting up gun platforms and transferring guns from the North Sea to the Baltic. This was done by a special command, which worked under the direct order of the Chief of Navy; among others, there was this Kapitänleutnant Raenkel, for instance, who was the specialist dealing with all gunnery questions at the time. I myself was in Kiel, and there were no guns or anything of the kind in Kiel and its neighborhood.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Take the next period from 1923 to 1927. From 1925 to 1928 you were Chef der Marine Station der Ostsee, were you not?
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Are you telling the Tribunal that you did not know about the independent armament measures taken behind the back of the Reich Government?
RAEDER: No; I had nothing at all to do with these affairs. I have already said that was done by the Chief of the Naval Command Staff. I knew in a general way...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not asking you whether you ever had to do with them, I am asking you whether you are saying that you did not know about them. You knew all about them, did you not?
RAEDER: I knew it in a general way, that such measures were being taken.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, take the next, Number III: “Planned armament works tolerated by the Reichskabinet, but behind the back of the legislative bodies.” The legislative bodies would be the Reichstag and the Reichsrat, would they not?
RAEDER: Yes. But I already said recently that it was not the military commander-in-chief’s business to negotiate these matters with the Reichstag. This was a matter for the Government. Herr Severing will also testify to that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We will hear Herr Severing when he comes. At the moment I want you to tell the Tribunal this...
RAEDER: [Interposing.] I say the same...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just wait a minute; you have not heard my question yet. What did you say to Captain Schüssler? Did you tell him you are giving an entirely false picture in suggesting that the Navy had anything to do with going behind the back of the Reichstag? Did you make any effort to correct what Captain Schüssler was saying?
RAEDER: No; I did not correct his book. I had no time for that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, just before we come to Number IV, if you just look, it’s page—
My Lord, it is Page 32 of the English book, and Page 186 of your book. This is part of Captain Schüssler’s description of Section II dealing with economic rearmament; it comes under the heading, “Difficult Working Conditions.”
[Turning to the defendant.] Do you see that? It begins: “There were often difficult working conditions.” Do you see that? The heading is “Difficult Working Conditions.”
RAEDER: Yes I see, “Difficult Working Conditions.”
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I want you to look at the last part of it. Now, I want it quite clear, Defendant. This is dealing with the period from 1923 to 1927, before you were head of the Navy; so I want to ask you about it.
“There were often many external difficulties besides these for the Tebeg—the camouflaging of the task and the work, the distance separating them, the impossibility of settling any questions even of minor importance by telephone, and the necessity of avoiding if possible any written correspondence, and of carrying it out in any case as private correspondence with false names and disguised expressions.”
Did you not know that that was the method by which it was being carried on?
RAEDER: No; I really knew very little about the Tebeg—the Tebeg, the Navis—any of these things. But I think it was quite right for these people to work like that, because at that time the attitude of a large percentage of the German people was unreliable, and there was great danger if these things leaked out. In any case, the Tebeg had been dissolved when I arrived.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, would you kindly turn back to Page 126, in Book 4, Page 28 of the English book, and just look at Captain Schüssler’s description of the fourth period: “Armament under the direction of the Reich Government in camouflaged form (from 1933 to 1935 when we were free to recruit on an unrestricted basis.)”
Do you agree that Captain Schüssler was giving an accurate description of your methods from 1933 to 1935?
RAEDER: How does he describe it? Where is that passage?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is Number 4.
RAEDER: “Armament under the leadership of the Reich Government in camouflaged form”?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You agree that it is a correct description of your activities from 1933 to 1935?
RAEDER: Of course. I did that on orders from the head of the State; and before all the head of the State was very anxious to see that no exaggerated measures should be taken, so that it would not interfere in any way with his plans for making an agreement with Great Britain. He allowed very little to be done with regard to the Navy. He could at once have built eight armored ships, so many destroyers, and so many torpedo boats, none of which had yet been built, but he did none of these things because he said, “We do not want to create the impression that we are arming on a large scale.” He approved only two...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You have explained that; so note, Defendant, the point is this—the “camouflaged form” when you were negotiating the naval agreement. You did not want anyone to know what steps you had taken contrary to the treaty and how far you had gone. That is the plain fact of it—you wanted to get the naval agreement without disclosing what you had done, isn’t that so?
RAEDER: No, that distorts the sense of what I said. We did not want the announcement of these measures to cause strained relations between Germany and Britain. The measures as such were completely justifiable and were extremely minor ones.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will come to that in a moment. I only do want, before we leave these naval works, to ask you one question about another book. You know that Oberst Scherff projected a history of the German Navy. I don’t want any misunderstanding about it. As I understand the position, you permitted Oberst Scherff to have recourse to the archives of the Navy but beyond that you hadn’t seen anything of his work, isn’t that right?
RAEDER: I did not see his book at all. I saw the table of contents here the first time I was interrogated. I did not give him the order, either; he received it from the Führer; and for that reason I allowed the Chief of the Navy Archives to assist him.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, that is exactly what I put to you. I want you to turn to Book 10a. It starts at Page 1 in the English version and also Page 1 in the German. And if you would look at Page 3 you will find the proposed table of contents of Oberst Scherff’s book, Page 3 in the English version. I think it must be about Page 3 in the German version, too. Now would you look at the heading of Section 2. It is: “Incorporation of the Navy in the National Socialist State.” And then he describes, “(a) National Socialism in the Navy before 1933”...
RAEDER: Where is that? I have not found it yet.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Section 2 of the table of contents.
RAEDER: No, that must be something quite different. I have not got it here...
I have got it now.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would you look at Section 2, which is: “Incorporation of the Navy in the National Socialist State.” And you can see the proposed headings which were to cover some 30 pages: “National Socialism in the Navy before 1933.” Then: “The oath of the Navy to the Führer; the taking over of the National Insignia; the first alteration of the flag and the New War flag.” Do you agree with Oberst Scherff’s description? You agree that this is a correct description, that the proceedings could be described as the incorporation of the Navy in the National Socialist State?
RAEDER: Of course—I explained that here recently—the Navy—the Armed Forces—had to have some connection with the National Socialist State. A democratic Navy in a monarchy is impossible. The basic principles must agree. But I myself decided the extent to which these principles were adopted—that is to the degree where the Navy maintained its internal independence and yet occupied its appropriate position with regard to the National Socialist State.
Apart from that, I do not see any text here; I can only see the headings.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You say that doesn’t offend you as a description. That is all I wanted to get clear. I do not want to spend a great deal of time.
RAEDER: But the headings mean nothing.
For instance, it might say in the actual text that the Navy did not fit into the National Socialist State properly. I do not know. The same holds good of the fleet. Of course...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not going to waste time on it. There were three matters which you dealt with in your examination-in-chief, and I am not going to deal with them in detail; but I just want to remind you of them and put one general question. You can put that document away; I am not going to pursue it further. Would you mind putting that document away and giving me your attention for the next question?
You were asked about the E-boats, your survey list, that long document, in September 1933, and the question of disguised auxiliary cruisers as transport ships O. Is this a fair summary of your answer: That you admitted that these breaches of the Treaty took place, but said in each case that the breach was only a little one. Is that a fair summary of your answer? Is it?
RAEDER: No.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, let’s take it in bits, then. Are you disputing that any of these matters with regard to the E-boats, the matters on the survey lists or the transport ships O—are you disputing that any of these matters took place? I understood, you admitted they all did take place...
RAEDER: No, they took place in the way I described. For instance, these auxiliary cruisers were not built. We were not allowed to do that. But we were allowed to make plans and we were allowed to select those ships which, in the event of war—if a war had broken out in which Germany was attacked by another state—could have been used as auxiliary cruisers. That was not a violation. If it were I would admit it. The U-boat designing office in Holland was not a violation of the Versailles Treaty either. The wording was quite different; I do not remember the third case which you mentioned.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you remember there was a long list in a document, from yourself.
RAEDER: Yes, of course.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And I understood, maybe wrongly, that you admitted these things took place, but you said “it is only a little one.”
RAEDER: Yes, of course. Those were small things, but they were urgently necessary in Germany’s defense interests.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I want to ask you about an officer of yours, Vice Admiral Assmann. Was he an officer in whom you had confidence?
RAEDER: He was a very able historian.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Will you answer my question? Was he an officer in whom you had confidence?
RAEDER: I had confidence that he would write history correctly.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is all I wanted. Now, would you have a look at a new document, which is Document Number D-854, which, My Lord, will be Exhibit Number GB-460. Now, that is an extract from one of a series of essays on the operational and tactical considerations of the German Navy and consequent measures taken for its expansion between 1919 and 1939, contained among the files of Vice Admirals Assmann and Gladisch, who were in the historical section of the German Admiralty.
Now, would you mind not looking at it for a moment, Defendant? I want to ask you some questions and then you can look at it with pleasure afterwards. Do you agree that in nearly all spheres of armament where the Navy was concerned, the Treaty of Versailles was violated in the letter and all the more in the spirit? Do you agree with that?
RAEDER: No, by no means in every sphere. In the most important sphere we were far behind the Versailles Treaty, as I explained to you very clearly. Possibly we infringed on it the other way round, by not doing as much as we could have done.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Will you just look at this document. At the beginning of the first quotation your officers say:
“But if—as was stated—in nearly all spheres of armament where the Navy was concerned, the Treaty of Versailles was violated in the letter and all the more in the spirit—or at least its violation was prepared—a long time before the 16th of March 1935...”
Are your admirals wrong in stating that? Is that what you are telling the Tribunal?
RAEDER: May I please see which page this is on? I have not seen it yet. Yes, he says, “in nearly all spheres of naval armament...”
That is not the case, for in the sphere of...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That’s what I put to you; is that right?
RAEDER: No, it is not right. We had not even built as many ships as we could have built, but—as I have explained repeatedly, the violations were concerned with...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You’ve explained that.
RAEDER: ...violations were...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Really, we do know the position of your shipbuilding yards. You’ve given that explanation and it’s a matter of discussion whether it’s of any value. I am not going to argue with you. I am asking you this question: Are you saying that the admirals of your historical section are wrong in that sentence that I read out to you?
RAEDER: Yes, I am stating that. It is wrong as it stands.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. Well, now let’s pass on—the Tribunal will judge that—to the statement of Admiral Assmann. It goes on:
“This probably took place in no other sphere, on the one hand so early, and on the other hand under such difficult circumstances, as in the construction of a new submarine arm. The Treaty of Versailles had only been in force a few months (since 10 January 1920) when it was already violated in this point.”
Do you agree with Admiral Assmann on that?
RAEDER: No, he is wrong. It was not violated at all in this point, and the reason it started so early was because all the ex-U-boat commanders and U-boat officers and technicians were out of a job and offered their services to maintain technical developments in U-boats abroad; that is why it was so early. But that has nothing to do with me because I had no say in these matters then. At that time I was working on the Navy Archives.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, how are you able to be so confident today that Admiral Assmann is wrong? I thought you said that he was a good historian. He had not to go back very far. He only goes back 20 years.
RAEDER: A good historian can make mistakes too if his information is wrong. I merely said I had confidence in him...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You say quite in detail—the first paragraph is about Japan.
RAEDER: Yes; what he says about the building of U-boats is wrong.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, let’s just see how far he was wrong. We needn’t go into the first paragraph which deals with shipbuilding for Japan, but take the second one: “In 1922...” Do you see the paragraph which begins:
“As early as 1922, three German shipbuilding yards established a German U-boat designing office in Holland under a Dutch cover name with about 30 engineers and designers. In 1925 a Dutch shipbuilding yard built two 500-ton U-boats for Turkey according to the plans of this bureau, which enjoyed the financial and personal support of the Naval Command. In the solution of this question, too, Kapitän zur See Lohmann was concerned decisively.”
Is that right?
RAEDER: We have admitted that. That was in no way a violation of the Versailles Treaty.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We’ll not argue that, but it’s right anyway. Admiral Assmann’s right about that. Then he deals with Finland and with Spain. And, if you look at the end of the paragraph after dealing with Spain, he says:
“Already in the autumn of 1927 the Naval Designing Department was commissioned to carry out construction in Spain by the Chief of the Naval Command Staff, Admiral Zenker, who accepted the responsibility despite all the difficulties in the field of home politics. The working out of the project and the drawing up of the construction plans took place in the Dutch Bureau. After completion in 1931, the ship carried out trial runs and diving exercises from Cadiz to Cartagena, under German direction and with German personnel, consisting of officers, engineers, naval construction students and foremen.”
That’s all. That’s quite right, isn’t it?
RAEDER: Yes, but the shipbuilding designer from our designing office, in particular, as well as the above-named other persons employed on U-boat construction, were discharged from the Navy.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And just look at the last sentence: “This boat which is now the Turkish submarine Gür became the prototype for the U-25 and U-26.”
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, the 250-ton submarines which were made in Finland. And, if you look at the last sentence of the next paragraph:
“The Finnish U-boat was the first U-boat plan to be worked out in Germany and successfully carried out; the Dutch bureau was called upon only to work out the details.
“The Finnish 250-ton vessel became the prototype for U-1 to U-24.”
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And now the next paragraph:
“The building and the thorough trial of the prototype vessel made it possible to obtain the parts for U-1 to U-24 in 1933 to 1935, long before the order for the assembly of the vessels; and the latter was prepared beforehand as far as was possible without endangering secrecy.”
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, would you turn on to Page 156. You see where the next quotation is from:
“At the beginning of 1935”—that is 6 months before the Anglo-German Treaty—“there were probably six 250-ton boats ready for assembly, six 275-ton and two 750-ton boats on which preparatory work was being done. About 4 months were needed for assembling the small ships and about 10 months for the big ones, dating from 1 February 1935, but everything else was still quite uncertain.”
Now, look at the next words:
“It is probably in this very sphere of submarine construction that Germany adhered least to the restrictions of the German-British Treaty.
“Considering the size of the U-boats which had already been ordered, about 55 U-boats could have been provided for up to 1938. In reality 118 were completed and under construction.
“The preparations for the new U-boat arm were made so early, so thoroughly and so carefully, that already 11 days after the conclusion of the German-British Naval Treaty, which permitted the construction of U-boats, the first German U-boat could be put into commission on 29 June 1935.”
Now, take that sentence, which is written by Admiral Assmann, and we’ve seen what your connections with Assmann were through about 100 documents. He said: “It is probably in this very sphere of submarine construction that Germany adhered least to the restrictions of the German-British Treaty.”
Now, you’ve told this Tribunal for about several hours of your evidence that that was a freely negotiated treaty of which you were very proud and which you were ready to support. Are you telling the Tribunal that your admirals are wrong in saying that in submarine construction Germany adhered the least to the restrictions of that freely negotiated treaty?
RAEDER: That is a completely false judgment. I have stated here that, as long as no negotiations with Great Britain had taken place with regard to the pending agreement, all the preparations which we did make were exclusively attended to abroad—that in the proportion which probably...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, you can make your explanation...
RAEDER: Will you please stop interrupting me.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We’ll take it in this order, and don’t get cross about it. You answer my question, and then you make your explanation. Now answer my question first. Are you saying that Admiral Assmann is wrong in saying in that first sentence that it was just in the “sphere of submarine construction that Germany adhered least to the restrictions of the German-British Treaty.” Is Admiral Assmann wrong when he says that, is that what you’re telling the Tribunal? Well, that is my question.
RAEDER: He is wrong. I said so; I have already said so.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I believe these are not questions relating to facts. They are questions for legal decisions. It is a legal argument as to just how Article 191 of the Versailles Treaty is to be interpreted.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal think that the question is quite proper. In his explanation, of course, he can explain that in his view it was not a breach of the Treaty and he has already explained that. He can give us his opinion about it. He was the head of the German Navy.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, will you take the second sentence...
RAEDER: But I should like to finish if I may. I can give an explanation of that.
All these things were only preparations made outside Germany. The point under discussion is whether the Finnish U-boats were constructed with the help of German designers. That is true. German designers were not forbidden to help Finnish designers to draft designs for U-boats. It is also true that this U-boat later...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I’m awfully sorry to interrupt you, but you know this isn’t dealing—this sentence isn’t dealing with this early period. This is dealing with the period after the Anglo-German Treaty in 1935 and that’s what I want you to answer me about. This Finnish matter was long before that.
RAEDER: I am still speaking of the period preceding the agreement, for I was accused of manufacturing U-boat parts abroad. And the fact is that...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I know, but don’t you see that...
RAEDER: I have not given my answer yet. No...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not asking you about that. I like you to answer the right question. I’m not asking you about the question of Versailles any longer. I’m asking you about Admiral Assmann’s assertion that you did not adhere to the restrictions of the German-British Treaty in 1935, and what you did in Finland in the 20’s has nothing to do with that. Now, that’s all. You can give your explanation.
RAEDER: That is entirely wrong. We particularly restricted ourselves with regard to the construction of U-boats; and in 1938 we had still not built the 45 percent which we were entitled to build, so we made an application for permission to build up to 100 percent; and this was agreed on, and came into effect, as appears from the text of the English treaty, after a friendly discussion with the British Admiralty at the end of 1938. At the beginning of the war we still did not have 100 percent. We were always behind with the construction of submarines.
