Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremburg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946, Volume 14 (part 2 of 3)

Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremburg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946, Volume 14 (part 2 of 3)

THE PRESIDENT: Will you be able to finish in a very few moments? It is now five minutes past five.

COL. POKROVSKY: I think, My Lord, that only about 10 minutes will be sufficient for me. I have only about three or four more questions left.

THE PRESIDENT: All right.

COL. POKROVSKY: [Turning to the defendant.] In order to save time I am not going to argue with you in regard to the motives which made you deliver the speech. It was important for me that you should confirm what you said, and that is, that this speech was in accord with your views and ideas. Now I will pass on to the next question.

On 29 September 1941, your Chief of Staff, Admiral Fricke—do I pronounce his name correctly? Is it Fricke or Fricker?

RAEDER: Fricke, yes, Chief of the Staff of the Naval Operations Staff.

COL. POKROVSKY: Admiral Fricke published a directive in regard to the future fate of Leningrad. Do you know what document I mean, or must this document be shown to you?

RAEDER: No. I know that document very well.

COL. POKROVSKY: This directive was published with your consent?

RAEDER: I did not give a specific order for it because there was no necessity for passing it on. May I just explain briefly how it was. I had...

COL. POKROVSKY: Yes, and I would like you to be brief.

RAEDER: Quite briefly, yes. I had requested Hitler when I heard that he intended in the course of the war to bombard Leningrad, that he should spare the port and dock installations because they would be useful for us later, as we had to keep moving our bases back to the East on account of the British air attacks in the Baltic. Shortly before the date which you have mentioned Admiral Fricke had been at the Führer’s headquarters—I do not know for what reason—and had there spoken with the Führer in my absence, and the Führer had explained to him that plan to bombard Leningrad, especially with aircraft, and he used those very exaggerated words which were then written down in the document. The Navy had absolutely nothing to do with the shelling of Leningrad. We received no orders for that. We were only interested in that one thing which I mentioned before, that the shipyards and port installations should be spared. The Führer had informed Fricke that unfortunately he was not in a position to do that because the attack, especially if made with aircraft, could not be directed quite so precisely. All we could do was to inform Generaladmiral Carls that Leningrad, in case it should be taken, could not be used as a base, and Generaladmiral Carls had to stop the preparations which he had already begun by allocating German workers and probably also machinery which was intended to be used in Leningrad later on. Carls had to know of that and, as the document says, the so-called Quartermaster Department of the Navy had to know about it, and that was why Admiral Fricke passed on that paper. Unfortunately he included in this paper the expressions used by Hitler, which had nothing to do with the whole affair as far as we were concerned, because we had nothing to do with the shelling. By so doing he did not assume in any way the responsibility, in the sense that he approved it. He only believed that he had to pass on Hitler’s wording of the order.

The Navy had nothing to do with the matter. It would not have been necessary to pass it on, and unfortunately and very clumsily that expression used by Hitler was entered in that document. However, nothing happened and that document was not passed on from Generaladmiral Carls to our Finland Commander. That is the whole story.

COL. POKROVSKY: It seems to me the question is becoming more complicated. I asked you a simple question. Your Chief of Staff, Chief of Operations, published a directive. Did you know about the directive?

RAEDER: No. That is not a directive—that can be seen also from the photostat—because the letter had not been submitted to me for passing on, and that shows that it was not considered to be very important. It was not a directive to undertake any operation or anything important. It was just a directive to stop anything that might have been done with regard to bases; so that really nothing happened. Thus, when that document was passed on by Admiral Fricke, nothing happened at all. It was quite superfluous.

COL. POKROVSKY: You are talking about the destruction of one of the biggest cities of the Soviet Union. You are talking in this document about razing the city to the ground, and you maintain now that it is a more or less trifling question, that this question was not important enough to be reported to you, as Fricke’s Chief? Do you want us to believe that?

RAEDER: Of course. It is not a question of the shelling of Leningrad, with which we had nothing to do at all. It was the minor question which concerned us, the question as to whether we would later be able to establish a naval base there, and whether we could bring workers and machines and such things to Leningrad. That was a minor issue. The shelling of Leningrad was a major issue.

COL. POKROVSKY: I think that the Tribunal will be able to understand you correctly and to draw the necessary conclusions, both from this document and from your testimony.

Now, I have one last question for you. On 28 August 1945, in Moscow, did you not write an affidavit as to the reasons for Germany’s defeat?

RAEDER: Yes, I took special pains with that after the collapse.

COL. POKROVSKY: My Lord, we submit this document to the Tribunal in the form of excerpts, Document Number USSR-460. In order to save time I would like you to hear several excerpts from this affidavit.

[Turning to the defendant.] You will be shown where they can be found on the original, and you can say whether it was correctly read into the record and whether you acknowledge and confirm it.

“My Attitude Towards Adolf Hitler and the Party. Disastrous influence on the fate of the German State...”

Did you find this place?

RAEDER: Yes, I have it.

COL. POKROVSKY: “Unimaginable vanity and immeasurable...”

DR. SIEMERS: Would you be kind enough to give me a copy so that I can follow?

COL. POKROVSKY: “Unimaginable vanity and immeasurable ambition were his main peculiarities; running after popularity and showing off, untruthfulness, vagueness, and selfishness, which were not restrained for the sake of State or People. He was outstanding in his greed, wastefulness, and effeminate unsoldierly manner.”

Then, a little further on:

“It is my conviction that Hitler very soon realized his character, but made use of him where it suited his purpose, and burdened him perpetually with new tasks in order to avoid his becoming dangerous to himself.”

On Page 24 of your document you give another characteristic:

“The Führer continued to attach importance to the fact that from the outside his relations to me seemed normal and good. He knew I was well thought of in all the really respectable circles of the German people, and that in general everybody had great faith in me. This cannot be said of Göring, Von Ribbentrop, Dr. Goebbels, Himmler and Dr. Ley.”

Now I will ask you to find Page 27.

RAEDER: But there is something missing. “In the same way, as for instance, Baron Von Neurath, Count Schwerin von Krosigk, Schacht, Dorpmüller and others,” who were on the other side.

COL. POKROVSKY: Evidently it was not correctly translated to you. I will read this passage into the record. Now, on Page 27, this place is underlined in red pencil: “Dönitz’ strong political inclination to the Party...”

THE PRESIDENT: [Interposing.] I think the Tribunal could read this themselves if the defendant says that it is true that he wrote it. Probably Dr. Siemers could check it over and see that there are no inaccuracies.

COL. POKROVSKY: Very well, My Lord. Then I shall have the opportunity to put a very brief question.

[Turning to the defendant.] I will ask you to take a look at a place on Page 29, which is marked with pencil, where the paragraph deals with Field Marshal Keitel and General Jodl.

Will you confirm that?

RAEDER: What am I supposed to do? Yes, well...

COL. POKROVSKY: I am asking you with regard to everything that I read into the record and what you say just now in this paragraph. I would like to have an answer from you. Do you confirm all that?

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I quite agree with the suggestion by the Tribunal. However, I should like to ask that the entire document be submitted. I have only short excerpts before me, and I would be grateful if I could see the entire document. I assume that Colonel Pokrovsky agrees to that.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, Dr. Siemers, one part of the document having been put in evidence, you can refer to the remainder of the document. You can put the remainder of the document in, if you want to.

RAEDER: I said that at the time I tried to find an explanation for the cause of our collapse.

COL. POKROVSKY: First, I ask you to give the answer, yes or no.

RAEDER: Yes. On the whole, I agree entirely with this judgment. But I should like to add that I wrote those things under entirely different conditions. I do not wish to go into details, and I never expected that that would ever become public. These were notes for myself to help me form my judgment later on. I also want to ask especially that what I said about Generaloberst Jodl should also be read into the record, or where it belongs, that is, right after the statement about Field Marshal Keitel. With regard to Field Marshal Keitel, I should like to emphasize that I intended to convey that it was his manner towards the Führer which made it possible for him to get along with him for a long time, because if anybody else had been in that position, who had a quarrel with the Führer every day or every other day, then the work of the whole of the Armed Forces would have been impossible.

That is the reason and the explanation of what I wanted to express by that statement.

COL. POKROVSKY: The Soviet Prosecution has no further questions to ask the defendant.

THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, have you got the whole document before you? Was that the original document you had before you?

RAEDER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: In your writing?

RAEDER: No, it is typewritten. But it is signed by me.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the document can be handed to Dr. Siemers.

Dr. Siemers, do you want to re-examine beyond putting in that document? Have you any questions you want to ask in addition to putting in that document?

DR. SIEMERS: Yes, on account of the cross-examination made by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, I should like to re-examine, and I should like to ask for permission to do that after I have read this document, so that I can also cover the document tomorrow in this connection.

MR. DODD: Mr. President, the thought occurs to me with respect to this document—do I understand that the Tribunal will order copies to be distributed to all of the Defense Counsel? There are matters with respect to the defendants on which the Counsel might want to examine. They might be surprised.

THE PRESIDENT: I thought it was fair that Dr. Siemers should see the document.

MR. DODD: Yes. I have no objection to that. But my point is, that in the document there is reference to defendants other than the defendant represented by Dr. Siemers. And at a later date, if this document is not made known to the others by the reading of it or by the turning over to them in translated form, they may claim surprise, and lack of opportunity to examine on it.

THE PRESIDENT: I think some photostatic copies of the document should be made so that all the defendants referred to therein may be acquainted with the terms of the document.

MR. DODD: I just thought I would make that suggestion.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 21 May 1946 at 1000 hours.]

ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FIFTH DAY Tuesday, 21 May 1946

Morning Session

[The Defendant Raeder resumed the stand.]

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, with reference to your examination yesterday, I have to put the following questions to you in re-examination. Sir David was talking about the fact that before 1933 you had carried out rearmament behind the backs of the law-making bodies. I think that question, as such, has been clarified; but there is one supplementary question. On whom did it depend just what was submitted to the Reichstag?

RAEDER: On the Reichswehrminister.

DR. SIEMERS: And who was the Reichswehrminister at that time?

RAEDER: He was a member of the government and my direct superior. I had to submit everything to him which I wished to get.

DR. SIEMERS: And his name was Gröner, wasn’t it?

RAEDER: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: May I draw the Tribunal’s attention to the extract from the Constitution which I have recently submitted as Exhibit Number Raeder-3, according to which Article 50 lays down that the Reich President gives all orders and decrees even where the Armed Forces are concerned. For their validity decrees require to be countersigned by the Chancellor or the Minister concerned. By the act of countersigning responsibility is accepted. In this, our case, the Reichswehrminister was the competent Reich Minister; and anything that was done afterwards with reference to the law-making bodies was a matter for the government to decide.

[Turning to the defendant.] Sir David has submitted to you Document C-17. It is the index of a book written by Colonel Scherff, called The History of the German Navy from 1919 to 1939. Was this book ever written?

RAEDER: As far as I know, only the index was compiled. I assume that if anything had been written, then it would have been submitted to me a long time ago, but I never heard of that at all.

DR. SIEMERS: May I remind the Tribunal that the American Prosecution, at the time when they submitted the document, pointed out that as far as they knew the book was not written.

[Turning to the defendant.] I believe that it is very difficult to base accusations on an index, but I want you to tell me, Defendant, when did you learn of this index?

RAEDER: It became known to me during my first interrogation by an American prosecutor.

DR. SIEMERS: Furthermore, Document D-854, which is GB-460, was put to you yesterday. May I come back to one question put by Sir David. On Page 1 Sir David had been reading as follows:

“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....”

Then Sir David asked you: “Do you want to say that this is untrue?” You answered but you did not quite finish your reply, at least it never became quite clear what you said in the German or the English record. I want you to tell me why you are of the opinion that Assmann was not quite right in this respect?

RAEDER: It is an utter exaggeration. First of all, violations—as have been proved here in detail—were mostly of a very minor nature; and only the number of deviations may have given the impression that there were many violations. Secondly, in its essential points, we never actually filled the quotas allowed by the Versailles Treaty; in fact, we remained below the figures granted. Besides, only defense measures are involved, very primitive defense measures—Assmann’s representations are just a great exaggeration.

DR. SIEMERS: What you are trying to say, therefore, is that Assmann’s way of putting it “in practically every sphere of rearmament” is wrong?

RAEDER: Yes, probably Document C-32 will have led him to that conclusion because there were so many points. However, on closer examination they turn out to be very minor points.

DR. SIEMERS: With regard to the important points of rearmament, that is to say construction of large ships, the Navy did not violate the Treaty, did it?

RAEDER: No, no.

DR. SIEMERS: By repeating it three times, Sir David emphasized the fact that you had a great deal of confidence in Assmann. I have nothing to say against it, but beyond that I would like to put a supplementary question to you: Did you have that much confidence in him, that in your opinion Assmann could pass a proper legal judgment? Was he a lawyer?

RAEDER: No. Assmann was a naval officer who was not used at the front any more. He was a very clever writer who had written a few volumes about the first World War. He wrote very well, but even the volumes on the naval warfare during the first World War were corrected a great deal by the persons concerned; but against him and his ability to write history nothing can be said.

DR. SIEMERS: I think you remember this document from yesterday. Is it a final historical work? Is it a final and corrected edition?

RAEDER: No. So far as I know, he had not got that far. He was making summaries and extracts from war diaries and records.

DR. SIEMERS: Assmann has written (Document D-854, GB-460):

“If, in this light, there were plans for ‘preparing the construction’ in 1935 of twelve 275-ton submarines, six 550-ton submarines, and four 900-ton submarines, then one will have to consider the strategic points of view valid at that time.”

Added together 22 were planned, and for the following year 14 submarines—by no means built, just planned. Are these figures correct in your opinion?

RAEDER: They are correct in my opinion. The only thing I am not sure about is the 900-ton type; I cannot quite explain that. I cannot remember that at that time we were building 900-ton boats. Apart from the 250-ton type, our first types were 550-tons, and only then did the 740-ton boats come. Perhaps he is thinking of those when he says 900-tons. We did not actually build 900-ton boats.

DR. SIEMERS: On Page 158, Sir David has read to you the following sentence, which I want to repeat because it needs clarification.

“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 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 constructed.”

I want to remind you that in the original there is the Note Number 6 referring to a letter of the Chief of the Naval Budget Department...

RAEDER: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: ...from the year 1942, presumably containing statistics on the construction of submarines as the years went by. I believe that these figures need to be clarified.

According to material at my disposal, it appears that these 55 U-boats were in accordance with the London Agreement; that is to say, in accordance with the 45 percent agreed on in 1935. You probably have not got the exact figure in mind, but is that roughly correct?

RAEDER: Yes, that is probably right.

DR. SIEMERS: And now, the Figure 118. That, according to material at my disposal, is also well-founded. That is the figure which corresponds to the 100 percent equality in regard to the tonnage of submarines. If we had 118 submarines, then our submarine equipment corresponded to that of Britain at that time. Is that so?

RAEDER: Yes, it is correct; and it is also correct that we included these later boats in the budget and had ordered them after we had seen Admiral Cunningham and his staff in Berlin on 30 December and had reached a friendly understanding in accordance with the agreement, allowing us to build 100 percent. The remark read at the beginning, saying that we had committed most violations in this sphere, is a complete untruth. Until the beginning of the war we only built such U-boats as we were allowed to build; that is to say, first 45 percent and later 100 percent. It was a great mistake, of course, that we did it.

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, you have just said that it was a complete untruth. I think that, even if Sir David used that word against you, one ought not to pass such sharp judgment against Assmann. Do you not think, Admiral, that there was possibly a legal error on his part when...

RAEDER: Yes, that may be.

DR. SIEMERS: ...he wrote these details and that he was not really thinking of what you have just told us had happened; namely, that in 1938 there had been an agreement between England and Germany, according to which Germany could now build 100 percent?

RAEDER: That is quite probable. When I said “untruth,” I meant incorrectness.

DR. SIEMERS: May I remind the Tribunal that in the Naval Agreement of 1935, 100 percent was planned from the beginning and that Germany at first renounced that but had the right at any time to increase to 100 percent, provided that Great Britain was notified. The notification is presumably what you described, Witness; that is the negotiation with Admiral Cunningham?

RAEDER: Yes, that was on 30 December 1938, or it may have been 31 December.

THE PRESIDENT: Is the defendant saying that there was a notification to Admiral Cunningham on the 30th of December 1938? Is that what you said; that there was notification to Admiral Cunningham on the 30th of December 1938?

RAEDER: Admiral Cunningham came to Berlin, to this friendly negotiation which had been provided for in the agreement. On that 30 December we arranged with him that from now on, instead of 45 percent, 100 percent would be built.

THE PRESIDENT: Was that an oral arrangement or a written one?

RAEDER: It was a conference between the Chief of Staff of the Naval Operations Staff and Admiral Cunningham, and certain other individuals, but I cannot remember the details. However, I am pretty certain that minutes were taken.

THE PRESIDENT: Go on.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, unfortunately, I have not been able to trace any written evidence. I only know from Exhibit Number Raeder-11, that is the agreement of 1935, that Germany could increase the tonnage, and the agreement of ’37, that Germany had the duty to give notification. Generally, notification is only in writing in diplomatic relations, although, in my opinion, it was not necessarily a duty in this case. Negotiations, as the witness said, did take place.

RAEDER: May I, perhaps, add that apart from the submarine problem, the question of two heavy cruisers, which we had originally dropped, was also settled. We only wanted to build three for the time being; and now we were asking for assent to build the other two, to which we were entitled. That was also agreed upon in accordance with the agreement.

DR. SIEMERS: Document C-140 was put before you yesterday; it is USA-51. You will find it in the British Document Book 10a on Page 104. I want to put one sentence from that document to you again, which has not been quoted by the Prosecution, neither in November nor yesterday. It appears under Figure 2-c. There is the following statement—I want to add that this is the question of sanctions and the possible preparation of a defense against sanctions in 1935. I quote from 2-c: “For the time being I prohibit any practical preparations.”

Witness, I want to ask you...

THE PRESIDENT: That is not 10a, 104.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. Elwyn Jones has just been kind enough to point out to me the English translation. It appears from it that—as I have also the English translation before me—that there are two documents C-140; one has one page and the other has two. One has not got a heading and is dated, Berlin, 25 October 1933. In my opinion it is the document...

THE PRESIDENT: That is the one on Page 104?

DR. SIEMERS: No, on Page 104 there is, as I just heard from Major Elwyn Jones, the other document, C-140, which has the heading, “Directive for the Armed Forces in Case of Sanctions.”

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and the date of it is 25 January 1933?

DR. SIEMERS: 25 October 1935, but that is a clerical error. It is 1933.

MAJOR F. ELWYN JONES (Junior Counsel for the United Kingdom): There appears to be another document which is not in the document book.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, perhaps I may point out that the Document C-140, USA-51, presented by the Prosecution, must be the one I have referred to, because it tallies with the record; I mean the record of the session of 27 November. That is the document to which I have just now referred.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it C-140 or C-141?

DR. SIEMERS: C-140, the same number, and that is the same as USA-51.

Mr. President, perhaps to simplify matters, I may later, after today’s session or tomorrow submit the Document C-140 in the, here presented, English and German text.

THE PRESIDENT: Read the document now and you can settle with Mr. Elwyn Jones about the proper notation of the document, whether it should be C-140 or whatever the exhibit number ought to be.

DR. SIEMERS: [Turning to the defendant.] In the version submitted by the Prosecution, preparation for the defense against sanctions is mentioned. I shall now read a further sentence to you, and I quote, “For the time being, I prohibit all practical preparations.” Would it be right, therefore, that in 1933 nothing whatever was prepared by you in the Navy?

RAEDER: No. Apart from the ordinary state of preparedness, nothing was allowed to be done, in accordance with this order. This was merely a precaution on the Führer’s part in order to take preparative measures in case the opponent might do something.

DR. SIEMERS: You see, the reason why I am asking you this is that yesterday in the cross-examination the preparations that you were supposed to have made in this connection were held against you.

I now come to Document C-189, which is USA-44. I beg to apologize for troubling the Tribunal in that I am asking them, if possible, to look at the document again. It is contained in Document Book Raeder 10, Page 14; and, incidentally, Sir David re-submitted it yesterday. Sir David attached great importance to the two words “against England.” There under Figure 2 it says:

“The Ob.d.M. expresses the opinion that later on the fleet must anyhow be developed against England and that, therefore, from 1936 onward, the large ships must be armed with 35 centimeter guns like those of the King George class.”

Would this mean that you were using the plans of the English for building ships of the King George class?

The only reason, therefore, why you were pointing this out was that you were considering the 35 centimeter guns used in the King George class by the British Admiralty?

RAEDER: Yes, it was the aim of every navy at that time to know as early as possible which was the largest caliber of guns being used by other navies. I said yesterday that, to start with, we had chosen as a model the French Dunkerque type, but later on we discovered that the British used up to 35.6 centimeters. Ships have to be used, if war breaks out, in their actual state; their gun caliber cannot be changed any more. Therefore we always went as high as possible.

DR. SIEMERS: Would I be right, therefore—please excuse me—if I said that the expression “against Britain” in this connection is not correct grammatically, that according to German language usage it should have said “with reference to England”?

RAEDER: Yes, it should have said “developing with regard to England.” I said yesterday that it would have been quite senseless if I were to do something against Great Britain before the conclusion of the pact.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, that was fully gone into in cross-examination, and the defendant stated his explanation of the words used.

DR. SIEMERS: From Document C-190, which is the conversation on 2 November 1934 aboard the Emden between you and Hitler, Sir David has held up to you that Hitler, in a discussion with you and Göring, said that he considered the expansion of the Navy in the planned manner an absolutely vital necessity, since war could not be conducted unless the Navy safeguarded the ore imports from Scandinavia. It was said that this would have to be understood to mean that the Navy was planned in view of a war and in view of safeguarding the ore imports, which really meant aggressive intentions. Are you of the opinion that the British Navy was not planned to safeguard imports to England or for the event of war and was not equipped accordingly?