Admiral Assmann, who probably had no up-to-date knowledge of these matters, is quite wrong. I can swear to that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just look at the next sentences. This is dealing...
RAEDER: What page are you speaking of?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Page 156. I will read it very slowly again:
“Considering the size of the U-boats which had already been ordered, about 55 U-boats could have been provided for up to 1938. In reality 118 were completed and under construction.”
Are you saying that Admiral Assmann is wrong when he states that?
RAEDER: I am awfully sorry; I still have not got the passage from which you are reading, that is quite—which line...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Have you got the sentence, Defendant?
RAEDER: Yes, I have found it now.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, you see what Admiral Assmann says, that:
“Considering the size of the U-boats which had already been ordered, about 55 U-boats could have been provided for up to 1938.” That is before there was any mention of going from 45 to 100. “In reality 118 were completed and under construction.”
Are you saying that Admiral Assmann is wrong in giving these figures?
RAEDER: Certainly. In 1939 we entered the war with 40 submarines—I do not know the exact number. This is either a misprint or quite an incredible figure. As you know, we started the war with—I think—26 U-boats capable of sailing the Atlantic, and in addition a number of smaller boats. I cannot tell you for certain now what was under construction at the beginning of the war but there was no intention of this kind. That was precisely the accusation made against me—that I did not have sufficient U-boats built in good time. I dispute the whole of that sentence.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You agree then, Defendant, that Admiral Assmann’s figures are quite incompatible with what you have told the Tribunal about the number of U-boats with which you started the war?
RAEDER: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: I should be grateful to Sir David if he would read the entire sentence; that is, if he would also read Note 6, which appears after the Number 118 and after the word “ordered.” Note 6 which, as I have just observed, is not included in the English translation is worded as follows: “Chief of the Naval Budget Department, B. Number E 311/42, Top Secret, of 19 November 1942.”
The figure, Mr. President, refers to a much later period, not 1938 at all.
I should be extremely grateful if, after the experience we have just had, I could in future have not only the German document but also the English translation from Sir David. I should be very grateful to Sir David if he could have this done.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you not have the passage you want translated from the German into English by the time you want to re-examine? As I understand it, you are referring to some note which is an addition to what has been translated into English. Will you read it again, would you read the passage again?
DR. SIEMERS: Sir David has been reading the following: “In reality 118 were completed and under construction.”
That is as far as Sir David has read. After the word “ordered” there is the figure 6. This refers to Note 6. Note 6 is worded as follows: “Chief of the Naval Budget Department, B. Number E 311/42, Top Secret, of 19 November 1942. (Page 19).”
In other words, this shows that the Number 118 must have been mentioned on Page 19 of this document of the Naval Budget Department in 1942. The figure therefore does not refer to the year 1938 but to a later date.
RAEDER: I can add another explanation to that which is quite possible.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I will look into that, but the text says—and there is no difference in the German text—exactly what I read—that “about 55 could have been provided up to 1938 and that in reality 118 were ready and ordered.” That is Admiral Assmann’s text.
DR. SIEMERS: But not 1938.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Really, My Lord, my friend, Dr. Siemers, will have ample opportunity—if there is any point, I shall consider it, but there is the text, and the text includes that. What the footnote says, Dr. Siemers, can be put in re-examination.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Sir David, will you look at the note and see if the report was made in 1942, rather than the construction? I suggest that you ask him whether or not the note doesn’t show that the report was made in 1942.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Really, my translation of this note is “Chief of the Naval Budget Department.” Then it gives the reference to his note, dated 19 November 1942. It seems entirely to bear out the suggestion of the learned American Judge, that this is the reference to the report, nothing more. It is only suggesting that the date of construction was 1942, and I think it really would be a matter of convenience that, unless Dr. Siemers has got something to say on the text that I am putting, if he reserved these argumentative points to re-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, you can raise it all in re-examination. You can have a translation of this note laid before us by that time.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I am perfectly agreeable. I have merely requested that one copy of the English translation of the newly submitted documents should be given to me.
Mr. President, you will admit that it is a considerable handicap to me to ascertain during the cross-examination what passages are missing from the translation and translate them myself when the British Delegation have an English translation on hand. I think it might be easier if Sir David would be good enough to let me have an English translation for my own use.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you will be able to let him have an English translation of any new document?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly. The Tribunal has ordered that. That is prepared. Surely you got the English translation? Certainly, My Lord. As I put each document, a translation will be given to Dr. Siemers.
THE PRESIDENT: There may have been some mistake.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You will certainly get it.
[Turning to the defendant.] Now, we will pass to another gentleman on your staff. You told us a good deal about the naval budgets. Do you remember a Flottenintendant in your department, Secretary Flottenintendant Thiele, of the OKM Department E, the Budget Department of the German Admiralty? Do you remember?
RAEDER: Yes. Mr. Prosecutor, may I just say one more thing about the question of 118? I have just remembered something in connection with this Number 6, Chief of the Naval Budget Department. It is perfectly possible that in this case Admiral Assmann has taken two things together. All U-boats and ships were, of course, included in the budget and in this way sanctioned. This budget was drafted at the end of the year and published before the year to which it applied. As this large figure suddenly appears in this document, it is perfectly possible that here the Figure 118 originates on the basis of the agreement with England made on 30 or 31 December. It is perfectly natural that we should include in the budget all the other U-boats which we were allowed to build to complete the 100 percent. This does not necessarily mean that we started to build the U-boats in 1938. Incidentally I think we might have perhaps begun, because one can only build so and so many U-boats in any one year.
I think that this explanation, which occurred to me when I saw the words “Naval Budget Department,” is a perfectly correct one.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Tribunal has the wording; that is, “up to 1938,” and I am not going to argue the point with you. The words speak for themselves.
I would like you to look at Document Number D-855, which becomes Exhibit Number GB-461, and it is an extract from a lecture by the gentleman I have just mentioned, Herr Thiele, which was given at the German Naval Training Center for Administrative Officers in Prague on 12 July 1944. The extract I want to put to you is on Page 22, and it is headed “Ship Construction Plan.” Have you got that—Page 22, and the heading is “Ship Construction Plan”? You see the paragraph beginning:
“The era of the very large development of the Navy had therefore come at the moment of the seizure of power. Already in the first year after this, in March 1935, the construction of battle cruisers with a displacement of 27,000 tons was undertaken. Such a vessel was ordered to be constructed. Thus one of the clauses of the Treaty of Versailles which was the most important for us was at once violated in the naval sphere in a manner which in a short time could no longer be camouflaged.”
Is not Flottenintendant Thiele right when he says that in his lecture?
RAEDER: Of course it was a violation, but I have explained here at length that there was no question of building new battle cruisers but of utilizing the two armored ships which had already been granted us; and I said that in 1934 Hitler had only given me permission to enlarge somewhat the plans for these ships, so that the armor might be heavier. I see from this that it was not until March 1935, when it was certain that the treaty would be concluded and also that England would allow us to build such ships through this treaty in a few months’ time that the Führer sanctioned the plans projected for the 26,500 ton ships which were to be the first of the battleships in the new program; and they were then begun. So that the three 28 cm turrets—that is, the offensive weapons which he had not yet approved in 1934—were thrown in.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This gentleman seems to agree with you more than the other. Just look at what he says about U-boats two sentences further on. He says:
“The U-boats were completed in separate parts, as their construction was under no circumstances to be apparent to the outside world. These parts were stored in sheds for the time being and needed only to be assembled after the declaration of freedom to rearm.”
Is not Flottenintendant Thiele right on that point?
RAEDER: Yes, he is right. We have admitted that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Let us look at his next point.
RAEDER: Perhaps I can complete my explanation? We...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do try to keep it as short as you can. I don’t want to cut you out, but keep it as short as you can.
RAEDER: Of course, but I must complete my defense.
We had U-boat parts manufactured abroad and only at the beginning of 1935 did we bring them in and assemble them, when the naval treaty was certain.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. You say you were anticipating the treaty; well now, just look at what he says after that:
“The third also of those clauses of the Treaty of Versailles that was most disadvantageous for us, the limitation of personnel to 15,000 men, was immediately ignored after the seizure of power. The total personnel of the Navy was already 25,000 in 1934, and in 1935, the year of the London Naval Agreement, 34,000 men.”
Is not Flottenintendant Thiele right on that? Is that right?
RAEDER: Yes, that is admitted. It was clear that we had to train personnel in good time so that crews might be available for our increased naval forces.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now I just want you to look for a moment at the document which is on Page 3 of Document Book 10, which you did refer to in your examination-in-chief. That is Document C-23, about the displacement of the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau and the Tirpitz and the Bismarck and the other ships.
Now, you are familiar with that document; we have discussed it.
RAEDER: Yes. I know the documents.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, that is dated the 18th of February, 1938. Germany didn’t denounce the Anglo-German Naval Treaty until after the British guarantee to Poland in April 1939, which is 14 months later. Why didn’t you simply send a notification to Great Britain that the displacements had come out 20 percent bigger because of defensive matters in construction? Why didn’t you do it?
RAEDER: I cannot tell you that today. We explained recently how the displacements gradually increased through quite insignificant changes to our own detriment.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. Really, Defendant, I have got that well in mind. We have got the reason why the displacements came out bigger, and I don’t think you are prejudicing yourself if you don’t repeat it, but just look at the bottom of that page, because I think you will find the reason which you can’t remember there; won’t you?
“In the opinion of A IV, it would be quite wrong to report a larger tonnage than that which will probably be published shortly, for instance, by England, Russia, or Japan, so as not to bring upon ourselves the odium of an armament race.”
Isn’t that the reason?
RAEDER: Yes, that was intended for a future date. We wished in no circumstance to create the impression that we were increasing the offensive power of our ships.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, I am going to pass to another subject, and I want to put quite shortly and bluntly, as you will appreciate, the point the Prosecution puts to you, that for 20 years, from 1918 to 1938, you and the German Navy had been involved in a course of complete, cold and deliberate deception of your treaty obligations. That is what I am putting to you. Do you understand? After these documents, do you deny that that is so?
RAEDER: Of course. It was not a cold-blooded affair. All our evasions of the Versailles Treaty were due to our desire to be able to defend our country more efficiently than we had been allowed to. I have proved here that in the Versailles regulations the only points restricted were those unfavorable to the defense of our country and favoring aggression from without. As regards the ships, I may add that we could never complete any very great number of ships, and consequently we were interested in increasing as far as possible the power of resistance, that is, their seagoing security, et cetera. At no time did we increase the offensive power above the strength which was permitted.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, I want you to understand what my next series of questions is directed to. I don’t want there to be any misapprehension. I am now going to suggest to you that these breaches of treaty and your naval plans were directed toward the possibility, and then the probability of war. I would just like you to take the same document that I have been dealing with, C-23. We will use that to pass from one to the other.
Would you turn to Page 5 of Document Book 10, and there you will see that there is a memorandum, I think of the Planning Committee to the Flottenchef, Admiral Carls. We have heard your view of Admiral Carls, that you thought he was a very good officer, and in fact he was your first choice for your successor.
Now, that is in September 1938, and it is a top secret opinion on the strategic study of naval warfare against England, and you see “A” says:
“There is full agreement with the main theme of the study.”
Now, look at Paragraph 1:
“If, according to the Führer’s decision, Germany is to acquire a position as a world power, she needs not only sufficient colonial possessions, but also secure naval communications and secure access to the oceans.”
Do you agree with that, Defendant?
RAEDER: Yes, that is correct. I know the whole document.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, look at 2:
“Both these requirements can only be fulfilled in opposition to Anglo-French interests, and would limit their position as world powers. It is unlikely that this can be achieved by peaceful means. The decision to make Germany a world power, therefore, forces upon us the necessity of making corresponding preparations for war.”
Do you agree with that?
RAEDER: Yes, that is all quite correct.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, let’s take 3:
“War against England means at the same time war against the Empire, against France, probably against Russia as well, and a large number of countries overseas—in fact, against half to two-thirds of the whole world.”
I needn’t ask you about that, because the facts have shown it.
Now, look at the next: “It can only be justified....”
RAEDER: Yes, but I must be allowed to comment on that document.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh certainly, I’m sorry. We got on so quickly I thought we were not going to have any explanation.
RAEDER: In 1938, as has been stated here quite often, the Führer’s attitude towards Great Britain became more difficult in spite of all the efforts of General Von Blomberg and myself to tell him that it was not so on England’s side, and that it was possible to live in peace with England. In spite of that the Führer ordered us to prepare for possible opposition by England to his plans. He for his part never contemplated a war of aggression against Great Britain; and we in the Navy still much less; in fact, I have proved that I did nothing but try to dissuade him from that. In 1938 he ordered us to make a study similar to those we had already made in the case of other possibilities of war—which it was the duty of the Wehrmacht Command to do—but dealing with the course which a war against England might take and what we would require for it. This study was prepared, and I reported to the Führer that we could never increase our fighting forces to such an extent that we could undertake a war against England with any prospect of success—it would have been madness for me to say such a thing. I told him—that has repeatedly been mentioned—that by 1944 or 1945 we might build up a small naval force with which we could start an economic war against England or seize her commercial shipping routes, but that we would never really be in a position to defeat England with that force. I sent this study, which was compiled under my guidance in the Naval Operations Staff, to Generaladmiral Carls who was very clear-sighted in all such questions. He thought it his duty to explain in this introduction of his reply, which agreed with our opinion, the consequences which such a war against Great Britain would have for ourselves, namely, that it would bring about a new world war, which neither he nor we in the Navy nor anyone in the Armed Forces wanted—in my opinion, not even Hitler himself, as I proved the other day—hence this statement. He said that if we must have war with England, it was essential that we should first of all have access to the ocean and, secondly, that we should attack English trade on the sea route of the Atlantic. Not that he proposed that we, on our part, should embark on such a venture. He was only thinking of the case of such a war breaking out very much against our will. It was our duty to go thoroughly into the matter.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He says that, “The war against it”—that is the war against England—“can only be justified and have a chance of success if it is prepared economically as well as politically and militarily.” Then you go on to say “waged with the aim of conquering for Germany an outlet to the ocean.”
Now, I just want to see how you prepared.
RAEDER: Yes, that is quite clear and quite correct.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Let’s just look how you had begun to prepare economically. Let’s take that first, as you put it first.
Would you look at Document C-29, which is Page 8.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, hadn’t we better break off now before going into this?
[A recess was taken.]
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I told you, Defendant, that I was next going to ask you a question about Document C-29, which is on Page 8 of the English Document Book 10 and on Pages 13 and 14 of the German document book. You will remember, this document gives general directions for export given by the German Navy to the German armament industry...
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: ...and you told us when you were dealing with the document that you wanted your service not to be small-minded about matters of a not very high secrecy but, in addition to that, your general policy was that the German armament firms should develop a foreign trade so that they would have the capacity to deal with the increased demands of the German Navy as soon as possible. Is that right, is that a fair summary, or shall I repeat it?
RAEDER: Yes, but it must be added that I said in two places that we hoped at that time that the Treaty of Versailles would be relaxed, because it was a comparatively favorable period for negotiations for disarmament and we already had the governments headed by Von Papen and Von Schleicher, both of whom showed great understanding for the needs of the Armed Forces and therefore fought hard for that at the disarmament conference. So a definitely legal development might be hoped for in this direction; and on the other hand, our entire industry was unable to cope with armaments production except on an insignificant scale and had therefore to be increased. I again stress the fact that it had nothing to do with the Hitler regime. That decree just happened to come out on 31 January.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I don’t think you are really disagreeing with me that your policy, your broad economic policy for the German armament industry, was to develop its export trade so as to be able to deal with increased home requirements in future years; that is what you advocated, isn’t it, that the German armament industry should at once increase its export trade so as to be able to deal with increased home requirements when these requirements arose? Isn’t that right?
RAEDER: Yes, that is correct but I do not quite understand that expression. Did you say “Eigenhandel” or “Eisenhandel”—internal trade or iron trade? I did not quite hear the expression—“Eigenhandel” or “Eisenhandel”?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: “Aussenhandel” (Foreign Trade).
RAEDER: “Aussenhandel”—yes, undoubtedly we wanted to be able to compete industrially with other nations, so that our industry would be in favorable position, and would gain strength.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I will ask you to turn to Document Number C-135, which is Page 21 of the—sorry My Lord, Page 20 of the English document book and Page 73 of the German document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Book 10.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Book 10, My Lord, yes.
[Turning to the defendant.] Now, you remember that document, you dealt with it? You said...
RAEDER: Yes, it was dealt with in the Lohmann affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, it is a document of the—I think, in April 1933, judging by the dates which I put to you a moment ago, and you said to the Tribunal in giving your evidence that it was mere chance that the year 1938 was mentioned; that that was the same period as has been dealt with.
RAEDER: It has already been stated several times that the year 1938 was mentioned.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Has it been mentioned in some Weimar Republic document? Will you just look at the second last paragraph; that will be on your Page 74, Page 21 of the English document. It is in the middle paragraph of Paragraph 3:
“Now Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler had made the clear political request to build up for him in 5 years, that is, by the first of April 1938, armed forces which he could place in the balance as an instrument of political power.”
Is that sure, that Hitler had made a clear political request?
RAEDER: Yes, as far as I remember, he demanded a sort of five year plan in 1933 the last year of which, 1938, happened to coincide with the 1938 mentioned in our substitute plan for subsurface construction, and that directive had obviously been given for the whole of the Armed Forces; since the naval agreement, which gave us the right to arm only in the proportion of 1:3 and not in accordance with any special plans, had become the basis for the Navy as early as 1935.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The point that I want to deal with is this: Did Hitler tell you that he wanted these forces to place in the balance as an instrument of political power, did he tell you that?
RAEDER: I can no longer tell you that; but I believe that it is a perfectly ordinary expression to say that one uses one’s armed forces as an instrument which could also be thrown into the scales at political negotiations, so that we need no longer be kicked around by the different nations, as had so far been the case. In my opinion, no suspicion attaches to the expression.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: To put it bluntly, Hitler was telling you, “by 1938 I want armed forces that I can use in war, if war should become necessary.” That is what it means, isn’t it? That is what you understood it to mean, isn’t that right?
RAEDER: No. There was no word about a war, only about the fact that we had to keep our position among the other nations so that we could no longer be tossed aside, as had hitherto been the case.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If anyone tried to push you over, you could fight; that is it, wasn’t it?
RAEDER: That is obvious. That would be the case, of course, if we were attacked. We wanted to be in a position to defend ourselves if we were attacked. Up till that point we were unable to do this.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, just let us take the first example, when you contemplated fighting. If you look at Document Book 10a, Document Number C-140, Page 104 of the English translation and Page 157 of the German version, you remember that is the directive of Field Marshal Von Blomberg on Germany leaving the disarmament conference and League of Nations. And there, there is a pretty full general directive as to what military measures you would take if the members of the League of Nations applied sanctions against you; in other words you were quite prepared...
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: ...for a war happening on that peace policy; that is so, isn’t it, and that is what it says, it gives all preparations ready for fighting?
RAEDER: These preparations were made, if I remember correctly, 11 days after we had left the League of Nations, and it was quite natural that, if the Führer believed that in consequence of our leaving the League of Nations, which was quite a peaceful action in itself, warlike measures or sanctions would be applied against us, we would have to defend ourselves; and if such an attack was probable we had to take these preparatory steps.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So you realized, Defendant, that as early as October 1933 the course of Hitler’s foreign policy might have brought about an immediate war, did you not?
RAEDER: No, I did not expect at all that such a measure as the secession from the League of Nations, where we had always been treated unjustly because we had no power behind us, would result in a war with any other power. Nevertheless, it was right to take such eventualities into consideration.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. That is good enough for me.
Now, just let us look at the same document book, Document Number C-153, on Page 107 of the English version and Page 164 to 167 of the German version. That is, you will remember, your armament plan for the third armament phase, and I would just like you first of all to look at Paragraph 3.
In (a) and (b) of Paragraph 3 you give the general basis for your arrangements:
“(a) For the military leaders a sound basis for their strategic considerations, and
“(b) For the political leaders a clear picture of what may be achieved with the military means available at a given time.”
RAEDER: Yes, it is quite obvious that such a plan would have this purpose.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And that your political leaders were to make their plans on what armed forces you had available for war, if necessary. That was what you were contemplating then, was it not?
RAEDER: Yes, that is a matter of course; I reported to the Führer that I could put a certain military strength at his disposal during that year. The Chief of State must know that in order to know what he can count on. But that has nothing to do with plans for war. That is the case in every state. On the other hand, I cannot influence the political leader as to what he wants. I can only report what I could have. Therefore, I had nothing to do with political matters. I only did what is necessary and what is done in every state.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And just look at Paragraph 7.
I am not going to argue with you as to whether states base their foreign politics on things other than war as a matter of argument, but look at Paragraph 7: “All theoretical and practical R-preparations (armament) are to be drawn up with a primary view to readiness for a sudden war.”
That is that you, as far as the Navy was concerned, you had to be ready then for an immediate war footing, have the Navy on an immediate war footing, isn’t that right?
RAEDER: No, no. This concerns the sequence of the things to be taken for granted. The armament plan listed the most important immediate requirements of the Navy and at that point I say here that this applied to weapons to be used in a war where there was no time to prepare and that is, in plain language, the mobile fleet, which must be in a state of constant readiness. It had to be kept ready for action at a moment’s notice and it had to receive priority. All other matters, such as quarters, and things that had nothing to do with direct combat, were attended to afterwards.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I thought that is what I put to you, that the fleet had to be ready and ready for war. However, you have given your account of it.
Just turn over, if you will be so good, to Page 66 of Document Book 10, Page 285 of the German document book; Document Number C-189, My Lord.
[Turning to the defendant.] Now, I want to raise just this one point on which you made a point in your examination and which I must challenge. You say in Paragraph 2:
“The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy expresses the opinion that later on”—and I ask you to note the words “later on”—“the fleet must anyhow be developed against England and that therefore from 1936 onwards the large ships must be armed with 35 centimeter guns.”
Now, are you telling the Tribunal, that “gegen England” does not mean “against” in the sense of in antagonism to, directed against, in opposition to—that it merely means in comparison to? Are you seriously saying that, are you?
RAEDER: I explained the other day that we are dealing here with the question of keeping up with other navies. Up to that time we were keeping up with the French Navy which had 33 cm guns. Then England went beyond that in mounting 35.6 cm guns on her ships and then, as I said before, France went beyond England in using 38 cm guns. Thus I said to the Führer that our 28 cm guns which we believed we could use against the French Dunkerque class would not be heavy enough, and that we would have to take the next bigger caliber, that is 35.6 like those of the English ships. That was never done because the French began to use 38 cm guns and our Bismarck class followed the French lines.
That comparison of calibers and classes of vessels was at that time quite customary and was also...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You told us all that before and my question is a perfectly simple one; that this document in the original German, when you say “gegen England” is exactly the same as in your song Wir fahren gegen England. It means against, in antagonism and directed against, and not in comparison. That is what I am putting to you and it is a perfectly short point.
Are you telling this Tribunal that “gegen England” means in comparison with England?
RAEDER: That is what I want to say; because it says “develop gegen England” and at that time we had not even signed the Naval Agreement. It is hardly likely that I would consider following an anti-British policy.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Look to the next page, Document Number C-190, Page 67 of the English document book, Page 284 of the German document book. That is your conversation with Hitler, on the 2nd November 1934, when you are discussing bigger naval estimates and the availability of more money. I want you to look at the end of the first paragraph which gives Hitler’s reasons.
“He considers it vital that the Navy be increased as planned”—now look—“as no war could be carried on if the Navy were not able to safeguard the ore imports from Scandinavia.”
Are you still telling the Tribunal you were not from 1934 onwards contemplating war? Well, if so, why does Hitler say that? That is one of the most vital points of German naval strategy.
“No war could be carried on if the Navy were not able to safeguard the ore imports from Sweden.”
Were you not contemplating war in November? Were you not?
RAEDER: Hitler said that a navy is built so that, if war becomes necessary, the navy can use its weapons to defend the country. A navy is established for no other purpose, and that was definitely one of the general reasons for the existence of a German Navy. There were many people who thought a navy was unnecessary.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You see, what I am putting to you is this. You have told the Tribunal that the Navy was purely defensive, all your preparations were purely defensive. I am suggesting to you that Hitler there is contemplating a war and contemplating the task of a navy during a war, a few months before he intended to denounce the military clauses of Versailles.
You were all set for a war if it should become necessary, and you knew that. Was that not the position?
RAEDER: That is a complete misrepresentation of the facts, Mr. Prosecutor. Of course it is necessary during peacetime to contemplate the circumstances which might arise to make it necessary to call on the Armed Forces for defense. At that time nobody thought of a war of aggression, and the individual tasks must be understood. One of the Navy’s tasks was undoubtedly to secure the Swedish and Norwegian ore exports in case of war; and it had to be developed with a view to that end.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would you just look at the next sentence in Paragraph-2: “When I pointed out that in the critical political situation in the first quarter of 1935, it would be desirable to have six U-boats already assembled....”
You were preparing for the critical political situation.
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Let’s look at what you were doing in 1936. Would you give the defendant and Dr. Siemers Document Number D-806.
That is a report of yours dated the 11th of November 1936, dealing with the U-boat construction program, and after the first paragraph you say this in the second paragraph:
“The military and political situation urgently demands that the extension of our U-boat fleet should be taken in hand immediately and completed with the greatest energy and dispatch, as it is a particularly valuable part of our armament at sea and possesses special striking power.”
Are you saying that what you were urging there was purely defensive and that you had no idea of the special striking powers that would be needed in a war?
RAEDER: The entire political situation, or so I seem to remember, made me consider it necessary to put the construction of submarines in the foreground. But I never expected that we would start a war on our own account. Hitler himself had told me that again and again, but he had made his political moves which could undoubtedly lead us into war if the other powers intervened against such a political move. The charge made against me was that I did not push the construction of U-boats sufficiently far ahead.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You are stressing it sufficiently there, aren’t you? “On the military and political situation”—you were kept fully informed of the political situation and were adjusting your naval armament accordingly; isn’t that so?
RAEDER: At that time I not only knew nothing about what was going to happen, but I knew that we had occupied the Rhineland during that year, and that in consequence of the clouds which appeared on the horizon as a result of the occupation of the Rhineland Hitler maintained an attitude of greatest caution and said that we must be prepared for further complications. For that reason a special directive was issued in 1936, and I took precautions along the lines suggested by these considerations. My main duty was to watch; and on the basis of my observations and the conclusions which I drew from them, I had to strengthen myself as much as possible. This document, about which you did not question me, had the same connotation.
I asked whether—should political tension develop at the beginning of 1935, before the signing of the Naval Agreement, and that would not be done till June—we should perhaps assemble six U-boats. That was also in the case of tension arising; and I knew at that time that the declaration of freedom of territorial defense was intended to be made in 1935.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, you have told us what you knew in 1936. Now, just let’s pass on to 1937. I want to know exactly what you say. That of course, as you remember, turns on the Hossbach Document, 386-PS, which is at Page 81 of Document Book 10, Page 314 of the German document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, did you give the number of that last document?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very grateful, My Lord. It is Exhibit GB-462.
[Turning to the defendant.] Now, I want you just—have you got that, Page 314 of the German document book?
RAEDER: Can you tell me the paragraph? I have...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, the first thing I want to ask you about is the third paragraph, the last sentence, where Hitler is reported as saying: “The German future is therefore dependent exclusively on the solution of the need for living space.”
And then I wanted you, if you would be so good, to turn over two pages to 316. My Lord, it is Page 83 of the English document book. That is repeated. My Lord, it is about seven lines down. Where Hitler says: “The only way out, and one which may appear imaginary, is the securing of greater living space.” And then he says that: “The history of all times has proved that every space expansion can only be effected by breaking resistance.” And then in a separate paragraph he says: “The question for Germany is where the greatest possible conquest could be made at the lowest cost.”
Do you see that, on Page 316?
RAEDER: May I begin with the last one? It is wrongly translated.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, that’s what I’m really going to ask you. I want you to just tell us, did you hear Hitler say that that was the general problem, “the greatest possible conquest to be made at the lowest cost.”
RAEDER: No. The English document has the word “conquest” (Eroberung), but that is not in the German document. The German text reads: “the highest possible gain (Gewinn) with the smallest risk.” That is a phrase borrowed from sport. There is no mention of conquest.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I’m quite prepared to accept that it comes after the passage which I have referred to you in quite some detail, because I don’t want to select anything out of the context. Did you appreciate that Hitler there was saying, “The only possibility for Germany is to get extra living space,” and that had to be got at the expense of other nations? He said that, didn’t he?
RAEDER: He did say that; and I explained recently how that is to be understood. He was speaking of Austria and Czechoslovakia, of the Sudetenland. We were of the opinion that no change was intended in that policy; nor did one take place later. War was not waged against Austria or Czechoslovakia.
We were all convinced that he would solve that question peacefully, like all other political questions. I explained that in great detail.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, that is what I was going to ask you about. You have taken my second point yourself. The rest of the document deals with action against Austria and Czechoslovakia. Would you look at Page 86?
I think you will agree with me that Field Marshal Von Blomberg and General Von Fritsch rather poured cold water on Hitler’s ideas. Isn’t that a fair way of putting it?
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They rather thus showed a certain antipathy?
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, that was in November 1937.
RAEDER: We all of us told him constantly that in no circumstances might he start a war with England and France, and he always agreed. But I explained that this entire speech had a definite purpose; and that for this purpose he exaggerated a great deal and at once withdrew that exaggeration when a hint was given to him about the danger of a war with France and England.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was what I was going to ask you. That was in November. By January, Field Marshal Von Blomberg had made his unfortunate marriage, hadn’t he?
RAEDER: I believe it was in January. I do not know exactly.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you took the view, didn’t you, that he had been encouraged to do that by the Defendant Göring?
RAEDER: I never said that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh, didn’t you?
RAEDER: No, not that I know of. I never thought that at all.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You remember making a statement in Moscow on this point? Let me read it to you.
RAEDER: To whom, please?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In Moscow to the Russians.
“At the beginning of the year 1938 I had experiences of a personal nature, which although they did not concern the Navy directly caused me to lose confidence, not only in Göring but also in the sincerity of the Führer. The situation in which Field Marshal Von Blomberg found himself as a result of his unfortunate marriage made his position as a Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces impossible. I came to the belated conclusion that Göring was making every effort to obtain the post of Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht in place of Blomberg.
“He favored the marriage because it made Blomberg ineligible for this post, while Blomberg believed—and even stated repeatedly—that such a marriage was possible under the present system. Göring had already had him shadowed in the past, as I learned from later remarks.”
Didn’t you say that?
RAEDER: In Moscow, immediately after the collapse, I made a note of the causes of the collapse as seen in the light of my own experience. I wrote this document under the conditions there—where I was treated very chivalrously—and I had no hesitation in informing the highest general of the Commissariat of the Interior of this when I was asked what I was doing there.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: All I want to know is, is that true, what you said?
RAEDER: Yes. I wrote these notes, and it is also true that it occurred to me afterwards that Göring might have favored the marriage. I believe that he himself told me that here. He had assisted Blomberg in such a way that, I think, he did not know what the true state of affairs was or how serious the matter was.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But you see, your view at that time was that Göring was encouraging the marriage because he knew that it would put Blomberg off the map as Commander-in-Chief because he, Göring, wanted the position. Was that the view that you held last summer?
RAEDER: I believed that last summer, yes. And it is also true that Göring certainly wanted to become Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, but the Führer himself thwarted him in that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, that was Von Blomberg. We know what happened to him. Your second choice, after Von Blomberg, was Von Fritsch, was it not? You thought that Von Fritsch would have been the best Commander-in-Chief if Von Blomberg went, did you not?
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You mentioned that to Hitler? And...
RAEDER: He asked me, and I said that if I were consulted, I would suggest Baron von Fritsch. But the Führer said that that was out of the question.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. But there were some of them bringing a charge of homosexuality against Von Fritsch; isn’t that right? That was why it could not be done?
RAEDER: Yes. He said, in general terms, that some kind of moral crime existed.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You were one of the court who inquired into that charge, were you not? Göring, as president, you and General Von Brauchitsch?
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you came to the conclusion that the charge of homosexuality against Von Fritsch was a frame-up by the Gestapo, did you not? Do you know what I mean? I am afraid “frame-up” is rather difficult to translate.
RAEDER: The whole thing gave me that impression. Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is because the denunciation had been by some shady character who you thought was a “hang-around” of the Gestapo; and at the trial, the co-operation of the Gestapo with the accuser was brought to light; that is right, is it not?
You were satisfied, from sitting at the trial?
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you agree that there had been—not a confusion—but that the guilty party was a cavalry captain, Rittmeister Von Fritsch, and not this general at all; isn’t that right?
RAEDER: I agree absolutely. We acquitted Baron von Fritsch because his innocence was proved. There was no suspicion of any kind remaining against him.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You acquitted him, but his reinstatement did not follow? His reinstatement in command did not follow?
RAEDER: No. I went to him, as I knew him very well, and asked him if he would agree to my going to Hitler and suggesting that he, Baron von Fritsch, be reinstated. But Fritsch replied that he considered that quite impossible. He thought that his authority was so much impaired that he would no longer care to resume his position as Commander-in-Chief of the Army.
After that, unfortunately, I could do no more about it. I reported this to the Führer, but there were no further developments. All that happened was that the Führer confirmed the absolute innocence of Baron von Fritsch in a large assembly of generals and admirals.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And did you say this with regard to the Von Fritsch incident:
“I was convinced that Göring had a hand in this well-prepared situation, since in order to attain his goal it was necessary to eliminate every possible successor to Von Blomberg”?