RAEDER: No, there is not the slightest doubt about that.

DR. SIEMERS: Six submarines are mentioned in this document. Considering that figure, may I ask you to tell me the number of submarines that Germany would have needed in order to conduct an aggressive war?

RAEDER: Well, at any rate, many more than we had in October 1939, a multiple of that.

DR. SIEMERS: From a document, Mr. President, which was submitted yesterday, D-806, I want to quote, in addition to the second paragraph which has been quoted, the first paragraph and put it to the witness. It is D-806, GB-462, submitted yesterday at noon.

[Turning to the defendant.] There it says:

“1.) Reference: Submarine Construction Program. On 27 October 1936 I made decision regarding the full utilization of the still available U-boat tonnage according to the Naval Agreement of 1935 and regarding the immediate ordering of the construction of U-41 to U-51.”

Were these the rest of the submarines within the 45 percent limit to which we were entitled according to the Naval Agreement of 1935?

RAEDER: Yes, that is right, judging from the figures.

DR. SIEMERS: And then, Admiral, you have been very thoroughly questioned about Austria and Czechoslovakia. Since that subject has been gone into in detail, I shall confine myself to just one question: Did you, at any time, receive any tasks or orders of a foreign political nature from Hitler? And did he ask you for your advice especially in foreign political matters?

RAEDER: I was never asked for advice, and I had no foreign political tasks, unless you consider the duties which I had to fulfill in Bulgaria and Hungary after my resignation of a foreign political nature.

DR. SIEMERS: Regarding Czechoslovakia, that is, concerning the document about the “Rest Tschechei,” you were asked whether Hitler had aggressive intentions against Prague at that time. I think the question ought to have been whether his intentions were for an aggressive war.

In connection with that, you have been asked about Göring’s threat to bombard Prague, and you quite rightly admitted to Sir David that such a bombing would be a threat. Sir David commented on it as being near to aggressive war; but in order to be quite clear, I want you to tell the Tribunal when you learned of this planned bombing.

RAEDER: Only after the whole matter had been settled, and only by way of conversation. I heard no announcement and I knew nothing else of it beforehand.

DR. SIEMERS: So you knew nothing of it before the occupation of Prague?

RAEDER: No, because military undertakings against Prague were altogether unknown to me.

DR. SIEMERS: Then there is the Document C-100. Mr. President, it was presented yesterday under the Number GB-464.

THE PRESIDENT: 463, I’ve got it.

DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon; 463.

[Turning to the defendant.] From that document I want to quote to you from Page 10. It is Page 3 of the attached document. I want to put the following sentence to you. I quote:

“Führer asked Ob.d.M. whether there were any special wishes of the Navy with reference to bases on Dutch-Belgian coast. Ob.d.M. says no, since bases are within reach of the British coast and are therefore useless as submarine bases.”

According to this, Witness, you were not in favor of an occupation of Belgian and Dutch bases, nor did you in any way occupy yourself with this question.

RAEDER: This was always my point of view, that from the experience of the first World War Belgium and Holland, as far as the Navy was concerned, could not offer any useful bases, since all forces were under the control of the British Air Force. In the first World War serious fighting occurred between the submarines leaving their ports and destroyers stationed nearby. Therefore I declared myself not to be interested in Belgium and Holland.

DR. SIEMERS: Skipping various documents, I now come to D-843, GB-466. This is a document in which Dr. Breuer from the Oslo Embassy expresses the view that the danger of a British occupation of Norway was not really very great and that certain actions were only taken in order to provoke Germany.

I have one more question on that. Did the Embassy in Oslo, that is to say Breuer, know about the information that Admiral Canaris was supplying to you?

RAEDER: I cannot tell you that, as far as I am concerned. I was never in direct contact with Dr. Breuer, only with the naval attaché; but I must add that Dr. Breuer had only been in Oslo for a comparatively short period and that apparently he was not particularly well informed. The statements made by Norwegian Ministers were certainly not properly judged by him.

DR. SIEMERS: Was there not an order from Hitler that the Foreign Office should not be informed about probable plans concerning Norway?

RAEDER: Yes, he expressly ordered that, and it is obvious that for that reason the Reich Foreign Minister himself was informed very late.

DR. SIEMERS: In other words, as far as you can see, the ambassador could not have had Canaris’ information through military sources.

RAEDER: No, hardly.

DR. SIEMERS: Then there were several documents, D-844 and D-845. It was put to you from those that there was no danger in Scandinavia. Was the information that you received at the time different?

RAEDER: Yes. I had continual information...

THE PRESIDENT: All this was gone into yesterday, and the witness gave the same answer.

DR. SIEMERS: I believe that the following has never been mentioned before. Did you know whether as early as 5 April mines had been laid in the territorial waters off Norway?

RAEDER: The Allies had announced it on 7 April, but the actual operations must have taken place a few days earlier.

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, yesterday...

THE PRESIDENT: [Interposing] Dr. Siemers, the only purpose of re-examination is to bring out matters which are favorable to your client which have not been raised in cross-examination, that is to say, to explain anything which has not been given in cross-examination. When he has given this account in cross-examination it is no good putting it to him again in re-examination. We have heard it.

DR. SIEMERS: I think that on this particular point one explanation is missing.

[Turning to the defendant.] Yesterday you were asked, rather unexpectedly, what had been the technical changes since 1936 and how the legal situation regarding submarine warfare would have been influenced thereby.

RAEDER: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: It is a somewhat difficult question to answer in two seconds. You have mentioned aircraft. Can you not supplement your statement?

RAEDER: Yes, I forgot the most important point due to the fact that there was a rather lively controversy. The important point is that the spotting of vessels at sea by aircraft was something quite new and had been developed very efficiently. That development continued very rapidly during the war, until submarines could very quickly be located and pursued.

DR. SIEMERS: Regarding D-841, which is the affidavit from Dietmann, may I, with the Tribunal’s permission, make a formal application? In this affidavit, there is the following sentence:

“It is my personal opinion that the higher authorities of the Navy in Kiel and other places in Germany had knowledge of these dreadful things.”

THE PRESIDENT: It isn’t “had knowledge” but “must have had knowledge.” It seems to me it is in the translation “must have had knowledge.”

DR. SIEMERS: Yes. I have not got the German and I do not know how the original is worded. I only have the English translation. It is not quite clear to me how the German version was worded. May I ask the Tribunal...

THE PRESIDENT: Is the document put in in the original German or is it put in in the English? The deposition is in German presumably.

DR. SIEMERS: I presume that originally the statement was in German. The copy I have states that this is a translation and that is English, but I have not seen the German original.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, there must have been a German copy for the witness yesterday. I don’t know whether or not it is the original. I didn’t see it but I assume it was.

THE PRESIDENT: It isn’t the case that the deposition was made in German, then translated into English, and then translated back into German, was it?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is why I assume it was the original. I am sorry this was done. I haven’t got the original document in front of me but I assume that was so. I will find out in a moment for you.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. What is the point, Dr. Siemers?

DR. SIEMERS: I believe that this sentence should be struck from the document. It does not record a fact.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean you are asking to have it struck out or...

DR. SIEMERS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: What do you say, Sir David?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the witness sets out fully the facts in the preceding paragraphs of the affidavit and then it is true that he introduces the sentence “By my personal opinion....” but the gist of the statement is that from these facts which I have stated the higher formations of the Navy in Kiel and in other places in Germany must have had knowledge of these terrible conditions. A man who has been working in that detachment of the German Navy and knows the communications between that detachment and the headquarters is in a position to say whether headquarters would have knowledge from the facts he has stated. His inference has a greater probative value than the inference which the Court can draw. The objection to the statement of a matter of opinion is where the witness gives his opinion on a matter on which the Court is equally capable of drawing an opinion from the same facts, but the importance of that statement is that he is saying “working in the bow and being familiar with the chain of command and communications.” I say that anyone at Kiel must have been able to learn from these facts what was going on at these places—so that is the narrow point, whether his special knowledge entitles him to express a view which the Court, without that special knowledge, would not be in a position to draw.

THE PRESIDENT: But ought he not theoretically to state all the facts; and if he does state all the facts, then the Tribunal will be in the same position as he is to form a judgment; and it is for the Tribunal to form the judgment.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is exactly the point to which I was addressing my argument, that there is the additional fact, that because he was working there, was part of the chain of naval command and he is speaking of the knowledge of the naval command from the point of view of somebody who was working in it, and, therefore, he has on that point his opinion as to the sources of knowledge; and the necessity of constructive knowledge is an additional fact. My Lord, the state of a man’s mind and the expression of his knowledge may be a fact in certain circumstances, just as much a fact as that stated, as Lord Bowen once put it.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if the state of his knowledge is directly relevant to an issue.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, that is the point here.

THE PRESIDENT: It is a form of expert evidence.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, in a sense, it is not as Your Lordship says, in a form, it is not in a usual form, but it is the evidence of somebody who has special knowledge. My Lord, it is a well-known distinction, for example, in the laws of libel between the persons who have expert knowledge and the public at large; and, My Lord, the opinion of someone with a special knowledge of the facts must have probative value within Article 19 of the Charter. My Lord, if the provision that this Tribunal is not bound by the technical rules of evidence is to mean anything at all, I submit it should cover the expression of opinion on a point such as this; that is the ability to have knowledge, which is given by somebody who is in a special position to state such an opinion.

THE PRESIDENT: It is a very small point, Sir David, and we have got to decide the matter and form our own opinion about it; and this man isn’t here for the purpose of being cross-examined for anything of that sort.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, that is so, My Lord, but, of course that, with respect, cuts both ways. I mean here he gives an affidavit and part of it as the basis leads up to that conclusion. I should respectfully submit that that conclusion is a statement of fact—but, if Your Lordship says so, the time will come when we can ask Your Lordship to draw that conclusion as a matter of argument ourselves; but, My Lord, on the general position, the only reason that I have occupied even this much of the Tribunal’s time is that Article 19 is an important matter in the view of the Prosecution and, therefore, we have to argue against its being whittled down. It is the only reason that I’ve taken up the Tribunal’s time.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I just draw your attention to one point. Sir David has just been mentioning the well-known legal difference. That is just what I want to base my argument on, the difference between facts and opinions. Here it is a question of opinion and please note the following sentence does even go further; there, the witness is coming to a legal opinion and he is stating who is responsible; therefore, he is passing some sort of judgment. Furthermore, I beg you to consider that this is quite a minor official who, after all, cannot possibly make statements of such portent to the effect that higher formations in Kiel and some other places in Germany—he is quite vague—had some sort of knowledge.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, before the Tribunal adjourn, might I make a correction and an apology? My Lord, I thought that a copy in German had been put to the witness yesterday—of this affidavit; and apparently it was a copy in English. The original affidavit was sent off on the 6th of May; it was verified over the telephone by Colonel Phillimore and it has not yet arrived. An English copy was sent and has been processed and the original will be put in as soon as it arrives. My Lord, I thought that we had got the original but apparently it has not yet arrived, but it is an English document put to the defendant.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you let Dr. Siemers see the original as soon as it arrives?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.

[A recess was taken.]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has carefully considered Dr. Siemers’ application and it has decided that the passage to which he objects and which he asks the Tribunal to strike out in the affidavit of Walter Kurt Dietmann shall not be struck out in view of Article 19 of the Charter. The passage contains an opinion only, and the Tribunal will consider that opinion in relation to the whole of the evidence when it is before the Tribunal and will decide at that time the probative value of this opinion as well as the probative value of the other evidence.

DR. SIEMERS: Then I just have...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, may I remind you that you told us that your re-examination would take, you hoped, about half an hour?

DR. SIEMERS: Yes, Mr. President, I shall conclude very shortly.

[Turning to the defendant.] Admiral, in connection with this Commando decree which we discussed a good deal, Sir David yesterday put a case to you regarding the attack on the ship Tirpitz. In this connection I should like to ask you: Do you recall that in the testimony of Wagner there was the question of a British sailor named Evans?

RAEDER: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: And do you recall also that, according to the affidavit of Flesch, Number D-864, GB-457, Flesch declared, “I am unaware of the fact that Evans wore a uniform”?

RAEDER: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: Then I do not need to submit the document to you?

RAEDER: No, I recall it.

DR. SIEMERS: Do you recall further that it is said in Document UK-57, submitted on the same day as Wagner’s testimony: “The British sailor Evans was captured wearing civilian clothing”?

RAEDER: Yes. I have the document here.

DR. SIEMERS: And that was one case where the SD, obeying the Commando order, committed a murder without the knowledge of the Navy?

RAEDER: Yes. This man had been apprehended by the SD or the Police, not by the Navy. He had only been interrogated in the meantime by the admiral.

DR. SIEMERS: The second case of which you are accused is the sabotage attack on German ships near Bordeaux. I clarified this situation in Wagner’s testimony the other day.

Do you recall that his document also states that these men tried to escape to Spain in civilian clothes?

RAEDER: Yes, that is true.

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, when using the small fighter craft mentioned yesterday under the command of Vice Admiral Heye, did our soldiers ever wear civilian clothing?

RAEDER: No, never.

DR. SIEMERS: Always in uniform?

RAEDER: Yes, always in uniform. These craft were a weapon just like submarines, speed boats, et cetera.

DR. SIEMERS: As my last point, Mr. President, I should like to point out that yesterday Colonel Pokrovsky submitted a document, USSR-460, which deals with the Moscow notes.

COL. POKROVSKY: My Lord, the point is that yesterday the Tribunal made a decision about submitting to the attorneys for the Defense extracts from USSR-460. Today the prosecutors have exchanged opinions among themselves; and the Prosecution of the United States, represented by Mr. Dodd; Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe for Great Britain; and myself for Russia, have agreed that it is necessary for us to request you to permit us to read into the record here today the three brief extracts referring to Dönitz, to Keitel, and to Jodl so that they will be included in the record. These are the excerpts which yesterday the Tribunal did not allow to have read into the record as evidence. If we understood the Tribunal rightly it was due to lack of time as the session was dragging on.

Due to these circumstances these three extremely important excerpts—important from our point of view—the accuracy of which was confirmed yesterday by the Defendant Dönitz, have not been included in the transcript of the session. For that reason I am requesting just about 5 minutes time to read these excerpts into the record today, on behalf of the Prosecution of the three countries.

THE PRESIDENT: What would be the most convenient course, Dr. Siemers? Would you like to have them read now so that you can put any questions upon them?

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I make some remarks about this document? The Soviet Delegation has been kind enough to put the original at my disposal. I perused the original yesterday, and I looked at the extracts. The Soviet Delegation desires to retain the original but has also been kind enough to put instead a photostatic copy of the extracts involved at the disposal of the High Tribunal. I am completely in agreement with the suggestion, but I personally do not have the intention of putting any questions on this document, which is clear to me.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. SIEMERS: And so I would like to ask that the resolution put forth by the High Tribunal yesterday be upheld, that this should not be read, just as other documents were not read out either.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, the document was originally in German. Presumably it has been translated into Russian; it has certainly been translated into English. Unless the French members of the French Prosecution want it read if it hasn’t been translated into French there doesn’t seem to be any use in taking up the time of the Tribunal by reading it into the record. We have got the document in English, and we have all read it.

MR. DODD: Mr. President, I think there is one reason. Even if it is read into the record, it will at least be tomorrow before the transcript is available for the defendants who are referred to, and this witness, or this defendant, will be off the stand. If they want to cross-examine about what he has said about them, then we will have, I suppose, to bring this defendant back on the stand. I think we will lose far more time by doing that, rather than now having Colonel Pokrovsky take 5 minutes to read it. They will all hear it, and then if they want to examine about it, they can do so promptly.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, very well.

Dr. Siemers, if you don’t want to ask any questions about it, you can conclude your re-examination now, and then Colonel Pokrovsky can read the document. Then any of the other defendants can question the witness if they want to, upon it.

DR. SIEMERS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Would that not be the best way, Colonel Pokrovsky?

COL. POKROVSKY: Yes, certainly.

DR. SIEMERS: I agree, Mr. President, but I do believe that this document need not be read, because Mr. Dodd was somewhat mistaken when he said that the defendants are not familiar with this document. They and their counsel are thoroughly familiar with it. I believe everyone knows it, and I do not think that it needs to be read. However, in the final analysis, it really makes very little difference to me personally.

THE PRESIDENT: If the defendants’ counsel do not want it read then the Tribunal does not want to have it read unless defendants’ counsel want to ask questions upon it.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Mr. President, I, as defense counsel for Admiral Dönitz, am not interested in having the document read. I know the document.

DR. SIEMERS: I have just been advised that the Defense Counsel know the document and do not put any value on having it read nor do they wish to put any questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Well then, Mr. Dodd and Colonel Pokrovsky, it does not seem that it serves any useful purpose to have it read.

MR. DODD: No, I am satisfied, Your Honor. I have not heard from Keitel’s attorney; I assume he is satisfied. I am just concerned that at some later date—a very interesting document to us, of course—and I am just concerned some question may be raised and I am also sympathetic to the desires of these defendants not to have it read publicly.

The Defendant Schacht’s counsel has not spoken either. I think it might be well, Mr. President, if we had a careful statement from counsel for each of these men that they do not want to question or, if so, that we can be completely sure that it will not be raised again.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the defendants’ counsel are all here or all the defendants are represented and they must clearly understand what I am saying and I take it from their silence that they acquiesce in what Dr. Siemers has said, that they do not wish the document to be read and they do not wish to ask any questions.

COL. POKROVSKY: I have not understood your decision, My Lord. Are you permitting me to read into the record these few excerpts or are you not?

THE PRESIDENT: No, Colonel Pokrovsky; I am saying that as the defendants’ counsel do not wish the document to be read it need not be read.

COL. POKROVSKY: We do give a great deal of importance and significance to this document as it involves not only the interests of the Defense but also the interests of the Prosecution. The document was accepted by the Tribunal yesterday but for some reason only a very small part of the characterization given therein by Admiral Raeder was included in the stenographic record for the day. I do not see any reason why these excerpts should not be read into the record now, and why the witness Raeder, who intimately knew the Defendants Dönitz, Keitel, and Jodl, should not hear the excerpts here and now.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky and Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal ruled yesterday that it was unnecessary that the document should be read and the Tribunal adheres to that decision in view of the fact that the defendants’ counsel do not wish it to be read and have no questions to put upon it.

Yes, Dr. Siemers.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I will now conclude my examination of Admiral Raeder. I do not know whether other questions will be put to Admiral Raeder.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any question which has arisen out of the cross-examination which the defendants’ counsel want to put?

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I should like to put two questions, Mr. President.

[Turning to the defendant.] Admiral, in cross-examination you were confronted with orders and memoranda as to the U-boat warfare.

RAEDER: Yes.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you consider yourself responsible for these decrees dealing with the U-boat warfare which you issued during your term as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy?

RAEDER: I consider myself fully responsible for all decrees issued as to the U-boat warfare which took place under my responsibility as well as every naval operation which I ordered. In the Naval Operations Staff and together with the officers of the Naval Operations Staff I worked out these directives; I approved memoranda and in accordance therewith I gave my orders. The Commander of the U-boat fleet was solely the tactical commander of U-boats. He transmitted the orders and he carried through the details of the operations.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Admiral, yesterday Sir David charged you that he could not determine who actually gave the orders to change the log book of the U-boat which sank the Athenia. Admiral Godt testified in answer to my question that he had issued this order at the request of Admiral Dönitz. Do you know of any facts which would show this testimony of Admiral Godt to be incorrect?

RAEDER: Actually I was never concerned with this case. I only decreed the three points which have come up here several times.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Therefore, you consider Admiral Godt’s testimony as being correct?

RAEDER: I assume that it is correct since everything else he said was very reliable.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: The defendant can return to the dock.

DR. SIEMERS: Then, with the permission of the High Tribunal I should like to call my first witness, the former Reich Minister of the Interior, Severing.

[The witness Severing took the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name, please.

KARL SEVERING (Witness): Karl Severing. I am 70 years old and I live at Bielefeld.

THE PRESIDENT: Wait one minute. Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.

[The witness repeated the oath.]

You may sit down.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Minister, please tell the High Tribunal what role you played in the Social Democratic Party up until the year 1933 and the principal ministerial posts you held up until the year 1933.

SEVERING: At the age of 16½ I entered the labor union movement and when I was 18 years old I entered the Social Democratic Party and as a result of that fact I held honorary positions in the Party at a relatively early age.

In the year 1905 I became councillor in the city of Bielefeld. I was member of the Reichstag from 1907 until 1912; and I again became a member of the Reichstag and at the same time a member of the Prussian Diet in 1919. I was in the Reichstag and in the Prussian Diet until 1933. I was Minister in Prussia from 1920 until 1921; then again from 1921 to 1926, and from 1930 until 1933; from 1928 until 1930 I was Reich Minister of the Interior.

DR. SIEMERS: When and why did you leave public life?

SEVERING: I retired from official public life in July 1932, and from political life when the Social Democratic Party was prohibited.

DR. SIEMERS: Were you arrested when leaving public life in 1933, or perhaps at a later date and, if so, at whose order?

SEVERING: I was arrested on the very same day on which the Enabling Act was scheduled to be read and passed in the Reichstag. The order for my arrest was signed by the then Minister of the Interior, Herr Göring, who at that time was also President of the Reichstag and, if I may utter an opinion, who would have had the obligation, as President of the Reichstag, to protect the immunity of the members of the Reichstag. Under breach of this immunity I was arrested the moment I entered the Reichstag building.

DR. SIEMERS: But you participated in the vote on the Enabling Act?

SEVERING: The Chairman of the Social Democratic Reichstag faction had complained to Göring against the treatment to which I was subjected with the result that I was given leave to vote. But the voting had already come to a close. However, Reichstag President Göring still permitted me to give my “no” vote for the Enabling Act.

DR. SIEMERS: You were arrested thereafter but only for a very short time?