Do you remember saying that?
RAEDER: I do not remember that now; but I believe that I held that opinion. To be quite just, I must say that Baron von Fritsch’s acquittal was due principally to the way in which Göring conducted the proceedings. The witness who was brought up told so many lies and made so many contradictory statements every few minutes, that only Göring could cope with him. After seeing that, I was very thankful that I had not been appointed president, as suggested by the Minister of Justice. I could not have coped with those people. It was entirely due to Göring’s intervention that he was acquitted without any difficulties.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But of course, I think you have said, Witness, that whether he was acquitted or not, the authority of Von Fritsch in the German Army was in his own view destroyed by the fact that this charge had been brought against him. That was the result of it, was it not?
RAEDER: Herr Von Fritsch thought so. I would have insisted on being reinstated after I had been acquitted in that manner.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did it not strike you as curious that the two people who on the 5th of November had tried to head Hitler off from a course that might have meant war were both disgraced in 2 months? Didn’t it strike you as curious?
RAEDER: That did not strike me as curious at all; and there is certainly no connection. If Hitler had thought it necessary to remove the men in high positions who opposed him in such matters, he would have had to remove me long ago. But he never said anything about it to me, and I have never noticed that he said anything like that because I contradicted him. I have frequently pointed out, with regard to that very question of England and France, that no war should be caused there; and I never had the impression that he ever took it amiss.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, just let us take it very shortly. Within 6 weeks of the disgrace of Blomberg and the removal of Von Fritsch, the Anschluss with Austria took place.
Are you telling the Tribunal that you did not know that there were pretended military preparations for the Anschluss with Austria, the ones described by General Jodl in his diary and also described by Field Marshal Keitel? Did you know that these threats of military action would have been made?
RAEDER: I do not believe that I ever took part in a military discussion concerning the Austrian Anschluss, because actually I had nothing to do with it. But I should like to emphasize here, once and for all, that I learned of such enterprises as, for instance, the annexation of Austria through a directive issued by the Führer, and not before, because one copy of these directives, regardless of whether or not they concerned the Navy, was always sent to me as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. So, of course, I must have received a directive in this case, too. Unfortunately, I cannot tell you the date of it; but I confirm that a directive came to my knowledge.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You see, the point that I am putting—and I do not want to waste time on it—is this: That on the 5th of November Hitler said that he was going to get Austria in 1943 to 1945 at the latest, and earlier if an opportunity arises. Four months later, in March 1938, he takes Austria after having got rid of the people who threw cold water on his plans. But if you did not know about it, we shall not waste time, but shall look at Czechoslovakia, because there you did get the decree.
You will find that on Page 163 of Document Book 10a, Page 276 of the German document book. That is the distribution of the directive for operations against Czechoslovakia. It is bringing up to date the one of the 24th of June, and you will see that its execution must be assured as from the 1st of October 1938, at the latest, and Copy Number 2 goes to you as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy.
Now, if you will turn over the page to the actual directive, 146 of the English document book, 277 to 278, you see the first sentence of Paragraph 1, “Political Prerequisites”:
“It is my unalterable decision to smash Czechoslovakia by military action in the near future. It is the job of the political leaders to await or bring about the politically or militarily suitable moment.”
RAEDER: May I ask where it is? I do not seem able to find it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The first sentence in the directive, Paragraph 1, Political Prerequisites—Sentence 1: “It is my unalterable decision to smash Czechoslovakia by military action in the near future.”
RAEDER: The numbering is confused here.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very sorry. Page 277, 278.
RAEDER: Yes. Now I have found it. What was the date?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 28th of May 1938, that is approximately six months after the meeting which you had attended at which Hitler had said he would attack Czechoslovakia at the earliest opportunity that he could. Didn’t that make you think that Hitler’s speech in November was not merely froth but was stating his plans?
RAEDER: No, because he kept on changing his decisions all the summer. He made a fresh decision every month. That can be seen from Document 388-PS. And it was like this, I believe: on 10 September troops began to assemble and on the same day negotiations were started. On 1 October the peaceful occupation of the Sudetenland took place, after the other powers had agreed to that at Munich. After the Munich negotiations...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We all know that. The point is perfectly clear...
RAEDER: I should like to finish.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In May, here were the plans, and the Führer had mentioned—in his speeches he had expressed this: that it was his determination at the end of May to smash Czechoslovakia by military action. Are you telling the Tribunal that you read that directive and still took the view that Hitler had not got aggressive intentions? That is the question.
RAEDER: Yes, at the end of May.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Why, what more proof could you want than his own determination to smash it? What clearer proof could you want?
RAEDER: He frequently said that he intended to smash something and then did not do it. The question was peacefully solved then. I should like to add that on 30 May—I believe that was the date—after mobilization had just been carried out in Czechoslovakia, and that had led him to use such stern words then, and from this—I think he was justified in doing so, for this mobilization could only be directed against Germany, and as I said, he changed his opinion at least three or four times in the course of the summer, saying again and again that he would reserve his decision and—or that he did not wish to use military force.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, the Tribunal have gotten the whole of the 388-PS document in mind. I won’t argue it. You say that didn’t convince you.
When Hitler went into Prague on the 15th of March 1939, did it then occur to you that there might be something in what he said in the interview on the 5th of November 1937 when he occupied the Slav part of Bohemia and Moravia and broke his own rule about keeping Germany for the Germans? Did it then occur to you that he might not then have been joking or merely talking froth in November? Did it?
RAEDER: He had issued a directive saying that the aims for that year were:
1) The defense of Germany against outside attack.
2) The settlement of the rest of Czechoslovakia in case she adopted a line of policy hostile to Germany.
I heard nothing at all about his negotiations with Hacha and his decision following them to occupy Czechoslovakia. I only knew that he wanted to take action against Czechoslovakia according to his directive, in case Czechoslovakia should adopt a line of policy hostile to Germany; and according to the propaganda at that period, that actually did occur. I had nothing at all to do with the occupation of Czechoslovakia; nor with the occupation of the Sudeten area, because the only service which we could have rendered in these operations was our small Danube Flotilla which was subordinated to the Army for this purpose so that I had nothing at all to do with it. There were no other military orders.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is your answer that even when Hitler went into Prague on the 15th of March 1939, you still thought he had no aggressive intentions? Is that what you want the Tribunal to believe from you? Is that right?
RAEDER: Yes, I ask the Tribunal to do so because I believe that he did not want to fight a war, to conduct a campaign against Czechoslovakia. By means of his political measures with Hacha he succeeded so far that war did not break out.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh yes, you heard the Defendant Göring give his evidence that he told President Hacha that his armed forces would bomb Prague if he didn’t agree. If that is not war, it is next door to it, isn’t it?
RAEDER: It is very close to it. Yes, a threat.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, let’s go further on for another 2 months. If you didn’t see it, on March—on the 23rd of May—when you came to the Reich Chancellery there were six high-ranking officers, of which you were one. And Hitler said that he would give you an indoctrination on the political situation. And his indoctrination was that, “We are left with a decision to attack Poland at the first opportunity.” When you heard him say that on the 25th of May, did you still think he had no aggressive intentions?
RAEDER: I thought so for a long time after that. Just as Generaloberst Jodl said, since he had solved the Czech problem by purely political means, it was to be hoped that he would be able to solve the Polish question also without bloodshed; and I believed that up to the last moment, up to 22 August.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just take one glance—I shan’t keep you long—at Document L-79, which you will find on Page 74, I think it is, of Document Book 10. I am sorry. Page 298 of the German document book. I beg your pardon. I am not going to ask you about the document because the Tribunal has dealt with that. I want you to look at the people who were there—298 in the German document book.
RAEDER: I know the people who were there.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Let’s look: Lieutenant Colonel Schmundt; he was afterwards General, Hitler’s principal adjutant, and killed on the 20th of July, 1944, isn’t that right? Then the Defendant Göring, Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force; yourself as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy; Colonel General Von Brauchitsch who was Commander-in-Chief of the Army; General Keitel who was head of the OKW; General Milch who was Göring’s Deputy; Halder who was Chief of Staff; Schniewind who was your Chief of Staff; and Jeschonnek who was I think a Chief of Staff or a high...
RAEDER: Chief of the General Staff of the Air Force.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. And Colonel Warlimont, who was General Jodl’s assistant.
Now, what do you think Hitler got these high-ranking generals for, and told them, “We are left with a decision to attack Poland at the first opportunity,” if he hadn’t any aggressive intentions? What were these people there for if it wasn’t to develop a war?
RAEDER: I have already explained that the main purpose of that speech, as may be seen from the last part of it, was to give a purely academic lecture on the conduct of war, and on the basis of that lecture to create a special study staff, a project which the chiefs of the Armed Forces had so far strongly opposed. I also explained at the start that his explanations were at first the most confused that I have ever heard regarding the matter, and that he issued no directives in regard to them but that the last lines read: “The branches of the Wehrmacht determine what will be built. There will be no alteration in the shipbuilding program. The armament programs are to be fixed for 1943 or 1944.” When he said that, he could certainly not have intended to solve the Polish question by a war in the near future.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Are you telling the Tribunal that when he said, “We cannot expect a repetition of the Czech affair; further successes cannot be obtained without the shedding of blood,” you paid no attention to it at all? You are seriously telling the Tribunal that you paid no attention to that?
RAEDER: No, I certainly did not at all, because by this time I was getting to know Hitler and was familiar with the exaggerations contained in his speeches.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: At this time you had already had the directives for a surprise attack on Danzig, in November 1938. You had had the directive on the 3rd of April for the Fall Weiss, and you know this whole matter was en train. Are you seriously, Defendant, telling the Tribunal that you had any doubt after the 23rd of May that Hitler intended war against Poland and was quite prepared to fight England and France, if they carried out their guarantee? I mean, seriously, I give you this chance before we adjourn: Do you say that you had any doubt at all?
RAEDER: Of course; I have surely explained that even in August I was still doubtful. For instance, in estimating this speech, I must compare it, as has already been done here, with the speech which Hitler had made a few weeks earlier at the launching of the Bismarck, where he spoke only of the peace of true justice. Those speeches were decisive for me. I did not base my conclusions on this particular speech which is reproduced in such an extremely confused manner; and that I proved by the fact that during the whole of the summer I never said a word to the Navy to suggest that war might break out in the autumn. Confirmation of that was given here; and anybody can give further confirmation. I thought very highly of Hitler’s political ability and even on 22 August, when we were informed of the pact with Russia, I was still convinced that we should again be able to find a peaceful solution of the problem. That was my definite conviction. I may be accused of faulty judgment, but I thought I had formed a correct estimate of Hitler.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I understand you to say that even on the 22nd of August you didn’t think that Hitler had any aggressive intentions. Do you really mean that?
RAEDER: Yes, and there is a perfectly good reason for it, because there was every prospect of our forming an alliance with Russia. He had given all sorts of reasons why England and France would not intervene; and all those who were assembled there drew from that the sincere hope that he would again be successful in getting out of the affair without fighting.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Will this be a convenient time to adjourn, My Lord?
[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
Afternoon Session
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I am most anxious not to take up unnecessary time. With regard to the meeting of the 22d of August, Your Lordship may remember that Dr. Siemers raised a point as to the two accounts of the meeting, one in Documents 1014-PS and 798-PS and the other in the account by Admiral Böhm. I have had a comparison made out in English and German showing the points which are similar to both, and I thought it would be more convenient just to put that in. Let Dr. Siemers see the German copy and make any suggestion at the appropriate time rather than spend any time in cross-examining the witness as to any differences in the accounts. My Lord, with the permission of the Tribunal, I will put that in now and hand Dr. Siemers a copy so that he can draw the Tribunal’s attention to any points at a convenient stage.
THE PRESIDENT: Did not Admiral Böhm make the accounts?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the Prosecution’s account is in two documents, 798-PS and 1014-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There was another document which was mentioned by my friend, Mr. Alderman, but not put in. It was an account by a journalist which was the first account the Prosecution had had, but when they got the two accounts from the OKW files, they did not use their first one; so I had only taken the two accounts from the OKW files and Admiral Böhm’s account.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. But does not that make three documents in all, apart from the one which has been left out?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, and I have taken each of the two and compared it with Admiral Böhm’s.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So, on that I shall not pursue this interview. I thought that it would save time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I’d like you, therefore, Defendant, to look at Document Number 789-PS, which is at Page 261 of Book 10a and Pages 438 to 440 of the German book—438 to 440. This is the note, Defendant, of a conference on the 23d of November 1939 with Hitler, to which all Supreme Commanders were ordered. Do you see that at the beginning, Pages 438 to 440? Do you see what it says, “to which all Supreme Commanders are ordered”? Were you present?
RAEDER: Yes, it is the conference during the war on 23 November 1939.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. Were you present?
RAEDER: I was present.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Who were the other commanders-in-chief who were present?
RAEDER: The commanders-in-chief of the Army, the Air Force, and a considerable number of generals of the Army.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The “Oberbefehlshaber”?
RAEDER: Yes, but in the Army...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. Now, I want you to look at a passage. The paragraph begins: “One year later, Austria came. This step also was considered very hazardous.”
Do you see that? Do you see that paragraph?
RAEDER: Yes, I have got it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Much obliged. Now, I just want you to look at the next few sentences.
“It brought about a considerable strengthening of the Reich. The next step was Bohemia, Moravia, and Poland. But this step was not to be accomplished in one move. First of all, the West Wall had to be finished in the West. It was not possible to reach the goal in one bound. It was clear to me from the first moment that I could not be satisfied with the Sudeten-German territory. It was only a partial solution. The decision to march into Bohemia was made. Then followed the establishment of the Protectorate and with that the basis for the conquest of Poland was laid, but I was not yet clear at that time whether I should start first against the East and then against the West or vice-versa. Moltke often had to ponder over the same things in his time. Of necessity it came to a fight with Poland first. I shall be accused of wanting to fight and fight again; in struggle I see the fate of all beings. Nobody can avoid a struggle if he does not want to go under. The increasing population requires a larger living space. My goal was to create a logical relation between the population and the living space.”
Whatever you had understood up to that time, you appreciated then, that Hitler himself had had a consistent and clear aim of aggression throughout these matters that I put to you this morning; did you not?
RAEDER: Yes, but now we were already in the middle of a war and he was looking at these things retrospectively. Also, he wanted to make it clear to the generals, with whom he had a conflict at that time, that he had always been right in his political conceptions. That is the reason why he quoted all these detailed points again.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, would you turn over to Pages 445-448, which is Page 264 of the English document book, German document book Pages 445-448. Have you got that?
RAEDER: Perhaps you would be good enough to read, I have here a...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is the paragraph that begins: “We have an Achilles heel: The Ruhr.”
RAEDER: I have it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would you look about halfway down that paragraph. You will see: “England cannot live without its imports. We can feed ourselves. The permanent sowing of mines off the English coasts will bring England to her knees.”
Have you got that passage?
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Thank you. Now, if you would just listen.
“However, this”—that is bringing England to her knees—“can only occur when we have occupied Belgium and Holland. It is a difficult decision for me. Nobody has ever achieved what I have achieved. My life is of no importance in all this. I have led the German people to a great height, even if the world does hate us now. I am setting this work at stake. I have to choose between victory or destruction. I choose victory, the greatest historical choice—to be compared with the decision of Frederick the Great before the first Silesian War. Prussia owes its rise to the heroism of one man.”
And there is some more about Frederick the Great and Bismarck:
“My decision is unchangeable. I shall attack France and England at the most favorable and quickest moment. Violation of the neutrality of Belgium and Holland is unimportant. No one will question that when we have won. We shall not give such idiotic reasons for the violation of neutrality as were given in 1914. If we do not violate the neutrality, then England and France will. Without attack the war is not to be ended victoriously.”
Now, do you remember, Defendant, that this was just 3 weeks after the plans for “Fall Gelb,” that is plans for the attack on Holland and Belgium, had been issued on 10 November? Do you remember that?
RAEDER: I know that this was discussed here. But we were already at war with England, therefore at that stage it was no longer necessary to discuss an attack against England and France and...
SIR. DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You were not at war with Holland and Belgium, were you?
RAEDER: Please, I would like to finish.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, I thought you had finished.
RAEDER: Here it says: “If the French Army marches into Belgium to attack us, then it will be too late for us. We must be first.”
Hitler at that time stated that he had received definite news that Belgium would not respect her neutrality and that he also had news already that certain preparations for the reception of French and British troops et cetera had already been made. For that reason, he wanted to forestall an attack from Belgium against us. Apart from that, in his speech of 22 August 1939, he had made a statement entirely to the opposite effect. He had said that Belgium and Holland would not break their neutrality.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you agree with what he said, that the “Violation of the neutrality of Belgium and Holland is unimportant. No one will question that when we have won.” Did you agree with that view?
RAEDER: No, it is not exactly my opinion, but I had no cause on my part to raise any objection against that statement of his at that moment.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The view of the Naval War Command was put up to him a month later with regard to U-boat warfare, was it not? Do you remember that on 30th December you had a meeting with Hitler, at which Colonel General Keitel and Fregattenkapitän Von Puttkamer were present?
RAEDER: Yes, I was with him on 30 December.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I would like you to look at the new document, which is Document Number C-100, Exhibit Number GB-463.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, ought not this document be identified?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship, of course, is right. I think we had perhaps better give them two numbers, one for each of the original PS documents. My Lord, the comparison...
THE PRESIDENT: 1014-PS has a number already, has it not?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord. That has a number.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought perhaps the comparative document ought to have a number.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly. Shall we call one comparison Exhibit Number GB-464, the comparison of Document Number 798-PS; and the comparison of Document Number 1014-PS, Exhibit Number GB-465?
THE PRESIDENT: I have only got one here, as far as I can see.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I am going to get some more done. I am afraid I have passed out only a limited number at the moment, but I will have some more run off.
464, 798; GB-465 will be 1014-PS. It will be the comparison of Document Number 798-PS with the Raeder Document, and Exhibit Number GB-465 will be the comparison of Document Number 1014-PS in the Raeder document book.
I am very much obliged to Your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: Now you are going to give us Document Number C-100?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: C-100, My Lord, yes.
Defendant, I will be grateful if you will turn over a few pages to where it comes to a report, the date of 30 December 1939, and then after that there is an enclosure to the report to the Führer of 30 December 1939.
Would you look at Paragraph IV, which says:
“With regard to the form and the moment for the commencement of further intensification of the war at sea, the decision of the supreme war command to begin the general intensification of the war with an offensive in the West is of decisive importance.”
Have you got that, Paragraph IV?
RAEDER: Page?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am afraid the paging is different.
RAEDER: “With regard to the form”—yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: “With regard to the form and the moment for the commencement of further intensification of the war at sea, the decision of the supreme war command to begin the general intensification of the war with an offensive in the West is of decisive importance.
“I. Possibility: The decision of the Führer is made in favor of a Western offensive, beginning very shortly, within the framework of the instructions issued for this to date, by violating the neutrality of other states:
“In this case the intensified measures for the war at sea will in their political effect only represent a small part of the entire intensification of the war. The gradual change-over to the intensified form of waging the war at sea within the American restricted zone, with the ultimate aim of a ruthless employment of all means of warfare to interrupt all commerce with England, is therefore proposed with the start of the offensive.
“Immediate anticipation of individual intensified measures for the war at sea is not necessary and may be postponed until the start of the general intensification of the war. The benevolent neutrals Italy, Spain, Japan and Russia as well as America, are to be spared as far as possible.”
Isn’t that right, that you contemplated that Hitler’s violation of the neutrality of the Low Countries would cover, by being a more important matter, your adopting the most ruthless methods of war at sea? Isn’t that right?
RAEDER: No.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What does that mean if it does not mean that? What does that mean if it does not mean what I have put to you?
RAEDER: With the beginning of the offensive in the West, Hitler also wanted a certain more energetic pursuit of the war at sea. For that reason, he asked me to introduce only at this point the intensified measures which I considered already justified because of the attitude of the British forces. These intensifications were very carefully considered in that memorandum, and they followed step by step the different steps taken by Britain.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will deal with the memorandum. You need not be afraid that I will omit that, but what I am putting to you at the moment is this: That so far from disapproving of the violation of the neutrality of Holland and Belgium, you on behalf of the Navy were quite prepared to accompany it by the intensification of submarine warfare; isn’t that right?
RAEDER: That is twisting my words. I had nothing to do with this violation of neutrality for we were not there when they marched into these two countries. The only thing I was interested in was to intensify the submarine war step by step, so as to meet the measures introduced by the British, which also violated international law.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am going to come to submarine warfare, but at the moment I want to try to keep in compartments. There are only two more points on this aggressive war. I am now going to pass—you can leave that document for the moment. I will come back to it, Defendant; you need not be afraid, and I want you to help me on one or two points in Norway.
With regard to Norway, you were quite content to leave Norway neutral, not occupied, so long as you had a protected channel up the Norwegian coast in neutral waters, is that right? That was an important point for you, to have a channel in neutral waters so that not only your ships, but also your submarines, could go up and start out from neutral waters, is that right?
RAEDER: No, I have very clearly explained the origin of the Norwegian campaign in documents. There was the danger that the British might occupy Norway, and information of all sorts indicated that. Of course, if we were forced to occupy the Norwegian coast, then, apart from all the numerous disadvantages which I have explained, we had the advantage that we would gain this or that base for our Atlantic submarines.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Are you telling the Tribunal that the Navy seriously thought that the British wanted to occupy Norway?
RAEDER: I most certainly thought that. We had so much information about it that I could have no doubt whatever, and it was fully confirmed later on.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I just ask you, then, to look at just one or two typical Navy reports. We won’t refer to the document again, but we will start from there, just to get the time.
You remember, on the 13th of March 1940, General Jodl entered in his diary that the Führer was still looking for justification; do you remember that? You remember that, don’t you?
RAEDER: I have already explained once that the expression just used, “justification,” is wrong, wrongly translated, Jodl wrote “Begründung,” “reason.” But that is also wrong—please will you let me finish—even that is incorrect, because the Führer had an abundance of reasons, which he laid down in the instruction issued on the 1st of March, and it was known to all of us. I have said that by the expression “Begründung,” “reason,” he probably meant that he had not yet had a diplomatic note compiled. He had not told the Foreign Minister anything about it at that stage. I told you that recently under oath and I repeat it under oath today.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. That is the meaning that you have given to it. Well now, will you look at your own Raeder Exhibit Number 81, in Raeder Document Book 5, Page 376.
RAEDER: May I have Document Book 5?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh, you have not got it. I’m sorry. I will get you one.
Now, that is dealing with the first point, encroachment by the English into Norwegian territorial waters, and it says:
“An examination of the question as to whether a mass encroachment by the English into the Norwegian territorial waters was so immediately imminent that it might represent a danger to present German shipping produces the opinion that this is not to be expected at the present time. The ore transports are to be continued, as no losses have yet occurred.”
Was that your information, that no mass encroachment of Norwegian territorial waters was to be expected on the 22d of March?
RAEDER: That was not at all my conception. It was the view of Kapitän zur See Fricke, who was at that time the Chief of the Operations Department. He did not quite agree with me about the whole of this question. He was of the opinion that the British should be allowed to enter Norway first, and then we should throw them out through Sweden, a completely distorted idea which I could not approve of in any way. I had such clear information from Quisling and Hagelin, particularly at that time, the second half of March, that there was no longer any doubt whatever that within a reasonable time the British would intervene on a big scale.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You say that that was Admiral Fricke’s view, and you didn’t pay attention to it. Well, now, let me look...
RAEDER: I did not concern myself with it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You know, Admiral Assmann, whom you have described as a sound historian, kept a headline diary, and on the next day he gives an account of a meeting between you and Hitler, and he says this. This is the same day. You may have read it, because he turns down your proposal to use U-boats off Halifax. It is the same day, the 23d of February. Then, at that date, you are quoted as saying that to insure the supply of ore from Narvik, it would be best to preserve the neutrality of Norway.
Then, on the 26th of March, Admiral Assmann in his report of the meeting between you and Hitler records your answers as follows. It is quite short: “British landing in Norway not considered imminent—Raeder suggests action by us at the next new moon—to which Hitler agrees.”
That is Admiral Assmann’s report of the meeting between you and Hitler on the 26th of March: “British landing in Norway not considered imminent—Raeder suggests action by us at the next new moon, the 7th of April—to which Hitler agrees.”
Do you remember that?
RAEDER: No. I mean, it is quite improbable that at that moment I should not have been fully convinced of the imminent landing about which the whole of Documents 004-PS and 007-PS gave me reliable information. I did not see the documents, but the information contained in them was fully available.
Admiral Assmann compiled his notes from all sorts of war diaries and records. I most certainly never said that because at that time I reported to Hitler again and again that our preparations which had already been started a time ago would be complete at the end of January, and that that would be the time when the landings had to be carried out for the reasons I always put forward. It is completely wrong to assume that at that time I had the slightest doubt. Later everything was proved right...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now really we must...
RAEDER: And later on, it all turned out to be correct.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We must get down to this matter. You have told us that Admiral Assmann was a trustworthy officer and good at naval history.
RAEDER: He is not a deceiver, but he compiled the document from all sorts of papers and I cannot imagine how he could have arrived at that statement, I certainly never made it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, but the second part of it, the second sentence, is right, isn’t it? “Raeder suggests action by us at the next new moon, the 7th of April.”
That is right; that is when you did invade. That was when your armada started off to arrive there on the 9th, wasn’t it?
RAEDER: But yes, of course. I was in favor of carrying out the landings in Norway at the earliest possible time, after ice conditions had improved, as we had previously decided and as had been ordered by Hitler. For that I assume full responsibility. There was every reason for that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well. Again I mustn’t argue with you, but the point comes to this, that you are saying that Admiral Assmann, who is right in his second sentence, is not only wrong but entirely wrong—I mean, stating the opposite of the truth—when he says that the British landing in Norway was not considered imminent.
Well now, we will just pursue that a little.
RAEDER: I only submitted to the Führer this matter of landing in Norway on the supposition that this information was available and would continue to be available.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, what was that document of the 26th of March 1940?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was an extract from the Assmann Diary which I have used before, and I will have one made up and put in for identification. I haven’t got it copied yet, My Lord, I am sorry. I shall have it done.
RAEDER: I should be grateful if perhaps you could show me the document. You have shown me all the others, but not this one, the one I contest.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I beg your pardon. It is such a short extract I thought you would take it from me, but the last thing I want is not to show you any documents.
You see the entry for the 26th of March:
“British landing in Norway not considered imminent. Raeder suggests action by us at next new moon, 7th of April, to which Hitler agrees. Further discussions about laying of mines at Scapa before German invasion of Norway. Hitler agrees with Raeder and will issue instructions accordingly.”
RAEDER: May I come back to it now. Here it says, the 26th of March 1940: “Occupation of Norway by British was imminent when the Russian-Finnish peace was concluded.”
That very Russian-Finnish affair was making it particularly urgent for us to carry out a landing because the danger existed that the British, under the pretext of supporting the Finns, would carry out a bloodless occupation of Norway.
Then I go on to the question of the Führer, whether a landing by the British in Norway might be imminent. One must consider that Assmann had summarized all that from war diaries, and this question is explained by the fact that the Führer wanted to know whether the situation had changed in any way, because the peace had been signed. However, the situation had not changed at all, because we knew in reality that the landings by the British were not to be carried out to help the Finns, but for other reasons. That question, therefore, whether at the time, because of the peace treaty, the British landings might be particularly imminent, was answered by me in the negative. Commander-in-Chief Navy suggests action by us at next new moon, 7th April—Führer agrees. Everything remained as before. Only the question whether because of this peace treaty we ought to land at once, I answered “no.” That is completely different from what you have been telling me.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You read out the entry for the 26th of March. What is the entry for the 26th of March? You read it out in German and we can translate it.
RAEDER: “Occupation of Norway by the British was imminent when the Russian-Finnish peace treaty was signed. Apparently, because of the treaty, it was postponed. Question by the Führer, whether at that moment a landing by the British in Norway was imminent, was answered in the negative by the Commander-in-Chief Navy....”
Yes, that did not mean that because of that we had to renounce the idea.
“Commander-in-Chief Navy suggests action by us at next new moon.” The reasons for our landing remained the same as before; only the Finnish business could no longer be used by the British.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The peace treaty, the end of the war with Finland, had taken place in the middle of March. That was off the map at that time?
RAEDER: Of course, it was no longer important for us, but our reasons remained as before.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, will you look at Document Number D-843. This will be Exhibit Number GB-466. This is a report from your diplomatic representative in Norway, dated the 29th of March, and at the end of the first paragraph you will see:
“The British apparently did not want to take upon themselves the responsibility for openly violating Norwegian territory and Norwegian territorial waters without cause, and for carrying out warlike operations in them.”
That is a quotation from the Norwegian Foreign Minister. Then your diplomatic representative takes it up:
“The future will show whether Foreign Minister Koht sees things quite right. It definitely appears, however, as I”—that’s the German Foreign Minister’s representative—“have frequently pointed out, that the British have no intentions of landing, but that they want to disturb shipping in Norwegian territorial waters perhaps, as Koht thinks, in order to provoke Germany. Of course, it is also possible that the British behavior of last week, which I have pointed out as well, will grow into more or less regular and increasing interference in territorial waters to attack our ore traffic off the Norwegian coast.”
And then Paragraph 3:
“The firm intention of Norway to maintain her neutrality and to insure that Norway’s neutrality rules be respected can be accepted as a fact.”
Were you told that your diplomatic representative in Oslo was reporting that the British had no intentions of landing?
RAEDER: Yes. Dr. Breuer, the Minister to Norway, held a completely wrong view. He believed Foreign Minister Koht’s assurances even though our naval attaché kept reporting that Koht was completely on the side of the British and his assurances were not to be believed. At the same time, information had been received from Hagelin that the Norwegians were giving assurances on paper but they themselves had said that they were doing that only as subterfuge and that they would continue to co-operate with the British. That is contained in the documents which we have submitted.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Let us look at another document. Look at Document Number D-844. This is what your diplomatic representative in Sweden was saying at the same time. That will be Exhibit Number GB-467, that is from your representative in Sweden and you will notice that he quotes Foreign Minister Guenther of Sweden, as first of all—about ten lines down, just after the name of “Weizsäcker,” you will see:
“The Swedish Government had no reason at all to believe in an impending action by the Western Powers against Scandinavia. On the contrary, on the strength of all official reports and other information, they considered the situation lately to be much calmer.”
And then he says there is no prospect of a coup against Swedish ore. Then he goes on to deal with Norway. Without being Anglophile, Guenther did not believe in a British act of war against Norway either, but, of course, he could not speak of this with as much certainty as with regard to Sweden. At any rate, however, the Norwegian Government, with whom he was in close contact, was of the same opinion. And if you look two paragraphs farther on, it says:
“In conclusion, Guenther requested me to report his statements to my government, and repeated that the Swedish Government attached the greatest value to the German Government not erroneously getting the impression of the existence of circumstances which might evoke the possibility—he would not use the word necessity at all—of special measures by Germany with regard to Scandinavia.”
And then he says in the last paragraph that the Swedish Foreign Minister had probably heard of the German preparations.
Now, would you look at Document Number D-845 which will be Exhibit Number GB-468—that is the next day—from your diplomatic representative in Stockholm:
“Serious anxiety exists in Swedish military and government circles regarding possible German military preventive measures in Scandinavia against the announced intensification of war measures by the Western Powers. Swedish and Norwegian military and government authorities consider it unlikely that military measures will be taken against Scandinavia by the Western Powers. Press reports on this subject by the Western Powers are attempting to provoke Germany.”
That is from your military attaché in Stockholm. Were you told about these reports from Stockholm, were you told of that?
RAEDER: I assume the Führer told me this. But we had no reason at all to believe these assurances because obviously, quite obviously, Sweden had considerable interest in our not going to Norway, because Sweden believed that by so doing we would be able to exercise pressure on Sweden also. That was what the British wanted, according to the information we received later. Our minister was completely misinformed and as a result was not informed by us because it was known that he sided with Foreign Minister Koht. Our information was so clear, so frequent and so unequivocal, that we could certainly carry out our landing with a clear conscience and in fact this proved to be true. Therefore, there is no point in discussing whether the order on the part of the British to land in Norway—it was Trondheim, Stavanger and, I believed, Kristiansand—whether this order was given on 5 April. On the 7th, during the night of the 7th to 8th, as the British reported in a wireless message, the mine-laying in Norwegian waters was completed by British ships and on the 7th, troops were shipped on cruisers, the names of which I forget.
Therefore, this actually took place and my conception was correct and not Herr Breuer’s who was dismissed immediately after this because he was a failure. Thereupon, we carried out the landings on the strength of quite positive information which we can prove in detail. Sweden’s action is thoroughly understandable.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not going to argue with you although you ought to know and I think you do know that there was no British order for an invasion at all; there was an order for laying mines; but you took this course as I suggested, you, knowing quite well that no British invasion was imminent, contrary to your own Chief of Operations, Captain Fricke, and contrary to all the information from your diplomatic representatives in Norway. Now, I want to come to another point with regard to Norway and then I am finished with that. You told the Tribunal that in your view, using the enemy’s colors was a permissible ruse de guerre so long as you stopped before you went into action. Do you remember saying that?
RAEDER: I did not understand.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you remember telling the Tribunal that morning that using the enemy’s colors on a warship was a permissible ruse de guerre so long as you stopped before you went into action. Do you remember saying that?