SEVERING: On the next day I had to appear for further interrogations. I was permitted to leave Berlin on the second day and was given the order to hold myself ready at my home in Bielefeld for further interrogations.

DR. SIEMERS: Despite your well-known anti-Nazi attitude, you were not arrested later and put in a concentration camp, if I am not mistaken.

SEVERING: I was never in a concentration camp, thanks to the respect—and I say this with all modesty—which the old Prussian officials, my previous subordinates, had for me. At the end of October 1933 I heard from the Police Chief in Bielefeld that trouble was brewing for me. The police notified me that they would not be able to give me any protection and advised me, therefore, to leave Bielefeld for several months. I followed this advice and, from October 1933 until the end of March 1934, I lived in Berlin using a false name. I first stayed with friends, and then I went to a small Jewish sanatorium at Wannsee. I feared another arrest in August 1944; according to someone whom I knew in the police my name was on a list of people who were to be arrested summarily—men and women who were suspected of having plotted against Hitler in July 1944.

THE PRESIDENT: Did you say ’44 or ’34?

DR. SIEMERS: ’44. After the attempted assassination of Hitler of July 1944.

SEVERING: May I continue?

DR. SIEMERS: Please do.

SEVERING: After the attempted assassination of Hitler orders were given to the police to arrest certain people. My name was on the Bielefeld list. Then a police official whom I knew from the past pointed out that I was close to my seventieth year and had lost my son in the war. Thus he succeeded in having my name struck off the list.

DR. SIEMERS: Aside from what you have told us now, did you suffer any further disadvantage at the hands of the National Socialists?

SEVERING: Well, I was considerably hindered in my movements. I was not especially surprised that my mail was censored and my telephone tapped. I considered that as a matter of course. But I could not even take a trip without being followed and watched by the police.

If you do not mind, I should like to call your attention to the fact that in addition to material damages there is also harm to one’s ideals (ideelle Schädigungen), and in this respect I suffered a great deal at the hands of the National Socialist Party after it assumed power. A political measure, taken in connection with the polls of 1932, was used against me, I might say, in a criminal way. They talked about me and my friend Braun as the “thieves of millions,” and this epithet was also applied to the members of my family.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, is this witness going to give any evidence which has relevancy to the defendant’s case?

DR. SIEMERS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, bring him to it then as quick as possible.

DR. SIEMERS: Very well.

[Turning to the witness.] Herr Minister, try to be as brief as possible in this connection. It is of course true that with respect to your ideals you suffered harm as well, but as the basis of my examination and your testimony I would like to ascertain whether serious harm was caused to you and I would like to have you tell us, but briefly, whether National Socialism...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, what relevancy has this got to Raeder’s case?

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, my intention is to show that Minister Severing, after a brief description of his life during Nazism can, without bias, give entirely impartial answers in reference to Raeder. Since he had no advantages but rather disadvantages at the hands of the Nazis and on the other side...

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you have dealt sufficiently with the disadvantages now. Go to the matter which relates to Raeder. He has given us, from 1933 to 1944, a fairly general account of his life and that ought to be sufficient.

DR. SIEMERS: The Prosecution accuses the Defendant Raeder, that in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy he violated the Treaty of Versailles, in the intention of carrying on aggressive wars, and that behind the back of the Reich Government. In order to shorten the testimony, I would like to point out to you that it is an undisputed historical fact that Germany, in developing her Navy within the framework of the Versailles Treaty, violated the stipulations of the Versailles Treaty. All that is known to the Tribunal. Even before this time, the government applied for the construction of armored cruiser A within the compass of the Versailles Treaty. A great inner political conflict arose over the construction of this cruiser and, in connection with a debate before the Reichstag on this cruiser, the witness made a speech. I have a brief excerpt from this speech which I should like to submit to you and which I should like to read. Mr. President, this is Exhibit Number Raeder-5, to be found in Document Book 1, Page 13. This is an extract from a speech by the former Reichsminister Karl Severing before the German Reichstag on 20 January 1928.

[Turning to the witness.] Herr Minister, at this period of time you were not a Minister; rather, you gave this speech as a deputy of the Social Democratic Party?

SEVERING: Yes, that is correct.

DR. SIEMERS: The extract reads:

“Now the armored cruiser. The fact that a government, which knows precisely what gigantic sums we must raise during the coming year, should make such demands, is, to say the least, quite surprising. It says, the Peace Treaty permits it—yes, but the Peace Treaty also decrees the payment of reparations. The 9,300,000 marks demanded for this year will play their decisive part only in the consequences entailed which would require the raising of several hundred million marks, which during the next few years seems to me absolutely impossible. Considering the development of weapons for naval warfare, I am not convinced of the military value of armored cruisers. It may be that armored cruisers are the backbone of the defense at sea, as the government says. But, to form an active fighting unit (Gefechtskörper), the backbone must also be made up of other elements, of U-boats and airplanes; and as long as we are not allowed to build these, armored cruisers are of very little value even for defense.”

Is that extract from the speech correct?

SEVERING: Yes, that, extract is reproduced correctly.

DR. SIEMERS: Is it right to conclude here that the Social Democratic Party and you, personally, at that time, were of the opinion that the Wehrmacht which was granted Germany by the Versailles Treaty might not be sufficient for a defensive war?

SEVERING: That is correct.

DR. SIEMERS: Will you please comment on that a little more extensively.

SEVERING: That the 100,000-man army granted to Germany was not sufficient even for a defensive war was and is known today possibly to everyone in Germany concerned with politics. Germany got into a very bad situation with regard to her eastern neighbors since the establishment of the Corridor. The insular position of East Prussia forced Germany even at that time to take measures which I reluctantly helped to carry out; but the population of East Prussia had a right to be protected against attacks which were threatening from the East. I am not speaking about an aggressive war and I am not speaking of any plans of the Polish Government; but I would like to refer you to the fact that in the years 1919, 1920, and 1921, there were aggressive groups in Poland who set foot on German soil, possibly with the idea of establishing a fait accompli...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, this evidence is all a matter of argument. Not only is it a matter of argument, but we have had it over and over again from nearly all the defendants and a good many of their witnesses; and, surely, it is not assisting the Tribunal in the very least to know what this witness said in 1928 or what view he took in 1928.

DR. SIEMERS: May it please the High Tribunal, I believe this will become clear in the following. Minister Severing was a member of the government that held this cabinet meeting of 18 October 1928. I agree with the High Tribunal that the matters have been heard frequently—these things only once, however—but I should like to point out that Sir David even yesterday in cross-examination accused the defendant, despite his testimony, that, against the will of the Reich Government and against the wish of the Parliament, he had violated the Treaty of Versailles. If, therefore, after the testimony of Raeder, the Prosecution persists in their opinion, I have no other possibility to prove the incorrectness of the opinion of the Prosecution than by questioning a witness who...

THE PRESIDENT: The question whether the Treaty of Versailles was violated is a question of fact and, of course, upon that you can give evidence and you did give evidence through the Defendant Raeder; but this witness is not talking about the question of fact. He is arguing that Germany was entitled to defend herself in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. That is what I understood his evidence to be and that is a question of argument, not a question of fact.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, as far as I know juridically...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the class of evidence which has just been given by this witness will not be listened to by the Tribunal. If you want to prove facts by him, you can prove them, but you cannot prove arguments or his views upon arguments.

DR. SIEMERS: Could Germany with her Wehrmacht protect herself against the incursions in Silesia by Poland?

SEVERING: In the year 1920 the Wehrmacht would not have been able to protect Germany in East Prussia; therefore, it was necessary to protect the population of East Prussia, and this was achieved in that I, personally, agreed that all weapons which were found in East Prussia were to be given to the population. Under conditions which applied at that time, it was, even for purposes of inspection, very hard to pass through the Corridor by rail; so that in 1920, I had to make a tour of inspection by way of water from Stolpmünde to Pillau. I am mentioning this fact to show the difficulties of transportation through the Corridor. In 1920 and ’21, it was not possible for the German Wehrmacht to prevent attacks of Polish insurgents in Upper Silesia and, I am sorry to say, and I emphasize “I am sorry” that a certain self-defense had to be created in order to protect and defend German life and German property.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Minister, were the measures with regard to rearmament as they were wanted and accounted for since January 1928 by Reichswehrminister Gröner based on defensive or offensive ideas as far as you know Gröner?

SEVERING: As far as I am acquainted with Gröner and his own personal way of carrying on his office, everything that he conceived and carried out was in view of defense.

DR. SIEMERS: Then this should also apply to the armored cruiser A. I should like to know why the Social Democratic Party, which was interested in the idea of defense, was against the building of this armored cruiser.

SEVERING: In 1928 the Social Democratic Party was against the building of the armored cruiser as the economic situation did not warrant expenses which were not absolutely necessary. And the Social Democratic Party wanted to prove and to show that they did everything within their power in order to make the much-discussed disarmament a reality. They did not believe that the building of an armored cruiser would be a favorable gesture for the bringing about of appropriate negotiations.

DR. SIEMERS: On 28 June 1928 a new Reich Government was formed. Müller was Reich Chancellor; Stresemann was Foreign Minister, and you were Minister of the Interior. What position did your government take to the then pending problem of universal disarmament stipulated in Versailles, or to the then pending problem of rearmament by Germany?

SEVERING: I have just made a reference to this problem. We were of the opinion in the Social Democratic Party, even after entering the Müller government, that we would have to use all our efforts in order to solve just this problem. In September of 1928 the then Reich Chancellor Müller, replacing the Foreign Minister Stresemann who was ill, went to Geneva in order to bring this problem up before the League of Nations. Müller made a very resolute speech which, if I remember correctly, was received very coolly by Allied statesmen; so that any practical suggestions for the realization of disarmament could not be hoped for in the near future.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Minister, in July 1928 you spoke with Reichswehrminister Gröner about the budget and specifically about the fact that secret budgets of the Wehrmacht, on the armored cruiser and so forth, had become known. What attitude did you take in this connection and what were the results following your agreement with Gröner?

SEVERING: In order to answer this question I would like to touch again on the extract from my speech, which you just submitted to the High Tribunal. In the same Reichstag session in which I gave this speech, the Reichswehrminister Gröner appeared for the first time as successor of Gessler. I had said a few farewell words in honor of Gessler who was leaving. I greeted the new Minister with the remark that my political friends would show him respect, but that he would have to earn our confidence first. It was probably while thinking of this remark that Gröner came up to me in the first session of the Müller Government and said that he was looking forward to a sincere collaboration with me. I quoted a passage from Iphigenie on that occasion, “May there be truth between us.” Only complete sincerity would make possible fruitful co-operation, I said.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal thinks that this is an absolute waste of time and this speech of the witness is entirely irrelevant. Why do you not ask him some questions which have some bearings on the case of Raeder?

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I remind you that the Prosecution has made the accusation that the rebuilding was undertaken by means of a secret budget and that a secret rearmament was carried on with the idea of starting wars of aggression. It is not quite clear to me how I can cross-examine the witness in any other way than by asking him how these secret budgets, which to a certain extent are practically identical with violations of the Versailles Treaty, were dealt with in his government. That is exactly what I just questioned the witness on.

THE PRESIDENT: This speech that you have drawn our attention to is simply a speech in which he said that he did not think that armored cruisers were of any use. That is the only meaning of the speech, except insofar as it refers to the fact that reparations had not been paid. For the rest it simply says that armored cruisers, in his opinion, are of no use.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I may not and do not wish to make a plea here. In the speech which I read something else is said. It says there that the Social Democratic Party was against the building of this armored cruiser, because of economic reasons and not because of strategic reasons, and that if an armored...

THE PRESIDENT: What has that got to do with a charge of making an aggressive war in 1939?

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I did not raise the accusation of an aggressive war; the Prosecution did that, but I have to protect my client against the accusation that in 1928 he had intentions of carrying on an aggressive war; I assert that he had no intention of that sort, that the Reich Government knew about the violations of the Treaty, that the Reich Government took the responsibility for them, and the testimony of the Minister will show that these are actual facts which were challenged only yesterday.

THE PRESIDENT: Ask him some direct questions on issues of fact. Then the Tribunal will listen to them if they are relevant, but the Tribunal considers that the evidence of his speech that you have been dealing with is an utter waste of time.

DR. SIEMERS: I shall try to be brief. As a result I shall put questions to the witness which he will answer one by one.

[Turning to the witness.] You just said that you demanded of Gröner confidence and absolute truthfulness. Did you ask him in this connection for enlightenment on the secret budgets and the violations of the Treaty of Versailles which had taken place up to that time?

SEVERING: I specifically asked him for enlightenment since, in January of 1928, the then Reich Chancellor Marx had frankly admitted that under Kapitän Lohmann in the Navy Department there had been misrepresentations in the budget which could not be in accordance with good bookkeeping and political honesty.

DR. SIEMERS: What did Gröner reply?

SEVERING: Gröner then told me that he had the intention of discussing these matters at a cabinet meeting and of clarifying all these matters.

DR. SIEMERS: Were the commanders-in-chief of the two branches of the Wehrmacht to be present at this meeting?

SEVERING: On 18 October they were to appear and did appear.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Minister, when did you meet Admiral Raeder for the first time?

SEVERING: The first official contact, according to my recollection, was made the beginning of October 1928, probably on the day when he paid me an official visit on my assuming office.

DR. SIEMERS: As Exhibit Number Raeder-6, I submitted to the High Tribunal, as the High Tribunal will probably recall, a speech by Raeder dated 23 January 1928. There was a covering letter with this document. This letter will now be submitted to the witness.

[Turning to the witness.] According to this document, did your meeting with Raeder take place on 5 October 1928, 5 days after the appointment of Raeder as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy?

SEVERING: This discussion probably took place on that day. May I mention...

DR. SIEMERS: Just a moment, Herr Minister. I think it will be safer if you look at the letter. There it says: “Following our discussion of 5 October...” May I ask you to confirm to the High Tribunal that this report made by Raeder was saved by you and that it is a true and authentic copy?

SEVERING: The letter which I put at your disposal is the original of the letter by Raeder. It is in accordance with the incidents which you just mentioned.

DR. SIEMERS: Then, on 5 October this conversation with Raeder did take place. Were the conversations between you and Raeder basically in accordance with the ideas expressed in this speech?

SEVERING: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: Do you recall that in this speech Raeder declared emphatically that a war of aggression was a crime?

SEVERING: Yes, I remember that.

DR. SIEMERS: Did you on the occasion of this conversation tell Raeder that you had agreed with Gröner that the actual violations of the Treaty of Versailles would have to be discussed and clarified and that a cabinet meeting would have to be held?

SEVERING: I do not recall this detail, but it was quite probable.

DR. SIEMERS: Did you demand of Raeder that between yourself and him there should be absolute sincerity and truthfulness?

SEVERING: Of Raeder, too, but especially of the chiefs of the Army.

DR. SIEMERS: As a result of this discussion with Raeder, did you have the impression that you could work with Raeder in a satisfactory manner and that he would tell you the truth?

SEVERING: Yes, I had that impression.

DR. SIEMERS: On 18 October 1928 the cabinet meeting which we have already mentioned took place. May I ask you to describe briefly that cabinet meeting, provided it is agreeable to the High Tribunal to have the witness picture this session. I believe that a description of this session would save time, rather than to have me ask single questions. Therefore, Herr Minister, be brief in telling us what happened.

SEVERING: At this session, members of the cabinet were familiarized with the details of what might be considered a concealment of the budget or violations of the Versailles Treaty. Both gentlemen, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, spoke, if I remember rightly.

DR. SIEMERS: Did the entire cabinet attend?

SEVERING: Yes, perhaps with the exception of one or two members who were ill, but it was a session which in general might be called a plenary session.

DR. SIEMERS: The principal members were present?

SEVERING: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: Were Müller, Stresemann present?

SEVERING: I cannot tell you whether Stresemann was present. He was still ill in September and whether he had recovered by 18 October, I cannot say. But I might add, that if Herr Stresemann was not present, certainly someone else was present as an authorized deputy from the Foreign Office.

DR. SIEMERS: Did Admiral Raeder and General Heye at this meeting expressly give the assurance to the cabinet—as I remember, in form of an affidavit—that only those violations had occurred which were mentioned by them?

SEVERING: Whether that was proclaimed in a solemn manner by affidavit or by word of honor, I cannot say; but, in any event, at the request of the Reich Chancellor and especially at my own request, they said that no further violations would take place.

DR. SIEMERS: They assured you specifically that there would be no further violations without the knowledge of the Reich Government?

SEVERING: Yes, exactly that.

DR. SIEMERS: And over and above that, they stated that now the Cabinet knew about everything?

SEVERING: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: A declaration to that effect was made?

SEVERING: Yes, such a declaration was made.

DR. SIEMERS: Were important matters connected with these secret budgets or violations of the Treaty of Versailles?

SEVERING: I may state here and have to admit even that since I was used to violations of the Versailles Treaty, I was especially interested in the extent of the violations with regard to the sum. I wanted to know what I could do in my new capacity against secret arms-bearers and against illegal organizations; and I asked what was the total sum involved. I was thereupon told—and I believe that this was set down and confirmed in writing later—that perhaps 5½ to 6 million marks was the amount involved in these secret budgets.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Minister, you remember the budget figures of those days better than I do. What can we gather from these figures? Must we conclude that they were grave violations involving aggressive intentions or may we gather that in the final analysis they were just trifles?

SEVERING: I do not have the figures as they apply to the budget plans of the Navy and the Army. I cannot quote the figures from memory. But the impression I gained from the reports of the two Wehrmacht leaders was that only trifles were involved. It was this impression which caused me to assume a certain political responsibility for these things, and especially in view of the fact that we were assured that further concealment of budget items or other violations were not to occur in future.

DR. SIEMERS: Do you remember that Gröner at this session declared that the small infringements of the Treaty dealt purely with defense measures, with antiaircraft guns, coastal fortifications, et cetera?

SEVERING: I cannot give you the details today, but I might remind you that all the speeches which Gröner made at the time when he was Defense Minister were along these general lines. In all of his speeches in the Reichstag, Herr Gröner expressly declared that he was an advocate of sound pacifism. In answer to your question I reply that Gröner’s statements, and also my own, were based on defense and defensive measures.

DR. SIEMERS: In other words at the end of this session, the Reich Government expressly accepted the responsibility for these infringements and the small secret budget items?

SEVERING: To the extent that we have mentioned.

DR. SIEMERS: Did Raeder in the future adhere to the clear directives of the Reich Government?

SEVERING: I cannot answer that in a positive manner, but I can say that I did not observe any violations on the part of the Navy in respect to the agreements during my term of office as Minister of the Interior.

DR. SIEMERS: Are you personally of the opinion, since you know Raeder sufficiently well, that he kept the promise he made to you not to resort to secret violations?

SEVERING: Raeder gave me the impression that he was an honest man and I believed that he would keep his word.

DR. SIEMERS: Just one more question, Herr Minister. Of course, you cannot remember the details, but do you perhaps recall that on the occasion of the cabinet meeting of 18 October there was discussion about a Dutch firm which was designing U-boats?

SEVERING: No, I cannot give you details of the discussion; but I do know that at that period of time, there was much talk—either in another cabinet meeting or by a subcommittee of the Reichstag or by a different parliamentarian body—of experimental workshops which had been established for the Army and the Navy in Russia, Sweden, and Holland.

DR. SIEMERS: Purely experimental workshops?

SEVERING: I can say only that there was talk to this effect. Whether these experimental workshops had been established I cannot tell you from my own experience.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Minister, could Germany, by reason of governmental discussions going on at the time, hope that some day, despite the Versailles Treaty, she would be permitted to build U-boats?

SEVERING: The leading statesmen...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, how can he answer that there was a hope that they would be allowed to build U-boats? That is what your question was, was it not; was there a hope?

DR. SIEMERS: I know, Mr. President, these questions were already dealt with by the governments which obtained through the years 1928 to 1932; and I believe that Stresemann carried on these discussions. Since Stresemann is no longer alive, I would like to ask Herr Severing on this point.

THE PRESIDENT: It seems to the Tribunal that it is mere political gossip.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Minister, on whom did it depend what was brought up in the Reichstag? Raeder is accused of acting behind the back of the Reichstag. Who submitted this to the Reichstag? Did Raeder do that?

SEVERING: I do not quite follow you. Who submitted the budget, you mean?

DR. SIEMERS: Yes.

SEVERING: The budget went through the hands of the experts of the various Ministries and the entire Cabinet, and the budget was submitted to the Reichstag by the Cabinet.

DR. SIEMERS: The matter of dealing with the budget before the Reichstag was a matter for the Reich Government and not for the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, is that right?

SEVERING: Inasmuch as a budget item was submitted to the Reichstag, the competent Reich Minister took care of it in the main committee and the plenary session of the Reichstag, but the political responsibility was assumed by the entire Reich Cabinet.

THE PRESIDENT: It was never alleged as to the Defendant Raeder that he had submitted the budget to the Reichstag; it was never put to him.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, yesterday it was asserted...

THE PRESIDENT: Don’t argue! Go on with any other questions.

DR. SIEMERS: Do you recall whether at the end of 1929 you talked with a member of the government with regard to the various leading personalities in the Wehrmacht, and that you made a comment which subsequently became known concerning certain personalities?

SEVERING: Yes, it is correct that on one occasion I had been asked to give a personal estimate of certain military personalities. I named Gröner and Raeder in this connection.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Minister, how many concentration camps do you know of?

SEVERING: How many do I know of now?

DR. SIEMERS: I am sorry; not now. How many did you know of before the collapse of Germany?

SEVERING: Perhaps 6 to 8.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Minister, did you know before the collapse of Germany or rather did you know in 1944 already about the mass murders which have been dealt with so frequently in this proceeding?

SEVERING: I gained knowledge of concentration camps when murder, if I may say so, became professional and when I heard of a few cases which affected me personally very deeply. First of all, I was told that the Police President of Altona, a member of the Reichstag and a Social Democrat of the right wing of the Party, had been murdered in the concentration camp at Papenburg. Another friend of mine, the chairman of the Miners Union, Fritz Husemann, is said to have been murdered shortly after his being committed to the same concentration camp. Another friend of mine, Ernst Heimann, was beaten to death in the Oranienburg Camp according to the reports received by his family.

Dachau was known even in the north of Germany as a concentration camp. Some Jewish inmates returned from Buchenwald in the spring of 1939, and in that way I learned of this camp. Columbia House at Berlin I figured to be a concentration camp also.

That was my only knowledge of camps and their horrors up until the time when the London radio started to report about concentration camps. I perhaps might mention another case. In 1944 a friend of mine, a member of the Reichstag, Stefan Meier, who had served 3 years in the penitentiary, was put into a concentration camp in or near Linz. After a brief stay there he was murdered, according to reports received by his family.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Minister, you just heard of these and similar individual cases?

SEVERING: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: You were not familiar with the fact that thousands were murdered every day in gas chambers or otherwise in the East?

SEVERING: I believed I should tell the High Tribunal only of those cases which were, so to say, authentically reported to me. Everything I learned of later through indirect reports, from my friend Seger or from the book of the now Generalintendant Langhoff, had been told me but I had no possibility of checking up on their accuracy.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Minister, did you and your Party friends have the possibility...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, are you going to finish this examination, or are you going on? Do you see the clock?

DR. SIEMERS: Yes, I should like to leave the decision to the High Tribunal as to whether we shall have a recess now. I understand there will be a cross-interrogation so that...

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but presumably you know what questions you are going to ask; I don’t.

DR. SIEMERS: I cannot say exactly what answer the witness is going to give. It might take perhaps another 10 minutes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We will adjourn now till a quarter past 2 o’clock.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1415 hours.]

Afternoon Session

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will not sit on Saturday morning.

Now, Mr. Dodd, could you tell us what the position is with reference to the documents of the Defendants Von Schirach, Sauckel, and Jodl?

MR. DODD: As far as Von Schirach is concerned, we are waiting for a ruling on those documents concerning which we were heard on Saturday. I’m sorry, that was on Seyss-Inquart. I wasn’t sure the documents were ready.

These documents are all ready; they are all translated and in book form.

THE PRESIDENT: Will it be necessary to have any further discussion of them?

MR. DODD: I believe not, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then, we can take it that we needn’t have another argument about those documents.

MR. DODD: No, Sir, I comprehend no need for any further argument on Von Schirach’s documents.

With reference to Sauckel, I have asked our French colleagues what the situation is, since they have the primary responsibility. And so far as the Prosecution is concerned, I am told that Mr. Herzog of the French Prosecution staff is on his way here and he will be able to report more accurately.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we can mention that at a later stage then. Schirach at any rate then is ready to go on?

MR. DODD: He is ready to go on.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

MR. DODD: Sir David has the information about the Defendant Jodl.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Mr. Roberts.

MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, the position with regard to Jodl’s documents is that Dr. Jahrreiss produced for me a draft book, just before Easter, which had a certain number of documents, all except four of which had already been exhibited, and therefore no objection could be taken to them.

My Lord, the other four were all short. Two, I thought, were objectionable on the ground that they referred to alleged war crimes by one of the Allies. But, My Lord, they were so short that I thought the best course would be for them to be translated—they were only a page or so, each of them—so that when the books had been translated any objection could be taken, and then the Tribunal could shortly decide the matter.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as there are only four of them and only two which might be objected to, that can be dealt with when we come to hear the case.

MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, there are only two.

THE PRESIDENT: We needn’t have any special hearing for it.

MR. ROBERTS: No, My Lord, certainly not. It could be disposed of in a very few minutes.

PROFESSOR DR. FRANZ EXNER (Counsel for Defendant Jodl): Mr. President, I should like to say one more word about these Jodl documents. We are having difficulties over one document. It is the affidavit of Lohmann, which we submitted in German, but which was not translated into English for us on the grounds that only such documents could be translated which the Prosecution had already accepted; and the Prosecution had adopted the standpoint that it cannot express any opinion on that document as it has not been translated into English.

I have mentioned this in a brief petition to the Tribunal, and I hope that the Tribunal will settle the matter.

MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, Lohmann’s affidavit which is very short—it goes principally to character—and it is really not objectionable, but I had to point out that it hadn’t actually been allowed by the Tribunal in their order. The Tribunal ordered it in regard to...

THE PRESIDENT: If it is accepted in the translation, that is all that is necessary.

MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I entirely agree, and it is all on one page.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. Let it be translated.

MAJOR JONES: May it please the Tribunal, it may be convenient for me to indicate to the Tribunal at this stage of Raeder’s case that with regard to the witness Lohmann, the Prosecution does not now desire to cross-examine that witness in view of the documents which are before the Court, and the fact that the matters his affidavit dealt with were dealt with yesterday by my learned friend Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, in his cross-examination of Raeder, and finally, in view of the passages of time.

THE PRESIDENT: Do any other members of the Prosecution want to cross-examine Lohmann?

MAJOR JONES: No, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants’ counsel want to ask any questions of Lohmann?

Very well, then I understand that the witness Lohmann is being kept here and perhaps a message could be given to the Marshal that he needn’t remain.

M. JACQUES B. HERZOG (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): Mr. President, in the name of the French Prosecution I should like to say a word about the documents presented by Sauckel’s defense. I have no objection to the presentation of these documents with the reservation, of course, that a ruling on them be made after they are presented. We have no objection to the documents being translated or presented.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you think it is necessary or desirable for there to be a special hearing with reference to the admissibility, or can that be done in the course of the Defendant Sauckel’s case? At the moment I apprehend that the documents have been looked at for the purpose of translation. They have now been translated. If you think it necessary that there should be any special hearing before the case begins, as to admissibility, we should like to know. Otherwise they would be dealt with in the course of the case, in the course of Sauckel’s case.

M. HERZOG: I think, Mr. President, it will be sufficient if the Tribunal deals with these documents during the course of the defendant’s case. I do not think we need a special hearing as far as these documents are concerned.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. SIEMERS: Minister Severing, as far as I have been able to ascertain, you have inadvertently not yet answered one of my questions clearly.

With reference to the concentration camps you said that you had heard of certain individual cases, and you named the individual cases. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I just want to ask you in conclusion: did you hear of the mass murders which have been mentioned in this Trial, whereby at Auschwitz, for instance, an average of about 2,000 persons a day were exterminated in the gas chambers? Were you in possession of this knowledge before the collapse, or did you not know anything about that either?

SEVERING: I knew nothing whatsoever about these mass murders, which only became known in Germany after the collapse of the Hitler regime, partly through announcements in the press and partly through trials.

DR. SIEMERS: Minister Severing, what could you and your friends in the Party do during the National Socialist regime, against the National Socialist terror which you have partly mentioned, and did anyone abroad support you in any way in this respect?

SEVERING: If you will limit the question to asking what I and my political friends could do and did do after 30 January to combat the Hitler regime, then I can only say—but little. If there was any question of resistance against the Hitler regime, then that resistance was not a centrally organized one. It was restricted to the extent that in various cities the opponents of the Nazis met to consider how one might, at least by propaganda, overcome the mental terror. No open resistance was possible.

But perhaps I should here draw your attention to the following: On 30 January I personally made a decisive attempt—or rather an attempt which, in my opinion, might have proved decisive—to oppose the Hitler regime. In the autumn of 1931 I had an interview with the Chief of the Army Command, Von Hammerstein, during which Von Hammerstein explained to me that the Reichswehr would not allow Hitler to usurp the seat of the President of the State. I remembered that conference, and on 30 January 1933 I inquired whether Von Hammerstein would be prepared to grant me an interview. I wanted to ask him, during that interview, whether he was still of the opinion that the Reichswehr would not only declare itself to be against the Hitler regime, but would oppose such a regime by force of arms.

Herr Von Hammerstein replied to the effect that, in principle, he would be prepared to have such an interview with me, but that the moment was not a propitious one. The interview never took place.

If you were to ask me whether in their efforts to fight the Hitler regime, at least by propaganda, my political friends had received any support from foreign personalities whom one might have called anti-Fascists, then I must say—unfortunately no. On the contrary, we quite often noticed, with much sorrow, that members of the English Labor Party, not officials but private individuals, were Hitler’s guests and that they returned to England to praise the then Chancellor Hitler as a friend of peace. I mention Philipp Snowden in that connection and the doyen of the Labor Party, Lansbury. In this connection I would like to draw your attention to the following facts: In the year...

THE PRESIDENT: The attitude of political parties in other countries has nothing to do with any question we have to decide, absolutely nothing.

DR. SIEMERS: I believe that this is sufficient. I have no further questions to ask, Herr Minister, and I thank you.

DR. LATERNSER: Minister Severing, during your term of office was the figure of 100,000 men, conceded by the Peace Treaty of Versailles for a normal army, ever exceeded?

SEVERING: I have no official knowledge of that. I would assume, however, that that was not the case.

DR. LATERNSER: Do you know at all whether, at the end of 1932, the League of Nations made a promise or held out prospects that this Army of 100,000 could be increased to 300,000 men?

SEVERING: Here too I am unable to give you any official information. I can, however, give the following explanation: In 1932 I received a letter from a party friend of mine, Dr. Rudolf Breitscheid, who was a member of the League of Nations Delegation and in which he mentioned rumors of that kind; but he also added other information...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, we don’t think that rumors are relevant in the Trial. He says he can’t give us any official information. He then begins to give us rumors. Well, we don’t want to hear rumors.

DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, what the witness is now saying is rather more than a rumor and I think you will probably be able to judge for yourself when he has entirely answered the question.

THE PRESIDENT: He is speaking of rumors. If you have any fresh question to ask him, you can ask him.

DR. LATERNSER: Did the increase of the Army from 100,000 to 300,000 men ever assume any palpable shape in the sense that the question was discussed elsewhere, too?

SEVERING: I have just told you that Dr. Breitscheid was a member of the League of Nations Delegation and that his information to me was not a fabric of his own invention. That information stated that an extension of the Army had been envisioned but that this extension would probably be made at the expense of the police. Dr. Breitscheid informed me accordingly.

DR. LATERNSER: Thank you very much, I have no further questions to ask.

DR. HAENSEL: You have just told us that you had no knowledge of the Jewish mass murders in Auschwitz before the collapse. Did you have any knowledge of other measures or deeds perpetrated against Jews which you could define as criminal?

SEVERING: I experienced one such case personally. In 1944 a friend of mine in Bielefeld, Karl Henkel, was arrested and transferred to a labor camp near Emden, and he was shot on the third day.

DR. HAENSEL: Do you know who arrested him, what authority?

SEVERING: He was arrested by the Bielefeld Gestapo.

DR. HAENSEL: Did that occur in connection with some large scale action or was it an individual case?

SEVERING: It appeared to me to be an individual case.

DR. HAENSEL: Did you hear of a number of such individual cases at that time, that is in 1944?

SEVERING: In 1944 I did not hear of any individual cases of murder, but I did hear of deportations from Westphalian towns to unknown destinations.

DR. HAENSEL: What authorities dealt with these deportations?

SEVERING: I cannot say for certain, but I assume that it was the Gestapo.

DR. HAENSEL: Are you of the opinion that considerable sections of the population knew of these occurrences?

SEVERING: You mean, of the deportations?

DR. HAENSEL: Yes.

SEVERING: They usually took place quite publicly.

DR. HAENSEL: Are you of the opinion that the people were generally just as well acquainted with these events as the members of the organizations as, for instance, the ordinary SS man, or would you say that the ordinary SS man knew more than other people?

SEVERING: Oh yes. He was informed of the places of destination of these transports.

DR. HAENSEL: But I understood you to say, that the convoys were not escorted by the SS; you said it was the Gestapo.

SEVERING: Yes, I have just stated that I assumed that the Gestapo had conducted the arrests and the lootings, but I did not receive any assurances that this was exclusively the work of the Gestapo.

DR. HAENSEL: And as to the other measures—apart from such deportations—which might be called a kind of local pogrom, have I understood you to say that you did not hear of them often?

SEVERING: Local pogroms occurred in November 1938.

DR. HAENSEL: Did you, during the execution of such measures, of which we have frequently heard, make your own observations or did you remain at home?

SEVERING: I remained at home. I only saw the results of these pogroms afterwards in the shape of destroyed Jewish firms, and in the remains of the synagogues.

DR. HAENSEL: And to which organizations or groups do you attribute these events of November 1938?

SEVERING: My own judgment would not have any decisive value, but I tell you quite frankly, it was the SA or the SS.

DR. HAENSEL: And what makes you think that it was precisely these two groups?

SEVERING: Because the members of these groups, in my home town of Bielefeld, were called the instigators of the synagogue fires.

DR. HAENSEL: By whom?

SEVERING: They were indicated by name by the population in general.

DR. HAENSEL: You knew about the concentration camps. Can you still remember when you heard about them for the first time? It is important at least to determine the year.

SEVERING: No. I cannot tell you that at the present moment. I can only reply to your question by referring to individual dates. The first murder in a concentration camp became known to me when I heard that, in the Papenburg Concentration Camp, the former member of the German Reichstag and Police President of Altona had been shot. That could have been either in 1935 or 1936, I am no longer sure when.

DR. HAENSEL: And later, did you hear of many other such cases, or did you have personal knowledge of them?

SEVERING: From personal knowledge which is so certain that I could give it with a clear conscience to the Tribunal only in the cases I mentioned this morning.

DR. HAENSEL: Were you told that concentration camps were places in which the political opponents of the regime were to be interned without anything worse happening to them than loss of liberty?

SEVERING: Whether I was told that?

DR. HAENSEL: Whether you were told that, whether you heard that?

SEVERING: No. On the contrary, I heard that concentration camps meant to the population the very incarnation of all that is terrible.

DR. HAENSEL: What do you mean by “population”? Do you also mean those sections of the population who had some official connection with the Party: small Party members, small SA men and small members of the SS?

SEVERING: I cannot say anything about that since I conversed nearly exclusively with opponents of the system.

DR. HAENSEL: Do you believe that these opponents with whom you conversed presented a united front against anyone who wore a party emblem or a badge of some organization?

SEVERING: No. This question upon which you are dwelling affects wide sections of the population, their general humanitarian feeling, and their feeling of indignation about conditions in the camps, as and when the facts became known.

DR. HAENSEL: I asked my question with the intention of hearing whether this feeling of indignation was noticeable even in people who actually wore the emblem of the Party.

SEVERING: I assume so, but I cannot offer it to the Tribunal as a fact.

DR. HAENSEL: But were even these people exposed to the considerable pressure which you have alluded to?

SEVERING: They probably felt that their Party membership rendered them, in a certain sense, immune.

DR. HAENSEL: Do you believe that many people became members in order to benefit by this immunization?

SEVERING: Yes, I believe so.

DR. HAENSEL: I heard that you yourself were a member of the NSV; is that true?

SEVERING: No.

DR. HAENSEL: Is it true that you were arrested after 20 July 1944?

SEVERING: I have already answered that question this morning. I was not arrested.

DR. HAENSEL: You were never arrested at all?

SEVERING: No, with the exception of the one case which I also mentioned this morning.

DR. HAENSEL: Did you at any time express the opinion that what had been achieved in Germany in the social sphere after 1933 did, to a considerable extent, represent the ideal of previous governments?

SEVERING: Yes, I expressed this as follows: “What was new was not good, and what was good was not new.”

DR. HAENSEL: Do you believe that any German, be he a Party member, a member of the SS or not, must have had any knowledge of events at Auschwitz of which you yourself knew nothing at all?

SEVERING: No. He would not necessarily have to possess this knowledge. I would not go so far as to say that. But he might, perhaps, have known about it.

DR. HAENSEL: And what exactly do you mean by “He might, perhaps, have known about it”?

SEVERING: Through guards escorting the transport echelons. They did not always remain in the area of the concentration camps; they usually returned.

DR. HAENSEL: And if they were sworn to the strictest secrecy?

SEVERING: Then they could not tell anything.

DR. HAENSEL: Do you know of cases where people were condemned for speaking of such matters?

SEVERING: No.

DR. HAENSEL: Did you ever hear anything about the activities of the “special courts”?

SEVERING: No, in any case I heard nothing in connection with these particular activities of the “special courts.”

DR. HAENSEL: But the sentences pronounced against people who listened to foreign broadcasts (Schwarzhörer) and to people accused of spreading so-called false rumors, were published very often in the papers. Did you never read them?

SEVERING: No.

DR. STEINBAUER: Witness, I have only one question to ask you. You told us this morning that in 1919 you were a member of the Weimar National Assembly. May I ask what the attitude of the National Assembly was—particularly of the faction of the Social Democrats of whom you too were a leader—towards the problem of the Austrian “Anschluss”?

SEVERING: During the time of the sessions of the Weimar National Assembly I was Reich and State Commissioner for the Rhineland and Westphalia, and was seldom able to participate in the debates of the Weimar National Assembly. I therefore have no detailed knowledge as to how these matters were formulated or expressed. But one thing I do know and that is, that it was practically the unanimous wish of the Assembly to include a paragraph, or an article in the Constitution, ratifying the “Anschluss” of Austria to Germany.

DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you. I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?

MAJOR JONES: Herr Minister, you have told the Tribunal that in 1928 the Defendant Raeder assured you solemnly that there would be no further violations of the Treaty of Versailles without the knowledge of the Reich Cabinet. Did Raeder fulfill that assurance?

SEVERING: I have already stated this morning that I cannot answer that in any positive sense. I can only state that violations of the agreement of 18 October 1928 by the Naval Command did not come to my knowledge.

MAJOR JONES: Did you know, for instance, of the construction in Cadiz, in Spain, of a 750-ton U-boat under German direction between the years 1927 and 1931?

SEVERING: No, no.

MAJOR JONES: My Lord, the authority for that statement of fact is the Document D-854.

And, Herr Minister, did you know that after its completion in 1931 that U-boat carried out trial runs under German direction and with German personnel?

SEVERING: No, I did not know anything about that either.

THE PRESIDENT: I think he said he didn’t know of any violations.

MAJOR JONES: I am putting to you certain matters, and I suggest to you, Herr Minister, that it may well be that you were being deceived during this time. Do you agree with me about that?

SEVERING: I would not deny the possibility of deception, but I must very definitely declare that I did not know anything of the construction of a submarine.

MAJOR JONES: I want you to look at the Document C-156. This is a new extract from Captain Schüssler’s Fight of the Navy against Versailles. You will see that the following entry appears on Pages 43 and 44.

“In 1930 Bartenbach succeeded, in Finland also, in making preparations for the construction of a U-boat answering to the military demands of the German Navy. The Naval Chief of Staff, Admiral Dr.h.c. Raeder, decided, as a result of the reports of the Chief of the General Naval Office, Konteradmiral Heusinger Von Waldegg, and of Captain Bartenbach, to supply the means required for the construction of the vessel in Finland. A 250-ton plan was chosen for this U-boat, so that the amount of 1½ million Reichsmark was sufficient for carrying out the project.

“The fundamental intention was to create a type of U-boat which would permit the inconspicuous preparation of the largest possible number of units which could be assembled at shortest possible notice.”

Herr Minister, did you know that 1½ million Reichsmark were spent in 1930 in connection with this U-boat construction?

SEVERING: I have stated this morning that I was Minister in the Reich Ministry of the Interior from 1928 to 1930. I consider it necessary to determine these dates a bit more precisely. I resigned on 30 March 1930. If the year 1930 is mentioned in a general way, then it is not impossible that everything mentioned here was carried out after 30 March 1930.

MAJOR JONES: You have said that the rearmament that went on when you were connected with the Government of Germany was purely defensive. When did you realize that the Nazi Government’s rearmament was not defensive but aggressive? At what date did you come to that conclusion?

SEVERING: From 30 January 1933 on. That both the choice and the appointment of Hitler as Chancellor of the Reich meant war, was not in the least doubted by me and my political friends.

MAJOR JONES: So that you realized from the first day of Nazi power that the Nazi Government intended to use force or the threat of force to achieve its political aims; is that right?

SEVERING: I do not know if knowledge and conviction are identical. I was convinced of it, and so were my political friends.

MAJOR JONES: I want to ask you one or two questions about the Defendant Von Papen. Did Papen use force in carrying out the Putsch which brought him to power in July 1932?

SEVERING: Von Papen did not personally exercise such force, but he did order it. When, on the morning of 20 July 1932, I refused to surrender voluntarily the office of the Prussian Ministry of the Interior to the man who had been appointed by Von Papen as my successor, I explained to him that I had no intention of doing so and in order to make my protest more emphatic, I pointed out that I would only give way to force. And then force was used in the evening of 20 July in my office. The newly appointed police president of Berlin appeared in my office, accompanied by two police officers. I asked these gentlemen whether they were authorized by the President of the Reich or by the Reich Chancellor to carry out this mission. When they answered “yes,” I stated that I would leave my office rather than cause the shedding of blood.

MAJOR JONES: Did the Defendant Papen, when he secured power, purge the police and the government of anti-Nazis?

SEVERING: Yes. There are numerous indications that the intention existed to purge the police of all republican elements and to replace them with men who were first devoted to Von Papen and then to the National Socialists.

MAJOR JONES: I want to ask you one or two questions about the Defendant Göring.

The Defendant Göring has stated, and the entry is on Page 5837 of the transcript of the proceedings (Volume IX, Page 258), that the institution of protective custody existed in Germany before the Nazis came into power. Is that true?

SEVERING: I would say that the institution of protective custody did exist, theoretically, and it was last formulated in the Prussian Police Administrative Law, in Paragraph 15. During my term of office protective custody was never applied in normal civilian life. The regulations in Paragraph 15 of the Police Administrative Law stipulated quite definitely that if anybody was taken into protective custody the police administration was obliged to bring him before the courts within 24 hours. This procedure is in no way identical with that protective custody, the threat of which for decades remained suspended over the peaceful citizens of the State.