RAEDER: Yes; of course, that is the principle which is absolutely recognized in naval warfare, that at the moment of firing you have to raise your own flag.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Are you telling the Tribunal that it is a recognized procedure in naval warfare to use another country’s colors in making an attack on a neutral country, an unannounced attack on a neutral country? There was no war between you and Norway and there was no reason for there to be any ruse. You were at peace with Norway. Are you saying that?
RAEDER: It was all a question of pulling down the flag and raising the German flag if we met the British. We did not want to fight with the Norwegians at all. It says somewhere that we should first of all try to effect a peaceful occupation.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Can you give me a precedent even where the German Navy, before this operation, had ever attacked a neutral country with which it was at peace, using enemy colors? You tell me when you did it before?
RAEDER: I do not know. I cannot tell you whether any other navy did it. I have...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You can assume any other navy—I even ask—have you ever done it?
RAEDER: No, we have not done it and apart from that, we did not do it because on 8 April, we gave the order by wireless—and you know from our War Diary—that this should not be done, so it is quite useless to talk here about what might have been done if it has not been done.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wanted to get clear on what your views on the permissibility of naval warfare were. I want to come to one other point, and then I am finished with this section of the case. With regard to the attack on the Soviet Union, I am not going to ask you about all your own views and what you said to Hitler, because you told us that at length; but I would just like you to look at Document Book 10a, Page 252 of the English book and Page 424 of the German book.
RAEDER: Which document is it, please?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The big one.
RAEDER: I have not got that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Document Number 447-PS.
I am so sorry, My Lord, this is entirely my fault. I beg the Tribunal’s pardon. I have given the wrong reference. I really wanted him to look at Page 59 in Document Book 10, Document Number C-170. I am very sorry, My Lord.
[Turning to the defendant.] Now, that is the extract from the Naval War Diary, the one that I want you to look at is on Page 59, for the 15th of June. “On the proposal of the Naval Operations Staff (SKL) the use of arms against Russian submarines south of the northern boundary of Öland warning area...”
Have you got it?
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: “...is permitted immediately, and ruthless destruction is to be aimed at.”
Now, would you mind, before I ask you a question, turning back to Document Number C-38, which is on Page 11, which is Page 19 of your own document book, German document book, Document Number C-38; Page 11 of the British document book, and Page 19 of the German. That is an order of the same date, signed by Defendant Keitel, to the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy.
“Offensive action against submarines south of the line Memel to the southern tip of Öland is authorized if the boats cannot be definitely identified as Swedish during the approach by German naval forces. The reason to be given up to ‘B’ Day”—that is Barbarossa—“is that our naval forces are believed to be dealing with penetrating British submarines.”
Why did you suggest that you should attack the Soviet submarines 6 days before your own invasion when they wouldn’t be expecting any attack and there was no question of any war?
RAEDER: As it has already been explained once here, it had happened just before, that is before the 15th of June, that a submarine had penetrated into the area of Bornholm, which is a long way to the west, and then had given wrong recognition signals when the patrol boat near Bornholm called it. If the wrong recognition signals are given, then it means that it could not be a German submarine but it must be a foreign one. In this case, the course of the ship and the location would bring us to the conclusion that it must be a Russian boat. Apart from that, Russian submarines at that time had repeatedly been located and reported off German ports—Memel, for instance, and others. Consequently, we had the impression that Russian submarines were already occupying positions outside German ports, either to lay mines or to attack merchant or warships. For that reason, as a precaution, I had to report this and I had to propose that we should take action against non-German submarines in these areas outside German ports. That suggestion was passed on the same day and this additional statement was made, which, in my opinion, was not necessary at all, but which prevented complications from arising.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is still not an answer to my question. I will put it this way. You considered it right to attack and urge the ruthless destruction of Soviet submarines 6 days before you attacked the Soviet Union? You consider that right? And then, to blame it on penetrating British submarines—this is Keitel’s suggestion—is that your view of proper warfare?
RAEDER: Well, I consider the first point right because it is always important to get in before one’s opponent, and this was happening under certain definite conditions. The second point was ordered by the Führer. Neither of the two points was ever carried out, and therefore it is useless, in my opinion, to discuss this matter.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is something for the Tribunal, and I will decide what is useful to discuss.
Do I take it, then, that you entirely approve of attacking Soviet submarines and ruthlessly destroying them 6 days before you start the war? That is what the Tribunal is to understand, is it?
RAEDER: Yes, if they appeared in our waters to reconnoiter or to carry out some other war action, then I considered it right. I considered that better than that our ships should run into Russian mines.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, let us just come, for a short time, to your views on U-boat warfare. Do you remember the document which I put to the Defendant Dönitz about the memorandum of the Foreign Office, Document Number D-851, which became Exhibit Number GB-451?
RAEDER: I have it before me.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Right. Well, I will ask about that in a moment. This is what you said about it when you were answering Dr. Kranzbühler, I think on Saturday. You said:
“Since the war against England came as a complete surprise to us, we had up until then dealt very little with detailed questions of submarine warfare. Among other things, we had not yet discussed the question of so-called unrestricted submarine warfare which had played such a very important part in the previous war. And from that fact it developed that on 3 September, that officer who was recently mentioned here was sent to the Foreign Office with some points for discussion on the question of unrestricted submarine warfare, so that we could clarify with the Foreign Office the question as to how far we could go.”
Now, do you think that is...
RAEDER: So far as I can recollect, that is the way it happened. Unrestricted warfare had not been considered.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Have you got the document in front of you?
RAEDER: You mean the one regarding the Foreign Office, Document Number D-851?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dönitz 851, yes.
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I don’t think this is in any copy, My Lord. Has Your Lordship a copy?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I don’t think so.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I did put it in when I was cross-examining the Defendant Dönitz.
THE PRESIDENT: It is very likely with our Dönitz papers.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Perhaps Your Lordship will allow me to just read it slowly, for the moment. The document says this:
“The question of an unrestricted U-boat warfare against England is discussed in the enclosed data submitted by the High Command of the Navy.
“The Navy has arrived at the conclusion that the maximum damage to England which can be achieved with the forces available can only be attained if the U-boats are permitted an unrestricted use of arms without warning against enemy and neutral shipping in the prohibited area indicated on the enclosed map. The Navy does not fail to realize that:
“(a) Germany would thereby publicly disregard the agreement of 1936 regarding the conduct of economic war.
“(b) Conduct of the war on these lines could not be justified on the basis of the hitherto generally accepted principles of international law.”
Then, I ought to read this, or point it out. I have dealt with it before, it is the second last paragraph:
“Points of view based on foreign politics would favor using the method of unrestricted U-boat warfare only if England gives us a justification by her method of waging war to order this form of warfare as a reprisal.”
[Turning to the defendant.] Now, I want you to take it by stages. You see the paragraph that says:
“The Navy has arrived at the conclusion that the maximum damage to England which can be achieved with the forces available can only be attained if U-boats are permitted an unrestricted use of arms without warning in the area...”
Is that your view? Was that your view on the 3d of September?
RAEDER: No, it is not my view; it is a conditional view. We had given submarines the order to wage economic war according to the Prize Ordinance, and we had provided in our War Diary that if the British were to arm merchant ships or something like that, then certain intensifications...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Will you please give me an answer to the question I asked you? It is a perfectly easy question.
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, isn’t it your view?
RAEDER: In theory, of course, considering the small resources that we had, the greatest possible damage to England could only be achieved through—we had to discuss with the Foreign Office just how far we could go with this intensification. For this reason, this officer was sent there. The discussions with the Foreign Office resulted in the submarine memorandum which shows, from beginning to end, that we were trying to adhere to the existing law as far as possible. The whole memorandum is nothing more than just that sort of discussion.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, will you answer my question? When this document says “the Navy has arrived at the conclusion,” is it true that the Navy had arrived at that conclusion?
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Is that true or not?
RAEDER: But of course, everybody would arrive at that conclusion.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is much easier to say “yes” than to give a long explanation.
Now, let us come to another point. Is it true that you had arrived at that conclusion without consulting the Flag Officer, U-boats, as the Defendant Dönitz said when he gave evidence?
RAEDER: Regarding these matters? We only agreed before the submarines put to sea that they should wage war according to the Prize Ordinance. I did not ask him whether he wanted to carry out unrestricted U-boat warfare, because I did not want that. First of all I had to discuss it with the Foreign Office to find out how far we could go. That was the purpose of this affair, which was to give individual orders, such orders which we were entitled to give, step by step, in accordance with the behavior of the British. This was a question of international law, which I had to discuss with the expert on international law in the Foreign Office.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Isn’t it correct that you continued to press this point of view, the conclusion of which you had arrived at, with the Foreign Office for the next 3 months? Isn’t it correct that you continued to press for an unrestricted U-boat warfare within the area for the next 3 months?
RAEDER: I hardly think so; otherwise I would not have issued the memorandum of 3 September. Maybe we did go to the Foreign Office and put on pressure, but what we did is contained in the memorandum and our measures were intensified step by step, following steps taken by the British.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, the next step with the Foreign Office was a conference with Baron Von Weizsäcker, on the 25th of September, which you will see in Document Number D-852, Exhibit Number GB-469. You see Paragraph 3 of that document:
“The High Command of the Navy will submit to the Foreign Office a proposal, as a basis for a communication to the neutral powers, in which those intensifications of naval warfare will be communicated, the ordering of which has already taken place or is impending in the near future. This includes, particularly, a warning not to use wireless on being stopped, not to sail in convoy, and not to black-out.”
That was your first step, was it not? That was put up to the Foreign Office, with a number of other proposals?
RAEDER: Of course! The first measure was that armed merchant ships could be attacked because as early as 6 or 8 September, a submarine had stopped a merchant ship, the Manar, had fired a warning shot, and had at once been fired on by the British steamer. Thereupon the submarine started firing at the merchant ship. Such cases were known. And since one cannot recognize in every case whether the ship is armed or not, we assumed that it would lead to all ships being fired at. However, at that time it was ordered that only armed British merchant ships should be fired at. Secondly, that ships which sent a wireless message when stopped could also be shot at, because this use of wireless which was done by order of the Admiralty would immediately bring to the spot both naval and air forces, especially the latter which would shoot at the U-boat.
The first step, therefore, was firing on armed merchant ships—the passenger steamers were still excepted—and secondly, firing on blacked-out vessels and firing on those who made use of wireless. Blacked-out vessels are...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now would you look at Document Number D-853. I only want you to look at the next document, which will be Exhibit Number GB-470. I want you to come as soon as possible to this memorandum of which you talked.
D-853, if you will look at Section II, is a report by the Under Secretary of State of the Foreign Office, dated the 27th of September, which goes through these matters which you talked about just now, the sinking at sight of French and British ships, under the assumption that they are armed. In Paragraph II it is said:
“The Naval Operations Staff indicated anew that the Führer will probably order ruthless U-boat warfare in the restricted area in the very near future. The previous participation of the Foreign Office remains guaranteed.”
Were you still pressing for absolutely unrestricted warfare within a large area to the west of Britain and around Britain?
RAEDER: Yes. Insofar as we took intensification actions step by step on the basis of our observations regarding the attitude of enemy forces, and that is in those cases where intensification was perfectly justified and was legally proved.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would you look at Baron Weizsäcker’s minutes of the 14th of October which is Document Number D-857, which will be Exhibit Number GB-471.
Now, you see, this is after these measures have been taken, which you have just explained to the Tribunal. Baron von Weizsäcker reports to the Defendant Von Ribbentrop:
“According to my information, the decision on unrestricted U-boat warfare against England is imminent. This is at least as much a political decision as it is a technicality of war.
“A short while ago I submitted my personal view in writing, that unrestricted U-boat warfare would bring new enemies upon us at a time when we still lack the necessary U-boats to defeat England. On the other hand, the Navy’s attitude of insisting on the opening of unrestricted U-boat warfare is backed by every convincing reason.”
Then he says that it is necessary to ask for certain information. On that you put in—on that point you put in your memorandum of the 15th of October, which, My Lord, is Document Number C-157, and Exhibit Number GB-224.
RAEDER: First of all, may I say something about the previous document? This expression “unrestricted U-boat warfare...”
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You can do it later on, because we have got a lot of ground to cover here.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal thinks he ought to be allowed to say what he wants to say on that document.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, My Lord, if Your Lordship pleases. Please go on, Defendant, my fault.
RAEDER: Now the two documents are gone. What I wanted to say was that the expression “unrestricted submarine warfare” on the part of the Foreign Office originated from the previous World War. In reality, and during the entire war, we did not wage unrestricted U-boat war in the sense of the unrestricted submarine warfare of the first World War. Even there, where he says “unrestricted submarine warfare might be imminent”—are only ordered very restricted measures, which always were based on the fact that the British had ordered something on their part. The chief action on the part of the British was that of militarizing the entire merchant fleet to a certain extent. That is to say, the merchant fleet was being armed, and they received the order to use these arms.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I don’t see how that arises out of the last document at all. Unless the Tribunal wants to go into it, I think we might pass on.
Doesn’t Your Lordship think so?
RAEDER: Out of both documents. Not out of one only...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You have put that point, I should think, at least seven times this afternoon. I am going to suggest to you that your real object of the submarine war was set out in the first paragraph of the memorandum. Would you just look at it? You see “Berlin, 15 October...”
RAEDER: No, I must still say that there was not any unrestricted U-boat warfare but merely an intensification of measures, step by step, as I have repeatedly said, and these were always taken only after the British took some measure. The British...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I suggest that that is an entire untruth, and that I will show you out of this document. Look at your own document, this memorandum. In the first paragraph:
“The Führer’s proposal for the restoration...”
RAEDER: I am not telling untruths, I would not think of doing it. I do not do that sort of thing.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, that is what I am suggesting to you, and I will show it out of this document.
“The Führer’s proposal for the restoration of a just, honorable peace and the new adjustment of the political order in Central Europe had been turned down. The enemy powers want the war, with the aim of destroying Germany. In this fight, in which Germany is now forced to defend her existence and her rights, she must use her weapons with the utmost ruthlessness, at the same time fully respecting the laws of military ethics.”
Now, let’s see what you were suggesting.
“Germany’s principal enemy in this war is Britain. Her most vulnerable spot is her maritime trade. The war at sea against Britain must therefore be conducted as an economic war, with the aim of destroying Britain’s fighting spirit within the shortest possible time and forcing her to accept peace.”
Now, miss one paragraph and look at the next.
“The principal target of our naval strategy is the merchant ship”—now, let’s look—“not only the enemy’s, but in general every merchant ship sails the seas in order to supply the enemy’s war industry, both by way of imports and exports. Side by side with this the enemy warship also remains an objective.”
Now, wasn’t that the object which you in the Naval Command were putting up to Hitler and to the Foreign Office, to use utmost ruthlessness to destroy Britain’s fighting spirit, and to attack every merchant ship coming in or going out of Britain? Wasn’t that your object?
RAEDER: Of course, but attacks on neutrals only insofar as they were warned and advised not to enter certain zones. Throughout the centuries in economic warfare the enemy merchant ship as well as the neutral merchant ship has been the object of attack.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You are not telling the Tribunal that you were suggesting use of warnings. Are you seriously suggesting to the Tribunal that what you meant by that paragraph was that neutral ships were only to be attacked with warning?
RAEDER: Of course, and that happened. Afterwards we issued the warning to neutral ships, after our blockade zone was established in accordance with the American blockade zone. We warned them that they should not enter this zone because they would run into most serious danger. That I am saying, and I can prove it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I suggest to you that that is untrue, and I will show it out of the document. Now, just turn to page...
RAEDER: On 24 November that warning was issued.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If you will turn to Section C of the document, “Military requirements for the decisive struggle against Great Britain.”
“Our naval strategy will have to employ to the utmost advantage every weapon at our disposal. Military success can be most confidently expected if we attack British sea communications where they are accessible to us with the greatest ruthlessness; the final aim of such attacks is to cut off all imports into and exports from Britain. We should try to consider the interest of neutrals, insofar as this is possible without detriment to military requirements. It is desirable to base all military measures taken on existing international law; however, measures which are considered necessary from a military point of view, provided a decisive success can be expected from them, will have to be carried out, even if they are not covered by existing international law.”
Wasn’t that the view you were putting up to the Foreign Office and the Führer, “Use international law as long as you can, but if international law conflicts with what is necessary for military success, throw international law overboard.” Wasn’t that your view?
RAEDER: No, that is quite incorrectly expressed.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, then explain these words. Explain these words:
“We should try to consider the interest of neutrals insofar as this is possible without detriment to military requirements. However, measures which are considered necessary from a military point of view, provided a decisive success can be expected from them, will have to be carried out even if they are not covered by international law.”
What did you mean by that if you didn’t mean to throw international law overboard?
RAEDER: It says “If the existing rules of land warfare cannot be applied to them.” It is generally known that international law had not yet been co-ordinated with submarine warfare, just as the use of aircraft at that time. It says:
“In principle, therefore, any means of warfare which is effective in breaking enemy resistance should be based on some legal conception, even if that entails the creation of a new code of naval warfare”—that is, a new code of naval warfare on the basis of actual developments.