MAJOR JONES: And, of course, there were no concentration camps in pre-Nazi Germany, I take it?

SEVERING: Never.

MAJOR JONES: How many of your political associates and colleagues of the Social Democratic Party were murdered in concentration camps while Göring was still Chief of the Gestapo?

SEVERING: It is very difficult to make an estimate. You might say 500, you might also say 2,000. Reliable information is now being collected. My estimate is that at least 1,500 Social Democrats, or trade-union officials, or editors were murdered.

MAJOR JONES: And how many Communist leaders do you think were murdered during Göring’s period of power over the Gestapo?

SEVERING: I would assume that if you include among the Communist leaders also such trade union officials, who considered themselves members of the Communist Party, then approximately the same figure would be reached.

MAJOR JONES: Did Göring personally have any knowledge of these murders?

SEVERING: That I cannot say. If I were to answer that question, then I should have to ask myself what I would have done in case it had been one of my functions to administer camps in which the fate of tens of thousands was being decided.

I am not sure whether it is of any interest to the Tribunal if I were to give you one or two examples from my own experience.

In 1925 I had to create a camp for refugees from Poland.

MAJOR JONES: You need not trouble to go into that, Herr Minister.

SEVERING: No? At any rate I would have considered it my first and foremost task to inquire whether, in the camps which I had installed, the principles of humanitarianism were being adhered to. I was under the impression that this was not being done. I always reminded my police officials that they were servants of the people and that everyone in those camps should be humanely treated. I told them that never again should the call resound in Germany, “Protect us from the police.” (“Schutz vor Schutzleuten”). I myself demanded punishment for police or other officials when I was under the impression that defenseless prisoners were being ill-treated by members of the police.

MAJOR JONES: As Minister of the Interior, did you become familiar with the organized terror of the SA against the non-Nazi population of Germany in the years after 1921?

SEVERING: Oh yes. Keeping an eye on the so-called armed organizations was one of my most important tasks during my term of office in Prussia. The roughest of all the armed organizations proved to be the SA. They sang songs such as: “Clear the streets for the Brown Battalions” and with the same arrogance with which they sang these songs, they forcibly became masters of the streets, wherever they encountered no adversary worth mentioning. Another rowdy song of theirs seemingly illustrated their program: “Hang the Jews and shoot the bigwigs.” Wherever the SA could exercise terror unhindered, they raged and blustered in such style. They waged beer-hall battles with people of different opinion. These were not the customary skirmishes between political opponents during election fights. No, this was organized terror. During the first Jewish boycott in 1933, they stood on guard to frighten those customers from buying in department stores who were accustomed to buy in these stores. As the Tribunal already know, they organized the terror actions of 8 November 1938. In 1930 they also damaged numerous Jewish shops in Berlin, possibly as a worthy prelude to the convening of the Reichstag into which 107 National Socialists entered at the time, as we know.

MAJOR JONES: Finally, I want to ask you one or two questions about the Defendant Schacht.

When did you first hear of Schacht’s relations with the Nazi leaders?

SEVERING: In 1931 I received information from the police administration in Berlin, that interviews had been taking place between Mr. Schacht and the leaders of the National Socialist German Workers Party.

MAJOR JONES: Did you have any connections with Schacht in 1944?

SEVERING: If the matter is of any interest here to anybody, I actually refused these connections. Schacht—although I held him in high esteem as an economic expert—was known to me as a rather unreliable person in political matters. By joining the Harzburg Front, Schacht betrayed the cause of democracy. This was not only an act of ingratitude, for it was only through the Democrats that he ever reached the post of President of the Reichsbank, but it was also a great mistake since he and others of the same social standing by joining the Harzburg Front first made the National Socialists—so to speak—socially acceptable.

I could not, for this very reason, agree to any co-operation with Schacht on 20 July 1944, and when in March 1943 I was asked to join a government which was to overthrow Hitler, I categorically refused to do so, giving Schacht’s machinations and sundry other circumstances as my excuse.

MAJOR JONES: What was your reason for that?

SEVERING: I have just indicated these reasons. My friend Leuschner, who was hanged, together with other young Social Democrats—Von Harnack, Weber, Maas—my friend Leuschner and I discussed the composition of such a government. Leuschner informed me that a general would probably be the President of the Reich, and another general would be the Minister for War. I pointed out that Schacht in all probability would become financial or economic dictator, since Schacht was suitable for such a post through his actual or alleged connections with American business circles. But these connections between Schacht and—in National Socialist parlance—between plutocracy and militarism, this connection, I say, appeared to me so compromising to the cause of democracy, especially to the cause of Social Democracy, that I was under no circumstances prepared to become a member of any cabinet in which Schacht would be the financial dictator.

MAJOR JONES: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to re-examine?

DR. SIEMERS: Minister Severing, the Prosecutor has just talked about the construction of a U-boat in Finland and of a U-boat in Cadiz. With regard to the construction of the U-boat in Cadiz, he has referred to D-854. I presume that this document is unknown to you.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Siemers, the witness said he knew nothing about either of those instances.

DR. SIEMERS: Thank you.

[Turning to the witness.] Do you not remember that during that discussion Admiral Raeder and Reichswehrminister Gröner mentioned the Finland U-boat?

SEVERING: I do not remember.

DR. SIEMERS: You do not know about it? And now—a leading question: Is it true that the agreement made on 18 October 1928 stipulated that the Chief of the Naval Command Staff was obligated to keep the Reichswehrminister informed and the Minister of the Reichswehr, in his turn, would inform the other Ministers of the Cabinet?

SEVERING: As far as I can remember, the agreement or the promise of the two Chiefs of the Command Staffs was that the Cabinet should, generally speaking, be kept informed about all questions. That was technically possible only in the manner in which you have just indicated, that is to say, that the Reichswehrminister would be the first to be informed and that he, in turn, would pass this information on to the Cabinet.

DR. SIEMERS: So that there was no obligation, on Raeder’s part, currently to report to you or to appear before the Cabinet?

SEVERING: That would have been quite an unusual measure, just as the meeting of 18 October was in itself unusual; the members of the Cabinet consisted either of the Ministers or of their official representatives.

DR. SIEMERS: So that the further management of the matter would technically be handled by the Reichswehrminister?

SEVERING: Technically by the Reichswehrminister and politically by the Cabinet.

DR. SIEMERS: Thank you very much. I have no further questions to put to the witness.

DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for Defendant Von Papen): On what legal regulation was your exemption from the duties of Minister of the Interior in Prussia, on 20 July 1932, based?

SEVERING: The release from my duties?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes. The release from your duties.

SEVERING: It was based on Article 48.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Who, on the strength of Article 48, issued emergency decrees?

SEVERING: This emergency decree was issued by the Reich President, who alone was entitled to do so.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Was the fact that you were removed from office on 20 July, under the circumstances which you have just described, based on the fact that Von Papen and Hindenburg, who issued the decree, were of the opinion that the emergency decree was legal, whereas it was your point of view that the legal basis for the emergency decree did not exist and in consequence you remained in your office?

SEVERING: I was of the opinion, and it was later confirmed by the Supreme Court (Reichsgericht) that the President of the Reich was authorized on the strength of Article 48 to issue directives for the maintenance of peace and order; and if he did not see in the Prussian Ministers, and particularly in myself as Minister of Police, sufficient guarantee that this peace and order would be insured in Prussia, he had the right to relieve us of our police functions, and especially to exclude us from all other executive measures. But he did not have the right to discharge us as ministers.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Is it known to you that the highest court in Germany, the State Court of Justice, on 25 October 1932 issued a statement to the effect that the decree of the Reich President of 20 July 1932 was compatible with the Constitution insofar as it had appointed the Reich Chancellor as Reich Commissioner for Prussia and authorized him temporarily to deprive Prussian Ministers of their official functions and to assume these functions personally.

SEVERING: I have just explained the meaning of that decision of the High Court of Justice.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: One more question: Did Von Papen, then Reich Commissioner, in carrying out certain changes in personnel, bring National Socialists into the police force?

SEVERING: I cannot say. The political character of the police officials was not outwardly recognizable. That might be the case with Oberpräsidenten, Regierungspräsidenten and police presidents, but not with every simple police official.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Is it true that Von Papen gave the key position of police president in Berlin to the former police president of Essen, Melcher, who in your time was already police president of a large city?

SEVERING: That is correct.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Now then, the witness can retire and the Tribunal will now adjourn.

How many more witnesses have you got?

DR. SIEMERS: I now have the witnesses, Freiherr Von Weizsäcker and Vice Admiral Schulte-Mönting, the Chief of Staff. The examination of Schulte-Mönting will take up some time, whereas I shall be through with Freiherr Von Weizsäcker in a short while.

THE PRESIDENT: All right.

[A recess was taken.]

DR. SIEMERS: If it please Your Honors, may the Witness Freiherr Von Weizsäcker, be called?

[The witness Von Weizsäcker took the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name, please?

ERNST VON WEIZSÄCKER (Witness): Ernst von Weizsäcker.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.

[The witness repeated the oath.]

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

DR. SIEMERS: Baron Von Weizsäcker, at the beginning of the war you were State Secretary in the Foreign Office, is that correct?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: You will recollect that on 3 September 1939, that is on the first day of the war between Germany and England—the English passenger ship Athenia was torpedoed northwest of Scotland. There were American passengers on board. The sinking of the ship naturally caused a great sensation. Please tell the Tribunal how this matter was treated politically, that is, by you.

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I remember this incident, but I am not certain whether it was a British or an American ship. In any case, the incident alarmed me very greatly at the time. I inquired of the Naval Operations Staff whether a German naval unit could have sunk the ship. After this was denied, I begged the American Chargé d’Affaires, Mr. Alexander Kirk, to call on me and told him that no German naval unit could have participated in the sinking of the Athenia. I asked the Chargé d’Affaires to take cognizance of this fact and to cable this information to Washington without delay, adding that it was most important in the interests of our two nations—Germany and America.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Von Weizsäcker, you had contacted the Navy before taking these steps?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: Did you, at this first conversation, talk to Admiral Raeder personally or did you speak with some other officer?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I could not say that now, but I did get definite information. I am sorry I cannot give you the full details. But I did receive a definite answer that no German naval unit was involved. That satisfied me.

DR. SIEMERS: In connection with this subject did you, on the same day or shortly after, visit Admiral Raeder and discuss this matter further with him?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I believe that is true. I can recall. Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: Did Raeder tell you on this occasion that it could not have been a German U-boat, since reports coming in from the U-boats said that the distance from the nearest U-boat was too great, that is—about 75 nautical miles?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Raeder informed me that no German U-boat could have been involved. He may also have mentioned details, concerning the distance of the U-boats from the point where the ship went down, but I cannot today tell you about this with any certainty.

DR. SIEMERS: During this conversation with Raeder, did you declare that everything should be done to avoid war with the United States, referring particularly to incidents like the sinking of the Lusitania in the previous war?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: That I certainly and emphatically did, for at that time the recollections of similar past incidents during the first World War were still very vivid in my mind. I am sure I drew his attention to the urgent necessity of avoiding all naval operations which might cause a spreading of the war and—as I used to say in those days—decrease the “neutral substance.”

DR. SIEMERS: Did Raeder share your opinion?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: To the best of my recollections—yes.

DR. SIEMERS: Are you convinced, Herr Von Weizsäcker, that Raeder gave you truthful answers in this report about the Athenia?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Of course.

DR. SIEMERS: Now U-boat Number 30 returned from her combat mission on 27 September 1939, that is—about three weeks after the sinking of the Athenia, and her commander reported that he had inadvertently sunk the Athenia. He had not noticed the fact at the time but was apprised of the incident later by various wireless messages. Raeder heard about it at the end of September, and discussed the matter with Hitler in order to decide what attitude should be adopted. Hitler issued an order enjoining silence. All this has already been discussed here. I would like you to tell me if you were informed of the fact, subsequently established, of the sinking by a German U-boat.

VON WEIZSÄCKER: No, certainly not.

DR. SIEMERS: Did you hear of Hitler’s order enjoining silence?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I naturally did not hear of that either.

DR. SIEMERS: I shall now have Document Number 3260-PS handed to you and I must ask you to have a look at it. It is an article entitled “Churchill Sinks the Athenia,” taken from the Völkischer Beobachter of 23 October 1939. Do you remember this article?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Yes. Perhaps I may look through it.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I inform you, in order to assist the Tribunal, that this is GB-218 in the British Document Book Number 10a, Page 97, to be correct—Page 99.

[Turning to the witness.] Herr Von Weizsäcker, you have read this article. May I ask you to tell me whether you recall having read this article at the time of its appearance?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I do recall that such an article did appear at that time.

DR. SIEMERS: Then may I ask you further what your attitude was at the time when you heard about this article?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I considered it a perverted fantasy.

DR. SIEMERS: Then you condemned this article?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Naturally.

DR. SIEMERS: Even though at the time you did not know yet that it was a German U-Boat?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: The question of whether it was a German U-boat or not could in no wise influence my opinion of the article.

DR. SIEMERS: Then you considered this article objectionable, even if it had not been a German U-boat?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Of course.

DR. SIEMERS: Now the Prosecution asserts that Admiral Raeder had instigated this article and is reproaching him very gravely on moral grounds for this very reason, and the reproach is all the graver since, as we have seen, Raeder at this time—unlike yourself—knew that it was a German U-boat which had sunk the Athenia. Do you consider such an action possible on Raeder’s part? That he could have instigated this article?

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, Dr. Siemers, you can only ask the witness what he knew and what he did. You cannot ask him to speculate about what Raeder has done.

DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon, Mr. President. I believed that, according to this morning’s affidavit, it would be possible to voice an opinion; but I shall, of course, retract my question.

THE PRESIDENT: What affidavit are you talking about?

DR. SIEMERS: The affidavit in which I suggested the expunging of any expression of opinion, Dietmann’s affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: That is a perfectly different matter.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Von Weizsäcker, did you at that time hear that Raeder had instigated this article?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: No, I did not hear that; I would never have believed it either. I consider it entirely out of the question that he could have instigated an article of that sort or that he could have written it himself.

DR. SIEMERS: To your knowledge, could this article be traced exclusively to the Propaganda Ministry?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I can only answer this question in the negative; not to Raeder and not to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Von Weizsäcker, are you in a position to judge whether grave points were involved in the historically-known violations committed by the Navy against the Treaty of Versailles?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I can only answer that question indirectly. The details are unknown to me. But I can scarcely consider it possible that grave or important violations could have occurred, for it is precisely in naval matters that the observance of contract agreements is particularly easy to control. Ships cannot be built without being seen. I must therefore assume that these infringements were of an insignificant nature.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Von Weizsäcker, in your opinion, did the Defendant Raeder prepare a war of aggression or do you know of any case from which Raeder’s attitude...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, that is the very charge against the Defendant Raeder which the Tribunal has got to decide.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Von Weizsäcker, in February 1939, when you traveled by train from Hamburg to Berlin with Admiral Raeder, did you converse with him? And what was the occasion and what did you discuss?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Yes. It is quite true that I met Admiral Raeder on the train from Hamburg to Berlin, after the launching of a ship at Hamburg. On this occasion the Admiral told me that he had just made a report to Hitler in which he said he had made it quite clear that the size of the Navy would preclude any war against England for years to come. I presume that this is the reply to the question which you wished to receive from me.

DR. SIEMERS: That was in February 1939?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: It was the launching of the Bismarck.

DR. SIEMERS: Then it is known to the Tribunal, for the launching of the Bismarck is entered in the records.

VON WEIZSÄCKER: It must have been in the spring—in February or March.

DR. SIEMERS: Did Raeder’s declaration at that time have a calming influence on you?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I heard Raeder’s declaration on the subject with very great pleasure because there could be no other...

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we do not care whether it had a calming influence on him or not.

DR. SIEMERS: In your opinion, and to the best of your knowledge, did Raeder—either as a politician or as a naval expert—exercise any influence over Hitler?

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the witness can tell us what Raeder said, but he really cannot tell us in what capacity he was speaking, whether as a politician or an admiral. If you want to know whether he had his uniform on...

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Von Weizsäcker, did you have any conversations with Raeder or with any other high-ranking personages?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: About what?

DR. SIEMERS: About Raeder’s influence on Hitler.

VON WEIZSÄCKER: It was a well-known fact that political arguments expressed by soldiers scarcely influenced Hitler at all, although military arguments of a technical nature certainly did carry weight with him, and in this sense Raeder may have exercised some influence over Hitler.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Von Weizsäcker, in the winter of 1938 to 1939, the usual large diplomatic dinner party took place in Berlin and you, as far as I know, were present at this dinner. On this occasion Raeder spoke to Sir Nevile Henderson about the probable return of Germany’s colonies...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, why do you not ask him instead of telling him. You are telling him what happened.

DR. SIEMERS: No.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you are.

DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon; this was a conversation between Raeder and Sir Nevile Henderson, not between Herr Von Weizsäcker and Henderson.

I am now asking you, Herr Von Weizsäcker, did you have a conversation to this effect with Sir Nevile Henderson or with other British diplomats? And do you know anything about their attitude?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I cannot recall having spoken personally with any British diplomats about the question of the colonies. On the other hand, I do know that between 1934 and 1939 the question of the colonies was repeatedly handled by the British Government either officially, unofficially or semiofficially, and their attitude was expressed in a friendly and conciliatory manner. I believe I can remember reading a report on the visit of two British ministers to Berlin and that on this occasion the question of the colonies was also discussed in a conciliatory manner.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Von Weizsäcker, can you tell us anything about the behavior or the reputation of the Navy during the Norwegian occupation?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: An occupational force always finds it difficult to be popular anywhere. But with this one reservation I should like to state that the Navy, as far as I heard, enjoyed a good, even a very good, reputation in Norway. This was repeatedly confirmed to me during the war by my Norwegian friends.

DR. SIEMERS: You made these Norwegian friendships at the time you were Minister in Oslo? When was that?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I was Minister in Oslo from 1931 to 1933.

DR. SIEMERS: Now, one last question. A document, D-843, was submitted yesterday, signed by Breuer who was with the Oslo Legation in March 1940. May I submit this document to you?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Am I to read the entire document?

DR. SIEMERS: I think it would suffice if you were just to glance through it, especially over the middle part of the document.

[Turning to the President.] Mr. President, it is GB-466 and the document was submitted yesterday.

[Turning to the witness.] According to this document Breuer stated that the danger of a British landing in Norway was not so great as was assumed by the other side, and he speaks of measures only by which Germany might be provoked. What can you tell us about these statements of Breuer’s? Are these statements correct?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Breuer was not with the Legation—he was the Minister himself—and I take it for granted that he reported correctly on the subject from an objective or rather, if I may say so, subjective point of view. Whether this was really correct from an objective point of view or not, is quite another question. To put it in plain German, whether Breuer was correctly informed of the intentions of the enemy forces is another question.

DR. SIEMERS: Herr Von Weizsäcker, according to the information you subsequently received from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, were Raeder’s misgivings justified or was the picture, as painted by Breuer, correct?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I must confess that my personal opinion tallied with the opinion of Breuer, although both our opinions subsequently proved to be incorrect and the conjectures of the Navy were justified, or—at least—more justified than the opinion voiced by the Minister.

DR. SIEMERS: Thank you very much indeed.

THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the Defense Counsel want to ask any questions of this witness?

DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Hess): Witness, on 23 August 1939, a nonaggression pact was concluded between Germany and the Soviet Union. Were any other agreements concluded on that day by the two governments, outside of this pact of nonaggression?

GENERAL R. A. RUDENKO (Chief Prosecutor for the USSR): Mr. President, the witness is called upon to answer certain definite questions which are set forth in the application of counsel for the defendant, Dr. Siemers. I consider that the question which is being put to him at this moment by the defense counsel Seidl has no connection with the examination of the case in hand and should be ruled out.

THE PRESIDENT: You may ask the question, Dr. Seidl, that you were going to ask.

DR. SEIDL: I ask you again, Herr Von Weizsäcker, whether on 23 August 1939, other agreements had been reached between the two governments, which were not contained in the nonaggression pact?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Yes.

DR. SEIDL: Where were these agreements contained?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: These agreements were contained in a secret protocol.

DR. SEIDL: Did you yourself read this secret protocol in your capacity of State Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Yes.

DR. SEIDL: I have before me a text and Ambassador Gaus harbors no doubt at all that the agreements in question are correctly set out in this text. I shall have it put to you.

THE PRESIDENT: One moment, what document are you putting to him?

DR. SEIDL: The secret addenda to the protocol of 23 August 1939.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that not the document—what is this document that you are presenting to the witness? There is a document which you have already presented to the Tribunal and which has been ruled out. Is that the same document?

DR. SEIDL: It is the document which I submitted to the Tribunal in my documentary evidence and which was refused by the Tribunal, presumably because I refused to divulge the origin and source of this document. But the Tribunal granted me permission to produce a new sworn affidavit by Ambassador Gaus on the subject in question.

THE PRESIDENT: You have not done it? You have not done it?

DR. SEIDL: No, but I should, Your Honor, like to read this text in order to stimulate the memory of the witness, and to ask him whether in connection therewith, as far as he can remember, the secret agreements are correctly reproduced in this document.

GEN. RUDENKO: Your Honors! I would like to protest against these questions for two reasons.

First of all, we are examining the matter of the crimes of the major German war criminals. We are not investigating the foreign policies of other states. Secondly, the document which defense counsel Seidl is attempting to put to the witness has been rejected by the Tribunal, since it is—in substance—a forged document and cannot have any probative value whatsoever.

DR. SEIDL: May I in this connection say the following, Mr. President. This document is an essential component of the nonaggression pact, submitted by the Prosecution in evidence as GB-145. If I now submit the text to the witness...

THE PRESIDENT: The only question is whether it is the document which has been rejected by the Tribunal. Is it the document which has been rejected by the Tribunal?

DR. SEIDL: It was rebutted as documentary evidence per se.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, then the answer is “yes.”

DR. SEIDL: But it seems to me that there is a difference as to whether this document may be put to the witness during the hearing of his testimony. I should like to answer this question in the affirmative since the Prosecution when cross-examining can put the document in their possession to the witness, and on the basis of his testimony we should then see which is the correct text or whether these two texts harmonize at all.

THE PRESIDENT: Where does the document which you are presenting come from?

DR. SEIDL: I received this document a few weeks ago from a man on the Allied side who appeared absolutely reliable. I received it only on condition that I would not divulge its origin, a condition which seemed to me perfectly reasonable.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you say that you received it a few moments ago?

DR. SEIDL: Weeks ago.

THE PRESIDENT: It is the same document that you say just now that you presented to the Tribunal and the Tribunal rejected?

DR. SEIDL: Yes, but the Tribunal also decided that I might submit another sworn affidavit from Ambassador Gaus on this subject, and this decision only makes sense...

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know, but you have not done so. We do not know what affidavit Dr. Gaus has made.

DR. SEIDL: Ambassador Gaus’ sworn affidavit, the new one, is already in my possession, but it has not yet been translated.

MR. DODD: Mr. President, I certainly join General Rudenko in objecting to the use of this document. We now know that it comes from some anonymous source. We do not know the source at all, and anyway it is not established that this witness does not remember himself what this purported agreement amounted to. I do not know why he can not ask him, if that is what he wants to do.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, you may ask the witness what his recollection is of the treaty without putting the document to him. Ask him what he remembers of the treaty, or the protocol.

DR. SEIDL: Witness, please describe the contents of the agreement insofar as you can remember them.

VON WEIZSÄCKER: It is about a very incisive, a very far-reaching secret addendum to the nonaggression pact concluded at that time. The scope of this document was very extensive since it concerned the partition of the spheres of influence and drew a demarcation line between areas which, under given conditions, belonged to the sphere of Soviet Russia and those which would fall in the German sphere of interest. Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Eastern Poland and, as far as I can remember, certain areas of Romania were to be included in the sphere of the Soviet Union. Anything west of this area fell into the German sphere of interest. It is true that this secret agreement did not maintain its original form. Later on, either in September or October of the same year, a certain change, an amendment was made. As far as I can recall the essential difference in the two documents consisted in the fact that Lithuania, or—at least—the greater part of Lithuania, fell into the sphere of interest of the Soviet Union, while in the Polish territory the line of demarcation between the two spheres of interest was moved very considerably westwards.

I believe that I have herewith given you the gist of the secret agreement and of the subsequent addendum.

DR. SEIDL: Is it true that in case of a subsequent territorial reorganization, a line of demarcation was agreed upon in the territory of the Polish State?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I cannot tell you exactly whether the expression “line of demarcation” was contained in this protocol or whether “line of separation of spheres of interest” was the actual term.

DR. SEIDL: But a line was drawn.

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Precisely the line which I have just mentioned, and I believe I can recall that this line, once the agreement became effective, was adhered to as a general rule with possible slight fluctuations.

DR. SEIDL: Can you recall—this is my last question—if this secret addendum of 23 August 1939 also contained an agreement on the future destiny of Poland?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: This secret agreement included a complete redirection of Poland’s destiny. It may very well have been that explicitly or implicitly such a redirection had been provided for in the agreement. I would not, however, like to commit myself as to the exact wording.

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Witness, did you see the original of the secret treaty?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I saw a photostat of the original, possibly the original as well. In any case I had the photostatic copy in my possession, I had a photostatic copy locked up in my personal safe.

THE PRESIDENT: Would you recognize a copy of it if it was shown to you?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Oh, yes, I definitely think so. The original signatures were attached and they could be recognized immediately.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.

[A recess was taken.]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has been considering whether it ought to put to the witness the document in the possession of Dr. Seidl, but in view of the fact that the contents of the original have been stated by the witness and by other witnesses and that it does not appear what is the origin of the document which is in Dr. Seidl’s possession, the Tribunal has decided not to put the document to the witness. The Tribunal will now adjourn.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 22 May 1946 at 1000 hours.]

ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SIXTH DAY Wednesday, 22 May 1946

Morning Session

[The witness Von Weizsäcker resumed the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, I think yesterday we got to the stage whether any of the other defendants’ counsel wished to ask any questions.

DR. SIEMERS: Yes, indeed; I believe Dr. Von Lüdinghausen wishes to examine the witness.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN (Counsel for Defendant Von Neurath): Witness, I should like to put a few questions to you about the activity of Herr Von Neurath in his capacity as Foreign Minister. You were at that time Director of the Political Department of the Foreign Office. What were the dates?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I believe from late autumn of 1936, as a deputy, and from the spring of 1937 until the spring of 1938 with full capacity.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: But before then you had already had occasion to work with Herr Von Neurath? In the autumn of 1932 were you not together now and then at the Disarmament Conference at Geneva?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Yes.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: What tendencies did Herr Von Neurath follow, and what attitude did Von Neurath adopt at the Disarmament Conference?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: The attitude of Herr Von Neurath was dictated by the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations which provided for disarmament. He followed those lines.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: In that he followed the same policy which his predecessors had followed at the Disarmament Conference?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: It was always the same.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes, all the previous governments pursued a policy aimed at peace and unity, or understanding; and Herr Von Neurath continued this policy wholeheartedly, is that not correct?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I never noticed anything to the contrary.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Did you at that time—that is in 1932—notice in any way that he had National Socialist tendencies or that he was at all in sympathy with the National Socialists?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I had the impression that there was no common ground between him and National Socialism.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Can you quite briefly summarize Herr Von Neurath’s views with respect to foreign politics? Could he have been at that time in favor of belligerent action, or was he the representative, the acknowledged representative, of a policy of understanding and peace?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I should say that Herr Von Neurath pursued a policy of peaceful revision, the same policy that had been carried on by his predecessors. His aim was good neighborliness with all, without binding himself politically in any special direction. I never noticed any bellicose tendencies in his policies.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Was there any change in Herr Von Neurath’s views in the year 1936, when you became one of his closest collaborators, or did they always remain the same?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: They were always the same.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: He was especially interested in bringing about an understanding with England, but also with France; is that right?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I had the impression that Herr Von Neurath wanted to bring about an understanding with all sides.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I should like to put a few more questions to you which more or less concern his relations with Hitler.

According to your knowledge of the circumstances, as his collaborator, can it be said that he had the confidence of Adolf Hitler at all times when he was Foreign Minister, and also that Hitler let himself be advised and led by him altogether?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: As far as I am in a position to judge, he was the adviser but not the confidant of Hitler.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: But there was a certain contact between those gentlemen; is that not right?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I was hardly ever a witness of such contacts.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Did you observe, when Von Neurath and Hitler met, whether they frequently discussed the political situation, what had to be done, and what should be done?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I can only say that we of the Foreign Office regretted that the contact was not closer; all the more so as Hitler was frequently absent from Berlin. We considered the contact too loose.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Then, one cannot speak of close relations or of very close collaboration with Hitler in the case of Von Neurath?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: In my opinion, no.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: And, in your opinion and according to your observation, how did the activity of Von Neurath affect foreign policy? Was he the leading man, or was he not perhaps a retarding element, that is a brake, so to speak, where matters contrary to his convictions were concerned?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I have no actual proof that important foreign political actions of this period were influenced by Von Neurath. But I can well imagine that certain actions in the sphere of foreign politics were prevented...

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. I do not think we can have the witness imagine. We cannot have the witness telling us what he can imagine. I think the question is too vague, and not a proper question to ask.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: During the time when Herr Von Neurath was Foreign Minister, did any authority in the Party also have an influence on the foreign policy which in effect was contrary to the tendencies of Von Neurath or at least was not shared by him?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I believe there was not only one but many who acted in that way and had connection and influence with Hitler of course. That could not be verified, but it could be concluded from the results.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Do you know why, for what reason, the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan in November 1935 was not signed by Von Neurath but by the then Ambassador Von Ribbentrop in London?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Was not that in 1936?

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: 1936; yes that is right.

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I assume for the reason that Hitler always liked to put several persons on to certain work, and he would then select from among them the one he considered best suited to carry the work through.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Was Von Neurath at all in agreement with this Anti-Comintern Pact?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: That I do not know.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: What was Von Neurath’s policy regarding personnel? Did he try to keep old officials in office, or did he bring in National Socialist officials?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Herr Von Neurath was very anxious to retain the old and familiar Foreign Office staff, in the Foreign Office, as well as in positions abroad.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: But that changed the moment he resigned?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Not immediately, but later on to an increasing extent.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Now, just two more questions. What was the attitude of Herr Von Neurath when he was no longer Foreign Minister and the Sudeten questions became acute, in the autumn of 1938; and what part did he play at the Munich Conference?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I recall a scene in the Reich Chancellery, a day before the Munich Agreement, when Herr Von Neurath very strongly recommended pursuing a policy of appeasement and following the suggestion of Mussolini to hold a four-power conference.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Do you know that after Von Neurath had left the Foreign Office that office was forbidden to give him any information about foreign politics?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I think I remember that the successor of Herr Von Neurath kept to himself information his predecessor received about foreign political matters.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I have no further questions.

DR. LATERNSER: Herr Von Weizsäcker, you were German Ambassador to the Holy See in Rome from the summer of 1943?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Yes.

DR. LATERNSER: At the same time the commander-in-chief in the Italian theater of war was Field Marshal Kesselring?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Yes; that is, he was the commander-in-chief in that theater from 25 September 1943. Before that time an Italian general held the post.

DR. LATERNSER: Were you frequently called upon by Kesselring to settle differences between the German Army on one hand and the civil authorities on the other?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: There was constant communication between Field Marshal Kesselring and my own office, not only in order to straighten out differences, but above all to prevent differences.

DR. LATERNSER: Did you, through your frequent contacts with Field Marshal Kesselring, gain a personal impression with regard to the attitude of the military...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, we are not trying Kesselring. What relevance has this question got?

DR. LATERNSER: This question is relevant because in the cross-examination of Field Marshal Kesselring the Prosecution produced incriminating material to the effect that the military leadership in Italy did not observe the usages of war and the laws of humanity. I distinctly remember that you, Mr. President—and this may be seen on Pages 5803 and 5805 (Volume IX, Pages 234, 235)—said in reply to an objection by Dr. Stahmer that it was material incriminating the General Staff. I should like to ask the witness now present a few questions about this incriminating material.

THE PRESIDENT: If you wish to ask him anything that he knows about accusations which have been made by the Prosecution against Kesselring as a member of the General Staff, then you may do that.

DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Mr. President. I started and that was to be a preparatory question.

Herr Von Weizsäcker, were the objects of art of Italy in the Italian theater of war spared and put in safekeeping?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: The German Wehrmacht, under the leadership of Field Marshal Kesselring, made the greatest efforts to spare and protect edifices, property, and objects of art belonging to the Church. This was a large chapter in the activities of the staff of Field Marshal Kesselring, and success was not wanting.

DR. LATERNSER: Can you give us one or two especially significant examples on this point?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Yes, there are a lot of examples. I would like to mention that 6 months or a year ago an exhibition of manuscripts, incunabula, and similar things, was held in the Vatican. The German Wehrmacht is to be thanked for having saved a large part, if not the greater part of these objects.

DR. LATERNSER: That is sufficient, Herr Von Weizsäcker. The high military command in Italy is accused of having treated the Italian population with especial harshness and cruelty. Can you tell us anything about the fact that precisely on the part of the high military command in Italy special measures were taken for the feeding of the population at a period when the food problem was difficult?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Does this question refer especially to the food problem?

DR. LATERNSER: Yes, the food problem in Rome.

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Well, my field of observation was only Rome. But there I can say that Field Marshal Kesselring told me one day that half his time was taken up with the question of feeding Rome. And I knew one of the higher military officials—I believe his name was Seifert or something like that—who with great devotion concerned himself with this task and carried it through with success.

DR. LATERNSER: Now my last question, Herr Von Weizsäcker: Through your observations of the activities of the high military leaders in Italy you must have gained a personal impression of these people. Did you get the impression that there was a sincere effort on the part of these military leaders to observe the laws of war and the laws of humanity?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: That is a matter of course, for otherwise certain results could not have come about. Perhaps it is not known here that in the autumn of 1943 the Holy See published a communiqué, an official communiqué, which especially praised the behavior of the German soldiers in Rome. Besides that, the sparing of the Eternal City could not have been realized if the German Wehrmacht had not behaved as it did.

DR. LATERNSER: And that was a special merit of Field Marshal Kesselring in particular?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I would say that when the history of this time comes to be written first in the list of merit will be Pope Pius XII. Then praise will be accorded, in the second place to the German Wehrmacht under the leadership of Kesselring.

DR. LATERNSER: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: It has been asserted once that the Defendant Von Papen, who in the summer of 1934 had been appointed ambassador to Vienna, directed from that office a policy of aggressive expansion taking in the entire southeast up to Turkey; and that he, among other things, had offered neighboring states like Hungary and Poland territory to be gained from the intended partitioning of Czechoslovakia. Did this policy actually exist?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I am sorry. I did not quite understand your question.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did this policy, which I just outlined, actually exist?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: My observation dates only from the late summer of 1936, as before that time I was abroad. I did not notice later that Herr Von Papen had carried on a southeastern policy for Vienna, or that he was commissioned to do so. The Foreign Office could not entrust him with such a mission, for he did not come under the Foreign Office.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: And this policy, as just outlined, did that exist at all when you entered the Foreign Office?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Please repeat the question.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did this policy of expansion on the part of Germany...

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Which policy?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: The aggressive policy of expansion on the part of Germany to the southeast as far as Turkey, the partitioning of Czechoslovakia, and the cession of parts of Czechoslovakia to Poland and Hungary.

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Yes. In 1939, no doubt?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: 1936—in 1936.

VON WEIZSÄCKER: No.

THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecution?

MAJOR JONES: Witness, I want to ask you one or two questions about the Athenia matter. You have told the Tribunal that you, yourself, saw the American chargé d’affaires and informed him, about the middle of September, that the Athenia could not have been sunk by a German U-boat. That is so, is it not?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I did not see the American chargé d’affaires in the middle of September, but on the day on which I heard of the sinking, and that must have been, perhaps, 3, 4, or 5 of September.

MAJOR JONES: Were you already assuring the American representatives as early as that that a U-boat could not have been responsible?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: That is correct.

MAJOR JONES: And did you recommend, or rather, did the German Foreign Office recommend that the Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy should receive the American naval attaché and tell him the same thing, namely, that a U-boat could not have sunk the Athenia?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: That I do not know. I only dealt with the chargé d’affaires.

MAJOR JONES: I would like you to look at a new document, Document. Number D-804, which will be Exhibit GB-477, which is an extract from the SKL on the Athenia case. You will see that that is a report from Neubauer to the naval attaché and it reads as follows:

“The Foreign Office has had a report of the meeting between the Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy and the American naval attaché, on 13 September 1939, passed on to it by telephone. It is worded as follows:

“‘On the 16th of September, at about 1300 hours, the Commander-in-Chief of...’”

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I am sorry; I have not found the place as yet.

MAJOR JONES: Perhaps you would like to follow the English copy, Witness, if you would like.

I read the second paragraph:

“‘On the 16th of September, at about 1300 hours, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy received the American naval attaché on the advice of the Reich Foreign Minister and told him more or less the following: He had intended for some days already—as he knew—to write him that he should visit him in order to tell him his opinion about the sinking of the Athenia, in view of the continued agitation about it. However, he had waited for the return of those of the submarines that had been employed in waging war against merchant ships at the time in question and which might possibly be concerned, in order to receive reports about their activity personally. He repeated most emphatically that the sinking of the Athenia was not caused by a German submarine. The ship nearest to the place of the incident was at the time actually situated about 170 sea miles away from the place of the sinking. Besides this, the instructions as to how the commanders were to wage war against merchant shipping, had after all been published. Up to date, in no case had these instructions been even slightly disregarded. On the contrary, an American captain reported a short time before about the particularly courteous and chivalrous behavior of the submarine commanders.’”

Well, now, it is clear from that, is it not, that the German Foreign Office was most anxious to cover up this matter of the Athenia as best it could; was it not?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: No; there was nothing to be covered up.

MAJOR JONES: When you discovered at the end of September that in fact it was the U-30 that had sunk the Athenia, there was then a good deal to be covered, was there not?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I believe that I stated already yesterday that I had heard nothing to that effect.

MAJOR JONES: Are you saying that you did not know at the end of September, on the return of the U-30, that the U-30 had in fact sunk the Athenia?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I do not remember that in any way at all.

MAJOR JONES: When did you first discover that the U-30 had sunk the Athenia?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: As far as I remember, not at all during the war.

MAJOR JONES: But I understood you to say yesterday that you thought that the publication in the Völkischer Beobachter, accusing Mr. Winston Churchill of sinking the Athenia, was a piece of perverse imagination; is that right?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Completely.

MAJOR JONES: Are you really saying to the Tribunal that—though you were in a responsible job—are you saying to the Tribunal that you did not discover the true facts about the Athenia until the end of the war, when you were directly concerned in the Foreign Office with this matter?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I told you already yesterday what I know about this. It seems, does it not, that it was realized later by the Navy that the sinking of the Athenia was due to the action of a German submarine, but I cannot at all remember that I or the Foreign Office were informed of this fact.

MAJOR JONES: At any rate, the Defendant Raeder took no steps to correct the information that had been passed to the American diplomatic representatives, did he?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I do not recall at all that Admiral Raeder advised me or the Foreign Office of the fact.

MAJOR JONES: Now, with regard to the Defendant Von Neurath.

If it please the Tribunal, I am not proposing to question the witness as to the earlier diplomatic history, as this Tribunal has indicated that it is desirable to reserve the matter for the defendants as they go into the witness box later.

[Turning to the witness.] But I want to ask you a general question. What was the earliest date at which responsible officials of the Foreign Office, like yourself, first realized that Hitler intended to wage aggressive war?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: That the foreign policy of Hitler’s Government was a dangerous one I realized clearly for the first time in May 1933; the fact that an aggressive war was planned, perhaps, in the summer of 1938, or at least that the course pursued in foreign policy might very easily lead to war.

MAJOR JONES: Already in April 1938, the foreign political situation was so tense that you sent a special memorandum to all German diplomatic representatives dealing with the situation—the critical situation of Germany.

VON WEIZSÄCKER: That may be. May I be permitted to read the document?

MAJOR JONES: I want you to look at Document Number 3572-PS, which is a memorandum of the 25th of April 1938, signed by yourself, and a copy of which was sent to all the German diplomatic representatives. It will be Exhibit GB-478. That document reads:

“Since the work in the field of preparation for the mobilization has made further progress within Germany in the Armed Forces and in all civil administrations including the Foreign Office, it is necessary now that in the case of government offices abroad corresponding measures also be taken in their area of jurisdiction without delay.”

And then there follows a series of instructions as to the actions that are to be taken on the commencement of the period of crisis, or of actual mobilization, and there is an insistence in the last paragraph but one:

“I request the heads of offices, without waiting for further instructions, to start considering now the measures to be taken in their sphere of activity in the case of an emergency. In the interest of absolute secrecy it must be observed strictly that the number of people informed remains as restricted as possible.”

That suggests, does it not, that as early as April 1938 you were conscious of the imminent approach of actual mobilization; is that so?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: May I ask, is this document really dated the year 1938, or is it 1939? I cannot quite distinguish the date.

MAJOR JONES: It is dated the 25th of April 1938.

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Well, that may be.

MAJOR JONES: Now, you yourself were opposed to Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy, were you not?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I did not quite understand your question.

MAJOR JONES: You yourself were opposed to Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy, were you not?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I personally, completely.

MAJOR JONES: Did you endeavor to persuade the Defendant Von Neurath also to oppose Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Herr Von Neurath was not Foreign Minister at that time.

MAJOR JONES: But he continued to be a very important functionary of the Nazi State, did he not?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I believe that his influence in that period was even smaller than before; but I kept in touch with him, and I think I agreed with his opinion and he with mine.

MAJOR JONES: And yet he continued to serve the Nazi State, in particular, in a territory which was acquired as a result of this policy of aggression; is that not so?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I should be grateful if this question would be put to Herr Von Neurath rather than to me.

MAJOR JONES: If you please. Now, you were in Italy and in Rome, were you not, in March of 1944?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Yes.

MAJOR JONES: You have given me some evidence as to the behavior of the German forces in Italy. Were you in Rome at the time of the massacres in the Hadrian Cave? You remember the incident, Witness, do you not?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: Yes.

MAJOR JONES: When 325 Italians were murdered and 57 Jews were thrown in as a bit of makeweight. You were there when that happened, were you not?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I believe it was 320 prisoners who were murdered in this cave which you just mentioned.

MAJOR JONES: Yes. Were you consulted about that matter?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: No.

MAJOR JONES: That was an action by German forces, was it not?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I believe by the German Police, and not by the German Armed Forces.

MAJOR JONES: And you know, Witness, that there were many murders of that kind carried out by the SS during the period of German activity in Italy, do you not?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: I do not know about many murders having taken place, but I believe that the German Police were quite capable of such things.

MAJOR JONES: You know that they left a record of terror and brutality wherever they left their mark upon Italy; is that not so?

VON WEIZSÄCKER: The German Police, yes.

MAJOR JONES: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to re-examine?

DR. SIEMERS: I have no more questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I now call the witness Vice Admiral Schulte-Mönting.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go ahead.

[The witness Schulte-Mönting took the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?

ERICH SCHULTE-MÖNTING (Witness): Erich Schulte-Mönting.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.

[The witness repeated the oath in German.]

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, please tell us briefly what positions you held from 1925 to 1945, particularly in what positions you served immediately under Admiral Raeder.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: From 1925 to 1928 I was naval adjutant to Reichspräsident Hindenburg and, as such, simultaneously second adjutant to the Chief of the Naval Command Staff. Consequently my first collaboration with Raeder dates back to 1928.