Throughout the war a new code of naval warfare was developing, starting with the neutrals themselves. For instance, the Pan-American Security Conference defined a safety zone 300 miles around the American coast, thereby barring a tremendous sea area for overseas trade.
Likewise, the United States fixed a fighting zone around the British Isles which was not at all to our liking, and on 4 November 1939, the United States themselves maintained that it would be extremely dangerous for neutral ships to enter it, and they prohibited their own ships and their own citizens to enter this area.
We followed that up by asking the neutrals that they too should proceed in the same way as the United States, and then they would not be harmed. Then only those neutrals sailed to Great Britain which had contraband on board and made a lot of money out of it, or which were forced by the British through their ports of control to enter that area and nevertheless submit themselves to those dangers. Of course, they were quite free to discontinue doing that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now tell me, what changes had taken place in the development of either airplanes or submarines from the time that Germany signed the Submarine Protocol of 1936 to the beginning of the war? You say that international law had to adapt itself to changes in weapons of war. What changes had taken place between 1936 and 1939?
RAEDER: The following changes took place: The Submarine Protocol of 1936 was signed by us because we assumed that it concerned peaceful actions...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is not an answer to my question. My question is quite clear. It is: What changes in weapons of war, either in the air or in the submarines, had taken place between 1936 and 1939? Now, there is a question. You are a naval officer of 50 years’ experience. Tell me, what were the changes?
RAEDER: It turned out that because of the airplane the submarine was no longer in a position to surface and to investigate enemy ships or any other merchant ships, particularly near the enemy coast where the U-boats carried on their activities at first. There was no regulation at all issued about airplanes.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, that is not an answer to the question. The question you were asked was, what changes had taken place in the weapons of war, either airplanes or submarines.
RAEDER: But Mr. President, the changes took place in the airplane. The ever-increasing efficiency of the airplanes and the extension of their activities also over the seas led to the situation where it became impossible to examine any merchant vessel without aircraft being called to threaten the submarine. That got worse and worse, so that later on even rescuing had to be restricted because of enemy aircraft, and the entire submarine warfare was completely turned upside down in that manner.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Is that the only change that you can say in order to justify your statement that international law was to be thrown overboard where it didn’t fit in with military necessities? Is that the only change, the increase in the power of aircraft between 1936 and 1939?
RAEDER: I have already said once it was not thrown overboard. It was to be limited and changed and that was done by others too.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now would you just look at the next paragraph. You talked about your consideration for neutrals. At the top of Page 5 in the English text; it is the paragraph that follows the one that I have just read. You say:
“In principle, therefore, any means of warfare which is effective in breaking enemy resistance should be based on some legal conception, even if that entails the creation of a new code of naval warfare.
“The Supreme War Command, after considering the political, military and economic consequences within the framework of the general conduct of the war, will have to decide what measures of a military nature are to be taken, and what our attitude to the usage of war is to be. Once it has been decided to conduct economic warfare in its most ruthless form, in fulfillment of military requirements, this decision is definitely to be adhered to under all circumstances. On no account may such a decision for the most ruthless form of economic warfare, once it has been made, be dropped or subsequently relaxed under political pressure from neutral powers, as took place in the World War to our own detriment. Every protest by neutral powers must be turned down. Even threats from other countries, especially the United States, to come into the war, which can be expected with certainty should the war last a long time, must not lead to a relaxation in the form of economic warfare once embarked upon. The more ruthlessly economic warfare is waged, the earlier will it show results and the sooner will the war come to an end.”
RAEDER: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you now agree with that suggestion and that point of view expressed in the paragraph which I have just read to you?
RAEDER: It has to be understood quite differently from the way you are trying to present it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Quite differently from what it says...
RAEDER: No, not what it says. This is the point. We had the experience during the first World War that, as soon as the order for intensification had been given and communicated, as soon as the first neutral had raised a finger to object, these measures were immediately cancelled, particularly when the United States had a hand in it. And here I am saying that under all circumstances it must be avoided that we always withdraw our measures at once; and I give a warning to the effect that we should consider our measures as carefully as possible. That is the reason for the discussion with the Foreign Office and others, namely, to avoid the situation where later on they might be withdrawn, which would mean a considerable loss of prestige and the results would not be achieved.
That is the reason. Numerous protests were received by Britain too, and in most cases they were unanswered. I can quote from the Document Number C-170, Exhibit Number USA-136, where there are a lot of figures, Number 14, where it says: “Sharp Russian note against the British blockade warfare on 20 October 1939;” and Number 17, on 31 October, where it states: “Political Speech of Molotov.”
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: All that I ask is, was that a proper procedure?
RAEDER: I must give an explanation on that matter, and I was just about to do that. Sharp attacks on the British blockade, in violation of international law—these attacks were made by M. Molotov. Here too, protests were made which were turned down. But I wanted to prevent protests and the entire document shows that our deliberations always aimed at taking measures in such a way that they could not be objected to, but were always legally justified.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, will you tell me, Defendant, how it was going to prevent protests if you suggest in this paragraph to use the most ruthless measures and disregard every protest that neutrals made? How is that going to prevent protests?
RAEDER: These measures were to be taken in such a way that no objection was possible. If I tell the neutrals: “This is a dangerous area in every way,” and nevertheless they go there because they want to make money or because they are being forced by the British, then I need not accept any protest. They are acting for egotistical reasons, and they must pay the bill if they die. I must also add...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is true. They must pay the bill if they die. That was what it came to, was it not?
RAEDER: They received large premiums for exposing themselves to that risk, and it was their business to decide about it.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, we might break off now for 10 minutes.
[A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to be much longer, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I thought about half an hour, My Lord.
[Turning to the defendant.] Defendant, in this document the Naval Command suggests that it calls for a siege of England, that is, the sinking without warning of all ships that come into a big area around England.
Didn’t you hear? Sorry. In this document the Naval Command suggests what is called the siege of England, on Pages 10 to 13. And that is, the sinking of all merchant ships, including neutrals and tankers, which come into an area around England. Isn’t that so?
RAEDER: No, that is not true. The Navy Command does not suggest that, but discusses the idea of a siege after the blockade had been discussed and rejected. It likewise comes to a conclusion why the siege, which until that time had not been accepted as a recognized idea by international law, should not be undertaken; and it draws the inference from all these discussions by setting out on the last page, the last page but one, what shall now be considered the final conclusion. These are only those measures which can be justified by the actions already taken by the British. And during the entire discussion about blockading, the consideration was always in the foreground as to whether the neutrals would not suffer too much damage by that. And the whole idea of a siege is based on the fact that Prime Minister Chamberlain had already said—on 26 September—that there would not be any difference between a blockade on the seas and a siege on land, and the commander of a land siege would try to prevent with all means the entry of anything into the fortress. Also, the French press had mentioned that Germany was in the same situation as a fortress under siege.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What I am suggesting is that you come down in favor of a siege, but you do not want any siege area declared. Will you look at Paragraph 2 of the conclusions, and then I will leave the document to the Tribunal. That is the point I suggest. In paragraph 2 of the conclusions you say:
“For the future conduct of economic war, the basic military requirements demand the utmost ruthlessness. The employment of the siege by sea as the most intensified form of economic warfare meets this demand. Even without the public announcement of a state of siege, after it has been clearly defined as a concept, a declaration which would have drawbacks militarily and from the point of view of international law, and even without the declaration of a prohibited zone, it seems perfectly possible at the moment, as has been explained in this memorandum, to take military measures to introduce the most intensive form of economic warfare, and to achieve what are at present the greatest possible results in the interruption of enemy trade”—now the last words—“without the Naval Operations Staff being tied in all cases, to special forms and areas.”
That is your final conclusion, that you should have as effective a siege as possible without proclaiming any area. Isn’t that so?
RAEDER: No, that is not the conclusion. The conclusion is that we cannot carry out a siege, and that it would be a matter for the political leadership of the State to decide. The political leadership of the State has never suggested to decree a siege, and it can be seen here quite clearly what, on the basis of the memorandum, is suggested for the time being, and then how the intensification gradually took place.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We must not take time arguing about it, I want you to make clear...
RAEDER: But...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Let me finish. My suggestion to you is—and there I leave it—that you rejected a formal siege, but you claimed the right to sink at sight, without warning, all neutral vessels in an area which the High Command may choose.
Now, I want to pass on to another subject, because I am afraid time is getting on.
RAEDER: That is no siege, however. That was a directive issued after neutral ships did not heed our warning and continued to enter the sea around Britain in order to support Britain in the economic warfare which she, with the greatest ruthlessness and severity, was conducting against us. It was a measure of self-defense.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I put it that the document speaks for itself, now that the attention of the Tribunal has been drawn to it. I want to come to another point. You have mentioned certain matters, in answer to Dr. Horn this morning, with regard to the treatment of American ships in the summer of 1941. In April 1941 you were pressing for German naval forces to operate freely up to three miles of the American coast instead of the 300-mile safety limit which the Americans were suggesting, were you not? Well to save time I will give the witness Document Number D-849, Exhibit Number GB-472.
[The document was handed to the defendant.]
That says you couldn’t get in touch with the Defendant Von Ribbentrop and therefore you asked Baron Von Weizsäcker to get a decision on these points:
“1) Authorization for the German naval forces in the western part of the Atlantic Ocean to operate freely as far as the international customary 3-mile boundary.
“2) The cancellation of the preferential treatment which American merchant vessels have been enjoying so far in our warfare at sea.”
Now, I hand you Document Number 850, that will be Exhibit Number GB-473. Your suggestion, which had been made in April, was turned down by Hitler in June. It is a memorandum from Ritter in the Foreign Office and it reads:
“General Jodl informs me that at the recent report of Grossadmiral Raeder to the Führer, the more far-reaching orders to the naval forces, as they were discussed in connection with the Raeder interview, have been postponed until further notice.
“In the same way, permission to attack United States’ merchant vessels within the framework of the prize law has not been granted.”
Your suggestion was to abandon the policy then existing and attack up to the 3-mile limit. Now, I want you to come to another point...
RAEDER: No, please may I make a statement concerning that? I should like to say something, even if you do not put a question to me. It is not right.
At that time, in March 1941, and on the 1st of April and the following dates in 1941, a whole number of intensifications were introduced by the United States, which I mentioned this morning, from the document which I had before me. Therefore, it was clear that I, on behalf of the Naval Operations Staff, which was supposed to conduct the most effective naval war, urged that also with respect to the United States those steps should be taken which were permissible according to international law, and that we should start slowly. Those steps included:
First: that we should no longer respect that 300-mile limit, but go as far as the 3-mile limit, where according to existing international law, it was possible to attack. That is to say, not against international law, but it was just discontinuing certain favorable conditions which we had granted the United States. And Point 2: The cancellation of the preferential treatment...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That’s exactly what I suggest to you. There is no dispute between us. I was just establishing that point.
RAEDER: Yes—no...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I want you to come...
RAEDER: I only wanted to say that during the hearing of Grossadmiral Dönitz the Prosecution demanded of us that we should not treat certain neutrals better than others, but we should treat them all alike; that is to say in plain language, we must sink them all, no matter whether we wanted to do so or not, and of course we were not bound to do that. The second thing: it was a matter of course that a thoroughly justified suggestion on my part from the point of view of the Naval Operations Staff had been rejected by the Führer if, with regard to the political situation, he decided that at that time he did not desire to adopt a more severe attitude towards the United States.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I want you to come to quite a different point. Do you say that you did not know anything about the extermination of Jews in the Eastern Territories?
[There was no response.]
Do you say that you did not know about the extermination of Jews in the Eastern Territories?
RAEDER: I say clearly under oath that I had not the slightest inkling about it. I might add in explanation that on no account would Hitler have spoken about such things to a man like myself, whose opinion he knew, especially because he was afraid that on my part there would be very serious objections. I explained the other day why I used the word “Jews” in my memorial speech. In my opinion, I was obliged to do so. But that had nothing at all to do with an extermination of Jews. About the Jewish matter I have only learned...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well...
RAEDER: Excuse me, please, one moment. I only learned something about the Jewish matter when Jews who were known to me, mostly friends of my old parents, approached me and told me that they were about to be evacuated from Berlin. And then I intervened for them. That was the only thing I knew. On occasions I was told in answer to my questions that they were to be evacuated to cities where ghettos had been established. I always understood that a ghetto was a district in a city where all the Jews lived together, so that they would not have to mingle with the rest of the population.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, you know, my question was only: Did you know or did you not, and you could have answered that yes or no. I want you now to answer about that point...
RAEDER: Yes, but I must—so many questions have been asked about this very point and as every man in my position who held the same views says the same, that he does not know anything about it, I should like to explain once for all that one did not hear about these things, because civilians certainly did not talk to us about that, because they were always afraid that they would get into difficulties. The Führer did not speak about it. I had no connection with Himmler nor with other agents of the Gestapo. I did not know anything about it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, I want you just to tell the Tribunal your chain of command for the Baltic coast. Is this right that you had the naval chief command, and then the Flag Officer of the East Baltic coast Tallinn and, under him, you had a command at Libau; is that right? Was that your chain of command?
RAEDER: I did not understand that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Was your chain of command for the East Baltic coast, Kiel, Flag Officer Tallinn, and a detachment under him at Libau? You had...
RAEDER: I assume, so—that depends on various things. If they were operational matters, then it had to do with the Naval Group Commander East or North; and as far as matters of organization were concerned, then it might have gone through the Station Chief of the Baltic Sea.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, then, at any rate, you had got in 1941 a naval command at Libau, had you not?
RAEDER: Yes, of course.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, I would like you just to look at Document Number D-841, which is a deposition on oath by one of the naval employees at Libau.
My Lord, that will be Exhibit Number GB-474.
This witness says: “Deposition on oath of Walter Kurt Dittmann.”
And then it says:
“I was Naval Administration Inspector and officer in charge of the Naval Clothing Depot at Libau in Latvia.
“I held this position from the beginning of August 1941 to the end of March 1942.
“The Jewish population of Libau at that time was supposed to be about 7,000 people.
“Up to the end of March 1942 many thousands of them had already been ‘evacuated’ by the Gestapo and the Latvian Police.
“‘Evacuated’ was the local expression for the annihilation of these people.
“All Jews were registered. When a new lot was to be evacuated it happened in the following way:
“The Latvian Police fetched the Jews out of their houses, put them on lorries and drove them to the Naval Port about six to seven kilometers outside the town. Later on these people had to march and were not taken there in lorries.
“In the Naval Port these people were then shot with machine guns. This was done by the Gestapo and the Latvian Police. The police, of course, got their orders from the German Gestapo.
“I personally did not witness these incidents, but comrades told me all about them.
“Some of the Jews before they were shot worked for the Navy.
“About 80-100 people worked in the Clothing Depot every day.
“About 100-150 people worked in the Garrison Administration every day.
“About 50 people worked in the Garrison Building Office (Navy) every day.
“Through these contacts and through personal visits to the houses of Jews I heard a lot regarding the terrible happenings in Libau during these months.
“I personally went to my superior, Festungs-Intendant Dr. Lancelle, and before that I also went to another superior, the officer in charge of the Hospital Administration, named Müller, both were Naval Administration Officials. I pointed out to them these abuses which have already been described. The answer I got was that they could not do anything and that things like that were best overlooked.
“The Marineverwaltungsassistent Kurt Traunecker accompanied a consignment of clothing from Kiel to Libau. He stayed a few weeks in Libau and he expressed his displeasure at the conditions there regarding the annihilation of the Jews.
“He then went back to Kiel to the local clothing office. There again he expressed his displeasure and was ordered to appear at the Naval Administration Headquarters (Marine-Intendantur). Whom he saw there, I do not know, but it was made clear to him that these occurrences were not true, and therefore he should not talk about them any more, otherwise he would get into most serious trouble.
“My personal opinion is that the higher offices of the Navy in Kiel and in other places in Germany must have had knowledge of these terrible conditions.”
Are you saying, Defendant, that with your naval detachments on the East coast of the Baltic and with these things happening, that nobody reported to you that the Jews were being slaughtered by the thousands in the Eastern Territories, you are still saying it?
RAEDER: Yes, I knew nothing about it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What was your staff doing, if they were not telling you about this? Had you an efficient staff? Do you say you had an efficient staff?
RAEDER: That is a question which is not relevant here. Of course I had only efficient officers around me. But here we are dealing with things which were not done at all by the Navy. It says here in all places that it was the police and so on. I even was in Libau once and I was told—and this is the only thing in connection with this matter—that the peculiar thing was that the Jews in Libau, contrary to their custom, were craftsmen and therefore they were doing useful work there. That was the only thing I heard about it. As regards any extermination...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: When were you in Libau?
RAEDER: I cannot say that now. It was after it was occupied, probably immediately afterwards.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Were you there in 1941 or 1942?