From 1929 until 1933 I had several front commands. From 1933 to 1937 I was first adjutant to Raeder. From 1937 to 1939 I had several front commands. From 1939 to 1943 I was Admiral Raeder’s Chief of Staff; and up to 1944 I remained Admiral Dönitz’ Chief of Staff. In January 1944 I was naval commander in southern France until the invasion; subsequently commanding general in North Trondheim. After the collapse I was employed for some months with the British Navy in winding up activities. Then in the autumn I was interned in a camp for generals in England.

DR. SIEMERS: Please tell me, if you can remember, in which month of 1939 you started to work with Raeder.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: The first of January 1939.

DR. SIEMERS: Can you tell us briefly anything about Raeder’s prestige as a navy expert, especially abroad? I mean only with regard to technical naval questions.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes. I believe that through the many years of service I had with Raeder, and the many conversations I had with foreigners, I have been able to form some idea. After all, Raeder was head of the Navy for 15 years. He was known, or rather had a name, as a naval officer and as Chief of Staff of the last Commander-in-Chief of the German Imperial Navy, Admiral Hipper, the opponent of the famous British Admiral Beatty in the Skagerrak battle. He was known...

THE PRESIDENT: Witness, will you kindly observe that light. When the yellow light goes on, you are talking too fast. When the red light goes on, you must stop.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: He was known through his literary activity at the time of the “Tirpitz Era,” when he edited the Nautikus, and later, after the first World War, through his two works on cruiser warfare in the last World War, for which he received an honorary doctor’s degree and which, I should say, gained him a reputation among experts.

DR. SIEMERS: The defendant is accused of building up the Navy with the intention of carrying on an aggressive war, and this even after the Treaty of Versailles was already in force.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: That is not correct. Never in all my conversations which I had with Raeder was the thought—much less the word—of an aggressive war mentioned. I believe that all his actions and his directives contradict this.

DR. SIEMERS: Were there possibly any ideas of a strategic nature under consideration, while the Versailles Treaty was in force, with a view to an aggressive war?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Never.

DR. SIEMERS: What was the basic reason for the maneuvers held by the Navy from the years 1932 until 1939?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: They were held exclusively with a view to the security, protection, and defense of the coastal waters and the coast itself.

DR. SIEMERS: Was a war with England taken as a basis for any of these maneuvers between 1932 and 1939?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, that was never made a basis, and I believe that would have appeared impossible and unreasonable to every naval officer. I remember that even at the beginning of the year 1939 Raeder issued a directive to the front commanders to hold maneuvers, in which he excluded a maneuver directed against England as an impossibility. It was forbidden to carry out that maneuver at all.

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, it is now confirmed, as you know, that the Navy in the twenties, with the knowledge of the then parliamentary government, violated the Treaty of Versailles. These questions have been discussed a great deal here, therefore, we can be brief.

I should like to ask you generally: Is it possible from these violations, which are known to you, to deduce aggressive intentions?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, I consider that is completely out of the question. The violations were so insignificant and were based so exclusively on protection and defense that I think it is impossible to construe them as aggressive intentions.

DR. SIEMERS: Can you give us briefly a few instances or name a few cases where violations took place?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: First of all, they were limited to the installation of coastal batteries, antiaircraft batteries, the procuring of mines and similar things, all of which were exclusively for the purpose of defense or protection.

DR. SIEMERS: Did these violations of the Treaty of Versailles—or, shall we say, the slight deviations—become known to the Inter-Allied Commission in whole or in part, and did that commission partly overlook these things because they were really trifles?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes. I would say it was an open secret.

DR. SIEMERS: May I ask you, Admiral, to pause between question and answer so that the interpreters can keep up. Just pause a moment after my questions before you reply. May I ask you to repeat the answer to my question with regard to the commission?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I would say that it was an open secret. It was just passed by.

DR. SIEMERS: As proof that these violations of the treaty were made with the intention of waging aggressive war the Prosecution has several times presented the book by Post Captain Schüssler entitled The Navy’s Fight against Versailles. It is Document C-156. I will have this document submitted to you in the original. In order to save time and not to burden the Tribunal again with details—I do not want to go into details—I shall just ask you: What do you know about this book, and what caused it to be written at all? When was it written and what is your general opinion about it?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I know this book. It came about as a result of the attacks of the National Socialist regime in the years 1934 and 1935, which blamed the preceding government and the Navy for not having done enough in the past to arm the nation and for not even having exhausted the possibilities of the Treaty of Versailles. Consequently, the idea arose at that time of publishing a sort of justification. This brochure is to be considered in that light; a sort of justification for, I might say, sins of omission.

This booklet was later never actually published, or rather it was withdrawn from circulation because it was, I might say, a rather poor attempt, for, after all, it contains no challenging points which might be classified as rearmament.

DR. SIEMERS: Was this booklet distributed within the Navy later on?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No. As I said, it was withdrawn from the circles which had already had it and it was also severely criticized.

DR. SIEMERS: Was the book withdrawn on Raeder’s orders?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I believe so, yes.

DR. SIEMERS: Through this book and another document, by Assmann, a charge has been brought concerning the known endeavors made with a construction firm in Holland. And it was also said yesterday that, by order of Admiral Raeder, U-boats were built for Germany in Finland and in Spain. Is that correct?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: That is not correct. The U-boats which were designed by the Dutch firm, and which were built abroad, were not built for the German Navy, but for foreign countries.

DR. SIEMERS: Do you know for whom they were built? Who received the boat which was built in Finland?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I believe Turkey received one, and one went to Finland.

DR. SIEMERS: Then the ships were constructed for foreign orders and for a foreign country?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: What advantages at all did the Navy have from their collaboration in the construction?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: We were only interested in keeping alive the experiences gained in U-boat warfare during the last World War. Consequently the Navy was interested in seeing that constructors of U-boats continued along those lines.

DR. SIEMERS: In your opinion, was that prohibited according to the Treaty of Versailles?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, I know of no paragraph which prohibits our activity in foreign countries along those lines.

DR. SIEMERS: In the beginning of February 1933 Admiral Raeder made his first naval report to Hitler. Do you know what Hitler, on that occasion, gave Raeder as the basis for rebuilding the Navy?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, I remember it exactly, because it was the first report which the then Chief of the Naval Command Staff, Admiral Raeder, made to the Reich Chancellor Hitler.

Hitler said to Raeder that the basis of his future policy was to live in peace with England and that he intended to demonstrate that by trying to conclude a naval agreement with England. In this he wanted the German Navy to be kept relatively small. He wished to recognize Britain’s naval superiority because of her position as a world power. He would accordingly suggest an appropriate ratio of strength. He wanted an understanding with regard to the construction of our Navy; and we should take these, his political points of view, into consideration. Raeder was impressed with the statements, for they were completely in accordance with his own basic attitude.

DR. SIEMERS: Within the framework of this policy the German-British Naval Agreement was then concluded in 1935. Was the Navy as a whole and Raeder in particular pleased with this agreement, or did they see certain disadvantages in it?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Raeder and the Navy were very pleased with this agreement, although we had to impose voluntarily upon ourselves severe limitations for a certain length of time. By this agreement, in comparison with the Washington conference, I should say we ranged among the smallest sea powers. In spite of that, this agreement was generally welcomed, because friendly relations with the British Navy were desired, and it was believed that if we followed a wise and moderate policy, England in return would show her appreciation.

DR. SIEMERS: Do you know whether at that time Hitler as well approved of the agreement in that form and was pleased about it?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, I can affirm that. Raeder and I happened to be together with Hitler in Hamburg the day this agreement was concluded, and Hitler said to Raeder when this fact was reported to him:

“This is the happiest day of my life. This morning I received word from my doctor that my throat trouble is insignificant, and now this afternoon I receive this very gratifying political news.”

DR. SIEMERS: You have already stated, Admiral, that the naval agreement was welcomed by the Navy. You will recall that in the year 1937 a modified naval agreement was concluded with England. Was the attitude of the Navy to that question still the same at that time?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, absolutely. The Naval Agreement of 1937 brought merely one, I might say, additional clause. This was for an exchange of information; and we had also reached an agreement with the British Navy with regard to a fixed U-boat tonnage. We had no reason...

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, referring to the U-boat tonnage, I remember the 1935 agreement: 100 percent of the British U-boat tonnage; Germany limited herself to 45 percent, but reserved the right to increase the tonnage up to possibly 100 percent, in which case she must, however, notify England and discuss it with the British Admiralty.

Was this notification about the increase to 100 percent given, and if so, when and in what way?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: After we had reached 100 percent, Admiral Cunningham was in Berlin and on that occasion the fact was discussed once more. Whether a written confirmation was made in addition I no longer recall. I take it for granted because that was the purpose of the agreement of 1937. On the occasion of his visit in December 1938, Admiral Cunningham explicitly gave Britain’s agreement to the final 100 percent equality in U-boats. That is the way I, or rather all of us, interpreted his visit.

DR. SIEMERS: Do you remember whether there was a special conversation, or a conversation between Admiral Cunningham and Raeder, on the occasion of this visit, in which Admiral Cunningham discussed generally the relations between the German and the British Navy, and between Germany and England?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I had the personal impression that Cunningham and Raeder parted on very friendly terms. At Cunningham’s departure there was a breakfast for a rather limited circle, and on that occasion Cunningham expressed his pleasure at the conclusion of the naval agreement, concluding his speech with a toast to the effect that now all these questions had been settled at last, and it was to be hoped that in the future there would be no war between our navies.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of this incident?

DR. SIEMERS: December 1938. I believe that is correct, Admiral?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: As far as I remember, December 1938.

DR. SIEMERS: I remember the date from the testimony given by Admiral Raeder. I myself knew only that it took place in 1938.

THE PRESIDENT: What Admiral Cunningham is it?

DR. SIEMERS: I do not know, I am not a naval expert. Perhaps Admiral Schulte-Mönting can tell us.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I did not understand the question, Doctor.

DR. SIEMERS: Which Admiral Cunningham is that?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: The present Lord Cunningham. The elder of the two.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I point out that it must have been on 30 or 31 December 1938, as far as we, or rather as far as Raeder recalls.

[Turning to the witness.] From 1933 until 1939 was Raeder confident that Hitler would not start a war?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes. Raeder was completely confident of that. As proof of this I may say that actually nothing was changed in our building program within that period. That would have been necessary if one had had to prepare oneself, at least mentally, for an armed conflict.

DR. SIEMERS: In what respect would the building program have had to be changed if one had wanted to wage an aggressive war?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: It would have been necessary to give priority at least to the U-boat building program.

DR. SIEMERS: Was it clear to you and to the leading naval officers that a real aggressive war started by Germany would perforce result in a war with England?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes. The knowledge of this fact is proof in my opinion that a war of aggression was not planned.

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, now in 1938 and 1939 incidents took place which perhaps justified a certain amount of skepticism. I should like to remind you of the crisis in the autumn of 1938 concerning the Sudetenland which almost led to war, which was then prevented only at the last moment through the Munich Agreement. I should like to call your attention specifically to the occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia in March of 1939, which was contradictory to the Munich Agreement.

Now, what was the attitude of Raeder to this incident, which you must know as you spoke to him practically every day.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: As Hitler had stated expressly at Munich that he was interested only in the German areas of Czechoslovakia; and, even though perhaps he seemed exceedingly determined to the outside world, was actually willing to negotiate, Raeder and the leading circles in the Navy believed that these things would be adjusted politically.

With the occupation of Czechoslovakia a great disquiet certainly did arise among us. But we were firmly convinced that Hitler would not make any exaggerated demands, and that he would be prepared to settle these matters politically, because we could not imagine that he would expose the German people to the danger of a second world war.

DR. SIEMERS: Did you know that before the agreement with Hacha was made, under rather strange circumstances, a bombardment of Prague had allegedly been threatened; or did Raeder know anything about that?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I do not believe that Raeder knew anything about this. I am hearing about it for the first time now.

DR. SIEMERS: Now I shall turn to the Document L-79. This is a speech delivered by Hitler on 23 May 1939; that is the so-called “Little Schmundt File.”

Mr. President, this is Exhibit USA-27, and is to be found in Document Book Number 10, Page 74, of the British Delegation. I am submitting this document to the witness.

[Turning to the witness.] This speech delivered by Hitler on 23 May 1939 was recorded by the adjutant on duty, Lieutenant Colonel Schmundt. As far as I know, Raeder, on the same day, discussed this speech with you in detail. At that time you had been Chief of Staff for a period of about 6 months. From your later activity are you familiar with the type of recording which was customary for military speeches?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: This record can really not be considered a true account. I have from this record...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, in the first place, your question was very much leading. You did not ask him a question. You put into his mouth what had happened. That is altogether wrong. You ought to have asked him, if you wanted to prove a conversation he had with Raeder, whether he did have a conversation with Raeder. You have told him that he had a conversation with Raeder. The purpose of examination is to ask questions, and then he could tell us if he had a conversation with Raeder. He cannot tell us whether this is a true account or a true form of the account when he was not at the meeting himself.

DR. SIEMERS: I wish to thank the High Tribunal, and I shall try to put the questions properly. The witness...

THE PRESIDENT: Not only that, but the Tribunal cannot listen to this witness’ account, or his opinion as to whether this is a true account of a meeting at which he was not present.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, the witness, as Chief of Staff, has always seen the exact minutes on important meetings. They were delivered to him in accordance with the distribution list. Therefore, as this document is of a decisive nature, I should like to determine whether Schulte-Mönting, as Chief of Staff, received the minutes or whether he just received knowledge of the contents through Admiral Raeder’s immediate reporting. That was the purpose of my question.

THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon, you mean you want to ask him whether he ever saw this document. Yes, you may certainly ask him that. Ask him if he saw the document.

DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon, Your Honor, but I believe the answer of the witness was lost in the interpretation, and if I am correct...

THE PRESIDENT: Never mind about his answer; the question is what question you are to put to him, and he can answer whether he ever saw the document.

DR. SIEMERS: Yes, I shall put that question.

Admiral, did you get to see this document at the time?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, I am just seeing it now for the first time, here in Nuremberg.

DR. SIEMERS: How did you hear about the contents of the speech of 23 May?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Raeder informed me fully, as a matter of principle, after every speech or conference, confidential or otherwise. Immediately after the speech, Raeder gave me his impressions which are in contradiction to these so-called minutes. Raeder did not have this, I might say, exaggerated bellicose impression which is apparent in this document. But, on the other hand...

THE PRESIDENT: The witness must tell us what Raeder said to him. That is what I told you before. He may tell us what Raeder said to him.

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, I should like you to tell us just what Raeder said to you.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Raeder told me that Hitler in his speech said there was a prospect of a future conflict with Poland, and that this was in contradiction to those things which he had discussed with him alone. That the speech in itself was contradictory, was the impression he expressed to me at that time. He also told me that after the speech he had had a conversation with Hitler alone during which he called his attention to the contradictions contained in the speech. At the same time he reminded Hitler of what he had told him previously, namely that he would settle the Polish case under all circumstances in a peaceful way; and now he was considering a warlike solution possible. Hitler, he said, had reassured him and had told him that politically he had things firmly in hand. Then when Raeder asked him, or rather called his attention to this contradiction and asked him just what he really intended to do, Hitler had answered, Raeder told me, the following:

“I, Hitler, have three ways of keeping secrets. The first, when we two speak alone; the second, when I, Hitler, keep them to myself; the third, for problems of the future, which I do not think out to an end.”

Raeder called his attention to the impossibility of a warlike conflict. To that, according to Raeder, Hitler replied:

“It is as if you and I had agreed on a settlement of one mark. Now, I, Hitler, have already paid you 99 pfennig. Do you think that because of this last 1 pfennig you would take me to court?”

And Raeder said “No.”

“You see”—Hitler said to Raeder—“I have got what I want by political means, and I do not believe that because of this last political question”—the solution of the Polish Corridor, as we called it—“we will have to anticipate a war with England.”

DR. SIEMERS: And that was in a conversation between Hitler and Raeder after this speech had been made?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: That took place after this speech.

THE PRESIDENT: We will break off now.

[A recess was taken.]

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, with regard to the minutes which I have shown you, I have one final question: Did you personally, as Chief of Staff, also receive and read all minutes which were sent to Raeder?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, as a rule I saw all minutes and reports before they were given to Raeder.

DR. SIEMERS: Was Admiral Reader of the opinion—excuse me, I should like to put the question differently.

What was Raeder’s point of view concerning the Navy and politics?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Raeder’s opinion was that we, the Navy, had nothing to do with politics. He adopted that attitude as an order and a trust received from the old Reich President, Von Hindenburg, who, when appointing Raeder to be head of the Navy, imposed that as a duty upon him.

DR. SIEMERS: I now come to Norway. What were the reasons which induced Raeder, in September and October 1939, to consider a possible occupation of Norway?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: The reasons were the reports which came from various sources about alleged intentions of an occupation of Norway by the Allies. These reports came from the following sources: First, Admiral Canaris, who was the chief of our intelligence service. He reported to Raeder, in my presence, once a week, the information that had come in. Secondly, the reports that came from the naval attaché in Oslo, Korvettenkapitän Schreiber, which indicated that rumors were increasing that the Allies intended to drag Scandinavia into the war in order to prevent, if possible, the iron ore exports from Sweden to Germany. We did not consider these reports altogether impossible, because, as documentary evidence from the last World War proves, Churchill had seriously considered the occupation of Norway.

DR. SIEMERS: Was there a further source for reports of that kind?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Admiral Carls, the Commander-in-Chief of Group North, had received similar reports which he passed on orally and in writing.

DR. SIEMERS: Do you remember any details from these reports which you could give us quite briefly?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes. There were reports concerning the presence of British air crews in Oslo, allegedly posing as civilians. There were reports about Allied officers making surveys of Norwegian bridges, viaducts, and tunnels all the way to the Swedish border, which was taken as an indication that the transportation of heavy material and equipment was planned. And last but not least there were reports about a secret mobilization of Swedish troops because of the alleged danger to the ore areas.

DR. SIEMERS: What danger arose for Germany on account of that?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: If Norway were to have been actually occupied, the conduct of the war in the North Sea would have become almost impossible, and it would have been very difficult in the Baltic Sea. The ore imports most probably would have been stopped. The danger from the air would have become terrible for north Germany and the eastern territories. In the long run the North Sea and the Baltic would have been blocked completely, which eventually would have led to the total loss of the war.

DR. SIEMERS: What did Admiral Raeder do on the basis of these considerations?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: He reported to Hitler about his misgivings and called his attention to the dangers.

DR. SIEMERS: When was that report made?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: If I remember correctly, in the autumn of ’39.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, until the adjournment, will you go very slowly because, owing to the power of the electrical recording being off, what is happening here in Court is impossible to take and therefore we have to rely solely upon the shorthand notes which cannot be checked back against the electrical recording. Do you understand? Therefore I want you to go rather more slowly than usual.

DR. SIEMERS: When was the conference between Hitler and Raeder in which Raeder for the first time pointed out these dangers?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: In October 1939.

DR. SIEMERS: According to the War Diary that conference took place, which of course you cannot remember offhand, on 10 October. At any rate you probably mean that conference.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: Did Hitler then, as a result of that conference, make a final decision?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, in no way at all.

DR. SIEMERS: Did discussions about that subject then take place continually between Hitler and Raeder?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No. No further discussions along that line took place then until perhaps the end of the year. Only when the reports which I mentioned before were received in increasing numbers was that subject taken up again.

DR. SIEMERS: Is it known to you that in December 1939 Quisling came to Berlin and also talked with Raeder?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, that is known to me, and I took part in that meeting.

DR. SIEMERS: What did Quisling tell Raeder?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Quisling came on a recommendation from Rosenberg and said he had important news of a military and political nature. He confirmed, more or less, the things which we knew already.

DR. SIEMERS: Were only the military dangers discussed in this conference?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Only these things were discussed; the conference was very short.

DR. SIEMERS: No political questions were discussed?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, not at all.

DR. SIEMERS: Do you know when Raeder met Quisling for the first time?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: On the occasion of that visit.

DR. SIEMERS: Did Raeder have at that time any close connections with Rosenberg?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, he knew him casually, having just seen him a few times.

DR. SIEMERS: Had Rosenberg informed Raeder before about the relations between Rosenberg and Quisling?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, not to my knowledge.

DR. SIEMERS: What did Raeder do when Quisling confirmed the reports received from Canaris and other sources?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: As the things we suspected were confirmed from Norway, Raeder considered this so serious that he went immediately to Hitler.

DR. SIEMERS: Do you also know what he suggested to Hitler?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Hitler wanted to talk to Quisling himself.

DR. SIEMERS: And that took place?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, it did.

DR. SIEMERS: Was a final decision made then concerning Norway, in December 1939?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, Hitler directed that as a countermeasure, theoretical preparations should be made for a German landing in Norway. The order, the final order, as far as I know was not given until March.

DR. SIEMERS: Was the landing in Norway an undertaking which you and Raeder considered a risky one or was it considered absolutely safe to do so?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, Raeder and the gentlemen from the Naval Operations Staff and also the front commanders considered that undertaking very risky. I remember Churchill’s speech in Parliament when he said, after he had been questioned about that matter, that he did not believe the German Navy would undertake that risk in face of the British Navy.

DR. SIEMERS: Do you know when Churchill made that statement, approximately?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I believe it was between 7 and 9 April.

DR. SIEMERS: 1940?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, 1940.

DR. SIEMERS: What was your estimate at the Naval Operations Staff of the risks of losses?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Raeder had told Hitler that he would have to reckon on the possible complete loss of the fleet, and that if the operations were carried out successfully he would have to be prepared for the loss of about 30 percent of the forces used.

DR. SIEMERS: And how much was lost?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: About 30 percent.

DR. SIEMERS: In view of the risk of losing the entire fleet, was Raeder at first in favor of that operation?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No. He considered a neutral attitude on the part of Norway as much better than having to take this risk.