RAEDER: I said just now that I do not know exactly when; I have to look it up somewhere. It does not say here that anything was reported, only that it was apparently discussed in the Navy Headquarters and with the Navy Quartermaster (Marine-Intendantur), who does not report to me. Of course I would have intervened if I had heard about such happenings.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You think you would? Well, I’ll leave that. Now, tell me about the Commando Order of the 18th of October 1942. You received Hitler’s Commando Order and passed it on to your various divisions of the Navy, did you not?
RAEDER: Yes, I passed it on through the Naval Operations Staff.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you approve of it?
RAEDER: I did not recommend it, but I passed it on. I have to make a statement if you want to know what I thought about it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, that’s not what I’m asking you. I’m asking you—first answer my question—did you approve of an order to shoot Commandos or to hand them over to the SD to be shot, did you?
RAEDER: I did not recommend the order, but I received it as drafted by the Führer, and as it came into my hands, I passed it on as ordered with the same remark as to how far it has to be passed on and how it has to be returned. It was all ordered by Hitler in detail. It was decisive for me that in one of the first paragraphs the reason for this order was given, and the reasons why Hitler considered a deviation from international law justified. Moreover, a short time before I had been in Dieppe in France, and there I was informed that on the occasion of the Commando action of the British in France, the prisoners, I believe they were from the Labor Service, who were working along the coast, had been shackled with a noose around their neck and the other end of the noose around the bent-back lower leg, so that when the leg weakened, the noose tightened and the man choked.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, will you answer my question: Did you approve of the order or not? You haven’t answered it yet. Did you approve of the order?
RAEDER: I always said—yes, I did—no, I do not want to say—I said that twice already. I passed it on because it was an order from my Commander-in-Chief. Moreover, in one of the last paragraphs it said that that order should not be applied for the treatment of prisoners taken after a naval action or after large scale landing operations and I, as well as many others in the Navy, concentrated our attention on this point because that was our main activity. But I saw no reason to raise objections to the Führer on account of this order which I thought justified in this way. And I would like to state very clearly that I, as a soldier, was not in a position to go to my Supreme Commander and Chief of State to tell him, “Show me your reasons for this order,” that would have been mutiny and could not have been done under any circumstances.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, do you remember that one example which we have discussed a great deal in this Trial, which you must have listened to, was the case of naval men coming in with a two-man torpedo, trying to sink the Tirpitz. Do you remember that case? Surely you can answer that “yes” or “no,” because either you remember or you do not. We have discussed it about six times.
RAEDER: Yes, I remember. If I remember I will say “yes.” The contrary does not have to be assumed at all.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you know that during the time that you were Inspector General, or Admiral Inspector of the German Navy, that there was started a “Kommando der Kleinkampfverbände,” under Vice Admiral Helmut Heye, which included in its command one-man torpedoes, one-man U-boats, explosive motor boats, and had personnel, starting at about 5,000 and rising, I think, as far as 16,000? Did you know that there was that Kommando in the Navy, “Kommando der Kleinkampfverbände”? Did you know that?
RAEDER: Yes, I knew that of course and that it operated quite openly on the French coast and later on, I believe, also on the North coast.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would you have approved if the Allies had shot any one of your thousands of personnel in that Kommando that was dealing with one-man and two-man torpedoes and explosive motor boats? Would you have approved if we had shot them out of hand?
RAEDER: First, I cannot give any information about what I would have done in a particular case with which I had nothing to do any more. Secondly, here it is...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: All right, if you don’t want to answer, it is good enough for me. I will point it out in due course to the Tribunal with...
RAEDER: But you interrupted me again. I should like to make a second point after what I said first. Secondly, these units fought quite openly, just below the coast, and had no civilians on board and also no murderous instruments or instruments for sabotage with them, so they were fighters just like the fighters in a submarine. I know...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is exactly the point that I have put with our Commandos, so I will not argue.
I want to pass to one other point. Was it under your orders that the log on the Athenia was falsified? Was it by your direct order?
RAEDER: No, not at all. I have explained the other day here that my order was, “First: absolute secrecy upon the order of the Führer. Secondly: politically it will be dealt with by the High Command of the Navy. Thirdly”—there was a third point—I will find it in a second—“I do not intend to punish the commander because he acted in good faith and committed an error.” That is what I ordered. I did not order anything further concerning that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, do you know under whose orders the log was falsified? I am very anxious to know. The log was falsified. I have asked the Defendant Dönitz. He cannot tell me. He has put in an affidavit that the matter was to be left to you, and now I am asking you whether you can tell me. I think the commander is dead, as far as I remember, so he cannot tell me. Do you say that you cannot tell me under whose orders the log of the Submarine U-30, that sank the Athenia, was falsified?
RAEDER: I have already said that I had nothing to do with it, because in fact I did not have anything to do with such details. I did not order such details. The other day—I do not know whether Admiral Wagner said it—it was discussed who did it. I assumed that it was within the flotilla.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Tell me just this about the Athenia. You told us the other day that you gave these orders, and then washed your hands of the matter. Nearly a month later...
RAEDER: I have already said I had nothing further to do with it, for you know...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You had nothing to do with it. Nearly a month later the Propaganda Ministry put out this suggestion, I think you said on Hitler’s orders—that the Athenia had been sunk by Churchill. Did you not feel that it was your duty as Grand Admiral and head of the German Navy to make any protests against this disgraceful, lying suggestion, that the First Lord of the British Admiralty had deliberately sent to their deaths a lot of British and American subjects? Did you not think it was your duty to do that?
RAEDER: I spoke to Hitler about it—but it had happened without our having any idea about it. I was extremely embarrassed about it when the First Lord of the Admiralty was attacked in that, one can say, boorish manner but I could not change anything subsequently and Hitler did not admit that he...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So you did not bother about that, as I understand it, you didn’t bother at all...
RAEDER: Yes, I had misgivings about it, and I was very indignant about it. Please do not keep twisting what I say...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you translate your indignation into actions? That is what I am asking.
RAEDER: Into what kind of action?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Any action.
RAEDER: Yes, that Hitler should get Goebbels to contradict that article? That Hitler would not do if he himself had been the author of the article.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I just want to get it clear. You did nothing when you knew that Von Blomberg and Von Fritsch, who were old friends and comrades of yours, had been framed up by sections of these Nazi plotters; you did nothing about that? You did nothing to protest against the treatment meted out to Von Blomberg or Von Fritsch? You did nothing, did you?
RAEDER: No, but at that time I did not know anything about the background, as you yourself said this morning. I knew nothing about the background. Later when I became acquainted with the details I gradually put the whole picture together. At that time I was not in a position to assume that such methods would be at all possible.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I put to you your own statement that you made a year ago. I just want to get it quite clear that the first time in your life that you were moved to protest was, I think, in March 1945, when you saw the actual marks of torture on the hands of your friend, Herr Gessler, and at that time the Soviet troops were over the Oder and the Allies were over the Rhine, and that was the first time that you made any protest when you took off your Party Golden Emblem, wasn’t it? That was the first protest you ever made in your naval, military, political career; is that right?
RAEDER: Not a bit of it. I did not really know what was going on.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well then—I put it again. In March 1945 you took off the Party Golden Emblem when you saw the marks of torture on your friend Gessler’s hands. Isn’t that right?
RAEDER: When Dr. Gessler, who in spite of my objections had been kept for several months in a concentration camp, returned from the concentration camp and informed me that he was in extremely pitiful condition, and that in spite of my request in August, when he was sent to the concentration camp and when I had asked the Führer through Admiral Wagner for Dr. Gessler to be questioned quickly because he was certainly innocent in connection with the assassination attempt, so that he could be released as soon as possible, then...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, my question is, was it then that you took off the Party Emblem. You can answer that. You can give your explanation later.
RAEDER: Yes, but wait a moment.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But up to then you did not make any protest against anything that Hitler did, except the purely military one on the invasion of the Soviet Union?
RAEDER: I always made serious protests, and that I have proved here, and the adjutant, General Schmundt, told me, “You will be most successful if you try to influence the Führer personally when you are alone with him and tell him quite openly what you think.” This is important enough to mention and I must say it.
Well, Dr. Gessler came back from the concentration camp and told me that during his first interrogation—at that time I had not yet had a chance to intervene—he had been tortured. That was the first time that I heard that anywhere in Germany anybody was tortured. There is a letter from Dr. Gessler about that—that I told him immediately, “I am going to the Führer at once to tell him about this because I cannot imagine that he knows about that.” Gessler begged me—when he confirmed that letter—for goodness sake not to go to the Führer then, because that would endanger his, Gessler’s, life. I said I would answer for it that nothing would happen to him, and that I would still try to approach the Führer.
During the whole of the ensuing period I attempted to approach the Führer, who was not at headquarters. When I was informed in April that he was in Berlin, which was already under heavy attack, I tried to approach the Führer day after day by calling Admiral Voss over the telephone. That was no longer possible, and after I received that information the first thing I did was that I went, together with my wife, to the lake which was behind our house and tore off my Party Emblem and threw it into the lake. I told that to Admiral Voss but unfortunately I could not tell it to the Führer any more. That can be seen from the letter which Dr. Gessler wrote, and we would have liked to have him as a witness, but his state of health did not permit it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was your first protest.
RAEDER: It was not my first protest. That is twisting my words.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other cross-examination?
COL. POKROVSKY: On 18 May 1946, during the morning session of the Tribunal you testified that during your service as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy you twice made application to resign. The first time you tried to resign was in November 1938 when you were dealing with the building up of the Navy, and Hitler was not pleased with your plans, and the second time was when Hitler, without your knowledge, permitted his adjutant who was a naval officer to marry a certain young girl. Is that not so?
RAEDER: Yes, but I put in further applications for resignation which were not so sensational, once in 1937, and I believe even in 1935, when I was not in good health. But these were two typical examples which show how such things came about.
COL. POKROVSKY: I understood that in the first of these two cases Hitler finally persuaded you not to resign.
RAEDER: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: And in the second case, he complied with your wish but he never forgot it.
RAEDER: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: In fact, you resigned only in January 1943, is that not so?
RAEDER: In actual fact, yes. But I must add that during the war I felt I could not leave the Navy, which was already in such a difficult situation, and I believed I enjoyed its confidence to a certain extent so that I could be useful.
COL. POKROVSKY: On the morning of 18 May you said here in the Court in regard to your resignation, that it seemed to you then that Hitler, at that particular moment, wanted to get rid of you. Is that so?
RAEDER: At that moment I had the impression, when he made such serious accusations and when he considerably contradicted his previous judgments, that maybe he wanted to get rid of me, and I therefore considered that that was a particularly favorable moment to leave.
COL. POKROVSKY: The question of successors was solved by your naming a few people to Hitler.
RAEDER: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: And among them was the Defendant Dönitz. Did you mention his name?
RAEDER: Yes. I mentioned his name. I informed the Führer of that in writing, first Carls, second, in case he wanted to concentrate on submarine warfare, Grossadmiral Dönitz, who was the highest authority in that field.
COL. POKROVSKY: And does it not seem to you, after your answer to my questions, that the answer which you gave to Dr. Laternser on 18 May, when you mentioned the absolute impossibility of resigning from the general staff, was not a proper answer? It was possible to resign, was it not?
RAEDER: Yes, but in this case, of course, there were two prerequisites. The first was that Hitler himself did not like me any more and I knew it, so that it would not be insubordination if I threw up my post for some reason or other.
Secondly, because it was possible, as I pointed out in that conversation, for the change to take place under peaceful conditions so that the Navy would not suffer by it. If I had left because of a quarrel, then that would have had a very bad effect on the Navy because it might have meant a certain split between the Navy and Hitler, and I had particularly to preserve unity, at that critical moment of the war.
COL. POKROVSKY: I would like you to understand my question correctly.
RAEDER: Yes, I understand...
COL. POKROVSKY: I am not asking you about the prerequisites which might have been required for granting an application for resignation. I am asking you a question in principle:
Was it possible or was it not possible to resign? After all, you did resign. You resigned from your post as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy.
RAEDER: Yes, but I had been in the service for 15 years, and I could tell him, “If that is the way you yourself judge me, then there is no sense in your continuing to work with me.” That was a favorable opportunity which made it permissible for me to ask him to release me. But what one could not do was to throw up the job and give the impression of being insubordinate. That had to be avoided at all costs, I would never have done that. I was too much of a soldier for that.
COL. POKROVSKY: I have already heard what I wanted to hear from you in reply to my question.
Now, I will pass on to the next question. You maintain that all the time you were striving towards normalizing relations with the Soviet Union, is that correct?
RAEDER: I am sorry; I could not understand what you said.
COL. POKROVSKY: You maintain that during your service you always strove to make the relations between Germany and the Soviet Union quite normal, is that not so?
RAEDER: I was always in favor of the Bismarck policy, that we should have a common policy with Russia.
COL. POKROVSKY: If I understood your testimony correctly the day before yesterday and on Friday, in 1940, already, you had knowledge of the fact that Hitler intended to attack the Soviet Union.
RAEDER: In September 1940 for the first time I heard certain statements from Hitler himself that he was thinking of a war with Russia, given certain circumstances. Even in the directive he mentioned one of these prerequisites, one of these circumstances. He did not say to me at that time that in any circumstances he wanted to wage war, but that we had to be prepared, as it says in Paragraph 1, that before crushing England we might have to fight against Russia. And from September on I began to make objections to him.
COL. POKROVSKY: Was there not a case of an incident when you maintained that the explanations which had been given by official governmental organs or agencies for an attack on the Soviet Union gave you and the others the impression that it was a deliberate propaganda, and in fact they were quite repulsive in their effect? Do you remember that?
RAEDER: The propaganda made by Hitler made an impression? I did not quite get it...
COL. POKROVSKY: I believe that you once expressed in writing the view that the OKW and the Foreign Ministry explained to the German people the reasons for attacking the Soviet Union in such a way as to give the impression that it was deliberate propaganda, and the total effect was repulsive. Do you not remember it?
RAEDER: Oh, you mean the broadcasts emanating from the Foreign Office when the war started? Yes, that was Hitler’s propaganda to make the German people understand the reason for this war. That is right. As regards breaking the Pact...
COL. POKROVSKY: I would like you to take a look at one document. This is a document written by you, and I would like you to tell us whether this document contains the precise subject matter of my question.
RAEDER: Where is it?
COL. POKROVSKY: “The propagandistic...”
RAEDER: “The propagandistic”—shall I read it?
“The propagandistic, political and military announcements given out at the beginning of the war by the Foreign Office and the High Command of the Armed Forces, which were to justify the breaking of the Pact because of breaches by the Soviet Union, found very little credence among the people as well as among the Armed Forces. They showed too clearly that they were propaganda for a certain purpose and had a repulsive effect.” (USSR-460.)
I know that at that time Hitler himself drafted these documents, together with Goebbels.
COL. POKROVSKY: In connection with this question I have another question for you. Am I to understand you in this way; that your divergence of opinion with Hitler over foreign policy, and in particular in regard to aggressive wars, was less strongly defined than your difference of opinion about the question of the marriage of a naval officer with a certain girl? Did you understand me?
RAEDER: No, they were two quite different things. Those were military questions where the political decisions remained with the Führer. I was very insistent about the moral issues also, where they concerned the Pact, but I did not send him any written ultimatum because in this matter it would have been unsoldierly. I did not have the final decision, he had it; whereas in the case of Albrecht, it was up to me to decide—to say yes or no—and not to sign that which I was supposed to sign.
COL. POKROVSKY: You are saying now that this is a question of morals. Does it not seem to you that an unprovoked attack on a country with which Germany had a nonaggression treaty—do you not think that such a question is always connected with the question of morals?
RAEDER: Of course; that is what I said myself, that in this case too I laid special stress on the moral issue. But in spite of that, as the highest man of the Navy, I was not in a position to hold out the threat of resignation at that moment. I was too much of a soldier to be able to do that, to be able to leave the Navy at a moment like that.
COL. POKROVSKY: In answer to questions put to you by your counsel here in this courtroom you testified that your speech, which was delivered by you on 12 March 1939—that is Page 169 of the Russian text in the Raeder document book, My Lord—the speech where you praised Hitler and Hitler’s policies—you mentioned that this speech was not in accord with your true opinion. Is it so or is it not?
RAEDER: No, that is not correct. I said that we had had the experience that the Communists and Jews, from 1917 to 1920, had strongly undermined our power of resistance, and that for this reason it could be understood, if a National Socialist government took certain measures against both of them in order to stem their influence, which was excessive. That was the sense of my statements and I made absolutely no mention of any further steps which might come into question.
COL. POKROVSKY: In short, you are saying now that when you delivered that speech on 12 March 1939, that this speech was fully in accord with your ideas and your views. Is that correct?
RAEDER: Yes, it was, or I would not have made it. It was in accord insofar as I had to recognize that the National Socialist Government had in some way to stem that influence which was generally recognized to be excessive, and as I said yesterday, the National Socialist Government had issued the Nuremberg Laws, which I did not entirely approve of where they went to extremes. But if the Government was so disposed, it was not possible for me in an official public speech, which I gave on the orders of that Government, to express my personal views which were different. That had to be considered within this address to the nation.