DR. SIEMERS: The Prosecution have asserted that Raeder and the Naval Operations Staff recommended the occupation of Norway out of the desire for fame and conquest. What do you say about that?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: The desire for fame was not in Raeder’s character. The plans for operations which came from his desk bore the mark of bold daring, but also of thorough planning. One does not work out plans to the minutest detail covering the distance from German ports up to Narvik, which is about that from Nuremberg to Madrid, and one does not use the Navy against a superior British fleet for the sake of fame.

Raeder had told the Naval Operations Staff and the front commanders that he had to carry out that operation against all the rules of warfare because there was a compelling necessity to do so.

DR. SIEMERS: When did the actual drafting of the military operation take place at the Naval Operations Staff?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: February 1940.

DR. SIEMERS: During the period from December 1939 until March 1940 did you continue to receive reports from the sources you have mentioned?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: Did these later reports contain a clearer indication as to the place of the landings, or did you not see the details about that?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, they covered the areas between Narvik via Bergen to Trondheim, from Bergen to Oslo.

DR. SIEMERS: Did Raeder—excuse me, I want to put the question differently: What was the basis which Raeder suggested to Hitler for the relations between Germany and Norway?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: To that I would like to...

DR. SIEMERS: Excuse me, I mean in the period after the operation was carried out and Germany had occupied Norway.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Raeder in speaking to Hitler advocated a policy of peace. He suggested repeatedly that attempts should be made for peace with Norway. He was in agreement in that respect with the German Commander-in-Chief in Norway, Generaladmiral Böhm, while Terboven, who was directing political matters, was of a somewhat different opinion.

DR. SIEMERS: Did serious conflicts arise in that respect between Terboven and his civil administration on the one side, and Raeder and Böhm and his colleague, Korvettenkapitän Schreiber, on the other?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, there were serious differences and quarrels all the way up the line to Hitler. Hitler at that time told Raeder that he could not make peace with Norway because of France.

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, you said, “because of France.” Was it not possible to make peace with France also, and what was Raeder’s attitude in that regard?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Raeder advocated the same thing concerning France.

DR. SIEMERS: And what did he say?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: He tried to arrange a conference with Admiral Darlan in an effort to forward these matters. He had pointed out to Hitler, when the Atlantic Coast was fortified, that it would be better and more practical to make peace with France than to make great though inadequate sacrifices for defense. Hitler replied that he fully agreed but out of consideration for Italy he could not conclude a peace treaty with France.

DR. SIEMERS: Did the conversations between Raeder and Darlan take place?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, near Paris.

DR. SIEMERS: Were you present?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, Admiral Schultze, the Commanding Admiral in France.

DR. SIEMERS: Did Raeder tell you whether the results of the conversation were favorable?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, he told me about the very favorable results.

DR. SIEMERS: Did Raeder report on that to Hitler?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: And in spite of that, Hitler refused?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Out of consideration for Mussolini.

DR. SIEMERS: According to your knowledge, did the Party or the leadership of the SS through Heydrich attempt to fight Raeder?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Heydrich repeatedly attempted to bring Raeder and the Navy into discredit with Hitler through defamatory remarks and by spying, either by posting spies in the officers corps or the casinos, or by misrepresenting or distorting news. Against these attacks, Raeder defended himself tenaciously and successfully.

DR. SIEMERS: Why was the Party against Raeder?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: That is a question which is very difficult to answer. I believe mainly because, first of all, there were differences in the religious field. Many commanders before they put to sea for combat turned to Raeder for help so that during their absence their relatives would not have their religious freedom curtailed.

DR. SIEMERS: When did the first differences occur between Raeder and Hitler, and during what period did Raeder ask for his dismissal?

THE PRESIDENT: We have had that from that defendant himself, have we not? Raeder told us when he asked for it. No cross-examination about it.

DR. SIEMERS: Then may I ask you for what reasons Raeder remained?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: First, because Hitler himself had asked him to stay, and gave him assurances for the integrity of the Navy. Furthermore, at that time, there were discussions about combining the Navy and the merchant marine into one ministry and putting Party people into that ministry. In that event we did not see a strengthening but a weakening of our fighting force. Besides, during that period there occurred a gap in the line of successors, due to illness and losses.

And last but not least, Raeder remained in the war out of a sense of responsibility and patriotism.

DR. SIEMERS: Did you yourself ask Raeder to remain in office?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes. I had to ask Raeder frequently and very seriously. I myself was once ordered by Hitler to come to the Reich Chancellery.

DR. SIEMERS: When was that?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: In the beginning of 1939, when he explained his standpoint to me in a long conversation and asked me to convince Raeder that he had to stay. Moreover, he enjoyed the confidence of the Navy. The senior officers and officials of the Navy had asked me orally and in writing to try to persuade Raeder not to leave his office prematurely. Since 1928 he had led the Navy with a firm hand through all political vicissitudes.

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, may I return again to your conversation with Hitler in the beginning of 1939? Did you speak with Hitler alone?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, that was a private conversation of about an hour and a half.

DR. SIEMERS: Did Hitler tell you anything about his political plans on that occasion?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No; not about political plans in the sense of what is called politics, but he tried once more to bridge political differences with Raeder. He told me one should not weigh each individual word of his. His visitors were right, but only after they had left; he would put forward records and witnesses; all he wanted was to appeal to the emotions of his listeners and to stir them up to do their utmost, but not to commit himself with words. In the future he promised he would try to give the Navy independence in all technical questions.

DR. SIEMERS: You just said “not to weigh each individual word.” Admiral, were the speeches of Hitler ever taken down accurately, that is, by stenographers?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, but as far as I know only in the later part of the war. Hitler was against having his words put on record, because everyone who listened to him returned home with his own opinion. He himself did not stick to his text; he thought out loud and wanted to carry his listeners away, but he did not want his individual words to be taken literally. I spoke about that to Raeder very frequently. We always knew what was expected of us, but we never knew what Hitler himself thought or wanted.

DR. SIEMERS: If Hitler did not want to be taken at his word, how did it come about that he agreed in the war to have his speeches taken down by stenographers?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I told you before that too many misunderstandings had occurred, and that Hitler as well as those who reported to him believed that everyone had convinced the other of his opinion. Thereupon they started keeping minutes. The minutes kept up to then were personal impressions of those who were not instructed to keep them but who did so on their initiative.

THE PRESIDENT: What time is the witness speaking of? He said up to then the minutes had been kept on the personal initiative of the person who took them. What time is he speaking of?

DR. SIEMERS: From what time, according to your recollection, were these minutes taken by the stenographers?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: From 1942, I believe.

DR. SIEMERS: From 1942?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: It might also be 1941. During the war, at any rate.

DR. SIEMERS: But your conversation with Hitler was in January 1939?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, January 1939.

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, what did the stenographic minutes look like later on? Did you ever see them?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: We repeatedly asked for excerpts from the minutes and tried to compare them with the prepared text and they too contained contradictions.

DR. SIEMERS: Now, I come to the period when Hitler prepared for war against Russia, and I am going to show you the Directive Number 21, of 18 December 1940, concerning the Case Barbarossa.

Mr. President, that is Document Number 446-PS, Exhibit USA-31, in the Document Book of the British Prosecution Number 10a, Page 247.

[Turning to the witness.] The Prosecution have asserted that Raeder or the Naval Operations Staff had taken part in the drafting of that directive; is that correct?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, that is not correct. The Navy had nothing to do with the drafting of that directive.

DR. SIEMERS: Did Raeder have any previous knowledge of Hitler’s plan to attack Russia, before he received that directive?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, by an oral communication from Hitler to Raeder, about the middle of August 1940—or October 1940.

DR. SIEMERS: October 1940. Did Raeder inform you about his conferences with Hitler concerning Russia, and what attitude did he adopt in these conferences?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Raeder informed me fully, because the prospect of war with Russia was much too serious to be taken lightly. Raeder opposed most energetically any plan for a war against Russia; and, I should like to say, for moral reasons because Raeder was of the opinion that the pact with Russia should not be broken as long as the other side gave no cause for it. That, as far as Raeder knew, was not the case in October. That economic treaty—as we called it at that time—to our knowledge was about 90 percent at the expense of the Navy. We gave Russia one heavy cruiser, heavy artillery for battleships, artillery installations, submarine engines, submarine installations, and valuable optical instruments for use on submarines. Besides, Raeder was of the opinion that the theater of operations should not be allowed to be carried into the Baltic Sea. The Baltic Sea was our drill field, I might say. All our recruits were trained there; all our submarine training took place in the Baltic Sea.

We had already partly stripped the Baltic coast of batteries and personnel for the purpose of protecting the Norwegian and the French coasts. We had very small oil reserves at our disposal, the synthetic oil production was not yet in full swing. The Navy had to turn over some of its reserves to industry and agriculture. Consequently, Raeder was strongly opposed to waging war against Russia.

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, the Prosecution believe that Raeder was only opposed to the date set for the war against Russia and concludes this from the War Diary in which actually the entries refer to the date. Is that correct?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, that is not correct. After the receipt of Directive 21, called Barbarossa, Raeder approached Hitler again with reference to the war against Russia, and also put down his thoughts in a memorandum. He tried to convince Hitler of the following: Poland had been crushed, France had been occupied, and, for military reasons, an invasion of England was out of the question. He said clearly that now the time had arrived when the further conduct of the war could not be decisive on the Continent, but in the Atlantic. Therefore, he told him that he had to concentrate all forces at his disposal on one objective: To hit the strategic points of the Empire, especially the supply lines to the British Isles in order to compel England to sue for negotiations or, if possible, to make peace. He suggested, as has been mentioned before, that the policy of peace with Norway should be pursued, peace with France, and closer co-operation with the Russian Navy, such as was provided for in the economic treaty, and the repurchase of submarine equipment or submarines. He said that the decision or the date for a decision no longer rested with us because we did not have the necessary sea power and that in case of a long duration of the war the danger of the participation of the United States had also to be considered; that therefore the war could not be decided on the European continent and least of all in the vastnesses of the Russian steppes. That point of view he continued to present to Hitler as long as he was in office.

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, you said at first that Raeder had protested, in principle as you have expressed it, for moral reasons, that is, for reasons of international law.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: Why was not that entered into the War Diary when the other reasons that you have mentioned can be found in the War Diary? At least they are alluded to.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: That I can answer, or at least give you an explanation. Raeder, as a matter of principle, never criticized the political leadership in the presence of the gentlemen of the Naval Operations Staff or the front commanders. Therefore, he did not speak to me and the others about the private conversations which he had with Hitler, except when it was necessary for military reasons.

DR. SIEMERS: When were the preparations by the Navy, on the basis of Directive 21 that you have in front of you, made? Do you remember that?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I believe about 3 months later.

DR. SIEMERS: At any rate, certainly after the directive?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, after the directive.

DR. SIEMERS: Were they made on the basis of that directive?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: On the basis of that, yes.

DR. SIEMERS: Was that directive already a final order or was it just a precautionary strategic measure?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: In my estimation it should not be considered as an order, and that can be seen from Points IV and V.

DR. SIEMERS: In what way?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Point V says that Hitler was still waiting for reports from commanders-in-chief. And Raeder still reported to Hitler after he had received the directive.

DR. SIEMERS: Is Point IV, if you will look at it once more, also in accordance with your opinion?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, absolutely. The words “precautionary measures” are underlined.

DR. SIEMERS: Precautionary measures for what?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: In case of war against Russia.

DR. SIEMERS: Well, I think, Admiral, since you have mentioned it yourself, you should read the sentence which follows the words “precautionary measures.”

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: “In case Russia should change her attitude, she is...”

THE PRESIDENT: You cannot argue with your own witness about the meaning of the words. He has given his answer.

DR. SIEMERS: Very well.

[Turning to the witness.] Was Raeder of the opinion, at any time, that he had succeeded in dissuading Hitler from the unfortunate plans against Russia?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes. After he had made his report at that time, he returned and said, “I believe I have talked him out of his plan.” And at first we did have that impression because in the following months there were no more conferences about it, to my knowledge, not even with the General Staff.

DR. SIEMERS: May I ask you quite briefly then about Greece. According to Document C-152, which I will have shown to you, Raeder made a report to Hitler on 18 March 1941, in which he asked that the whole of Greece should be occupied. What were the reasons that caused the High Command, that is, Raeder and you, to make that suggestion?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: When Raeder asked for authorization, as it says here in the War Diary, for the occupation of the whole of Greece, even in the event of a peaceful settlement, we, according to my recollection, had already been for 3 months in possession of the directive which was concerned with the occupation of Greece, and when...

DR. SIEMERS: Excuse me. Was that Directive Number 20? I will have it shown to you. Is that the one you mean?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, “Marita,” that is the one.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, that is Document Number 1541-PS, Exhibit GB-13, in the Document Book of the British Prosecution 10a, Page 270. That is Directive Number 20, Case Marita of 13 December 1940.

[Turning to the witness.] Admiral, what caused Raeder, apart from that point which Hitler had already explained, to ask that specific question again in the month of March, that is to say, on 18 March?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: A British landing had already occurred in the south of Greece a few days before.

DR. SIEMERS: Did this landing make it necessary to occupy the whole of Greece?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, for strategic reasons, absolutely. The menace of an occupation from the sea or from the air, or the formation of a Balkan front against Germany, or the menace from the air to the oil fields, had to be eliminated under all circumstances. May I only remind you of the Salonika operation in the first World War. I believe that was a similar situation.

DR. SIEMERS: Here again the Prosecution say this was governed by the desire for conquest and fame. Is that correct?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I should like to answer that fame requires achievements, and I do not know what the Navy could have conquered in the Mediterranean. We did not have a single man or a single ship down there; but Raeder, of course, for the strategic reasons I have mentioned, had to advise Hitler in that direction.

DR. SIEMERS: Were breaches of neutrality on the part of Greece known to you before this time, before we occupied Greece?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: We had been informed that in 1939, certain Greek political and military circles had been in the closest connection with the Allied General Staff. We knew that Greek merchantmen were in British service. Therefore we were compelled to consider the Greek merchantmen which sailed through the prohibited zone to England as enemy ships. And, I believe, in the beginning of 1940, or the middle of 1940, we received information that the Allies intended to land in Greece or to establish a Balkan front against Germany.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, as the last point in my questions dealing with Russia, I should like to show you the document submitted by the Soviet Prosecution, Document USSR-113. This document is a communication from the Naval Operations Staff of 29 September 1941 to Group North, that is, Generaladmiral Carls. Under II it states as to the result of a conversation between Admiral Fricke and Hitler: “The Führer is determined to make the city of St. Petersburg disappear from the face of the earth.” Raeder has been accused of not having done anything to oppose such a monstrous intention and has been accused because the Naval Operations Staff passed on this communication. I ask you, Admiral, did you know of this communication in 1941?

[Turning to the President.] I beg your pardon, Mr. President, I should like to remark that at this moment, I am sorry to say, I have no photostatic copy of this document. I tried to procure it. I have this very moment received it, and I should like to submit the photostatic copy at this point, instead of the written copy.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: This seems to be the original which I have before me?

DR. SIEMERS: No, Admiral, it is a copy, an exact copy of the photostatic copy with all paragraphs and names, made for my own special use.

Were you acquainted with this piece of writing in 1941?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I did not know it in 1941, it is submitted to me at this moment for the first time.

DR. SIEMERS: Do you believe that Admiral Raeder saw this communication before it was sent off, even though you yourself had not seen it?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: That would have been a miracle. Communications which were submitted to Admiral Raeder all went through my hands. They always had the notation, either “the Commander-in-Chief has taken due note,” and were initialed by me personally in order to certify this notation, or “this order or this directive is to be submitted to the Commander-in-Chief,” and in this case too my initials were affixed. This order and this copy which you have just shown to me I have never seen before; I am not acquainted with it; and I consider it impossible that Admiral Raeder should have seen it, because on 29 September 1941 I was in good health and exercising my duties in Berlin.

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, what do you know about this question of Leningrad and the Navy?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I recall that at the so-called daily discussions regarding the general situation one of the officers of the Naval Operations Staff reported on the intentions of the Army regarding the future of Leningrad—not Petersburg. Whereupon Raeder expressed the desire that it be kept in mind during the operations that Leningrad should, under all circumstances, fall intact into our hands, for he needed shipyards and adjoining territory for naval construction; and he wished that the Army be informed of the urgency of this desire, because in view of the ever-increasing danger of air attacks, we intended to shift part of our shipyard facilities to the East.

At that time we had already begun, if I remember correctly, to move installations from Emden to the East and wanted, furthermore, as Raeder wished, to evacuate Wilhelmshaven subsequently and move the installations there as far to the East as possible. He emphasized expressly that the city should also be left as undamaged as possible because otherwise there would be no place for the workers to live. This is all I can truthfully tell you about the case of Leningrad.

DR. SIEMERS: Do you know that this wish of Raeder’s was rejected by Hitler because he said it was not possible?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, I do not recall that this case was taken up again. For the operations in the North soon came to a standstill, I believe.

DR. SIEMERS: Did other high officers tell you anything at all about this document?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, I never heard anything about this document, nor did I see any reason to discuss it with anyone.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, if it is agreeable to the Tribunal, I should like to submit a document which was granted me, Exhibit Raeder-111, because of its connection with this problem. It is to be found in my Document Book 6, Page 435. It is an affidavit by Rear Admiral Hans Bütow, dated 21 March 1946. I should like to read this document since it is very brief.

THE PRESIDENT: What page is this?

DR. SIEMERS: Page 435 in Document Book 6, Exhibit Number Raeder-111. It reads as follows:

“During the period from 20 June 1941 to 20 October 1941, namely, the period to which Document USSR-113, (1), UK-45, refers, I was stationed in Finland as Naval Commander. I was under Generaladmiral Carls, the Commander-in-Chief of Group North. I declare that the document in question, USSR-113, (1), UK-45, a communication of 29 September 1941 sent by the Naval Operations Staff to Group North, and its contents have never come to my knowledge, as it doubtless would have if Generaladmiral Carls had passed on the letter to the offices subordinate to him. As far as I know, no one else in my command received this communication.

“I myself first obtained knowledge of this order of Hitler’s in November 1945 on the occasion of a conversation with Dr. Siemers, the defense counsel for Admiral Raeder.

“Other officers, especially other naval commanders, have never spoken to me about this order. It is thus clear that the other commanders likewise had no knowledge of this order.”

Then there is the certification and the signature of the senior naval judge before whom this affidavit was made.

Admiral, then I should like to turn to a new topic, the alleged war of aggression which Raeder is supposed to have planned against America. Did Raeder at any time try to instigate Japan to a war against America?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, never. We never had any military discussions with Japan at all before her entry into the war. Quite on the contrary, he warned Hitler against war with America in view of England’s naval superiority and her co-operation with America.

DR. SIEMERS: For what reasons did you, Raeder, and the High Command especially, warn Hitler?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: First of all, for the reasons which I outlined before, reasons of over-all strategy which motivated Raeder during the entire course of the war. Raeder considered the enemy on the sea primarily, and not on land. If the largest sea power in the world were added to England, which was already superior, then the war would have taken on unbearable proportions for us.

Besides, through the reports of our naval attaché in Washington, Vice Admiral Witthöft, Raeder was very well informed about the tremendous potential at the disposal of the United States.

I might also say with reference to the conversion of the normal economy into a war economy, that the tremendous outlay of shipyards and installations, as Witthöft stated a few months before the war, permitted the construction of a million tons of shipping each month. These figures were very eloquent and were naturally at the same time a terrible warning to us not to underestimate the armament potential of the United States.

DR. SIEMERS: The Prosecution believes it must draw a contrary conclusion from the fact that Raeder on 18 March 1941, according to the War Diary, proposed that Japan should attack Singapore.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: In my opinion, that was an absolutely correct measure and a correct proposal, which was in line with Raeder’s reasoning. He was interested in dealing blows to England’s important strategic centers. That he tried to ease our situation is understandable and self-evident. But at no time did he propose that Japan should enter into a war against America, but rather against England.

DR. SIEMERS: Were there any discussions about these strategic questions at that time between you and Raeder on the one hand and Japanese military authorities on the other?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, I have already stated that before Japan’s entry into the war no military discussions with Japan had ever taken place. The Japanese attitude was very reserved.

DR. SIEMERS: Did Raeder ever discuss the fact that Japan should attack Pearl Harbor?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No. We heard about this for the first time over the radio.

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, during the time of your activity in the High Command of the Navy or during your activity as a commanding admiral at Trondheim did you have any knowledge about the treatment of Allied prisoners of war by the German Navy?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I might reply that I know of no case in which Allied prisoners of war, as long as they were under the control of the Navy, were treated other than properly and chivalrously. I could refer to the testimony given by the English commander of the midget U-boat, which attacked the Tirpitz in the Alta Fjord, who after his return to England from imprisonment, gave a press interview on the occasion of his being awarded the Victoria Cross. In this interview he mentioned the particularly chivalrous and correct treatment he had received at the hands of the commander of the Tirpitz.

From my own command in Norway I could mention a case in which members of the Norwegian resistance movement dressed in civilian clothing were treated just as chivalrously and correctly. I had to investigate these cases in the presence of British authorities, and the correctness of the treatment became evident.

DR. SIEMERS: When did you have to investigate this at the order of the British Military Government?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: After the capitulation.

DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon, not the Military Government, but the British Navy.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: The British Navy at Trondheim, while I was a commanding admiral.

DR. SIEMERS: And the cases which were investigated there, first by you and then by the competent British admiral, were not contested?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Were not contested. The naval officer handed them over to me for safekeeping, and I had to present the findings of the courts of inquiry in writing.

DR. SIEMERS: And the result...

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: The result was good, proper, and occasioned no protests.

DR. SIEMERS: And the result was presented to the competent British officer?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, it was on his very order that I had to do it.

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, the case of the Athenia has been dealt with here in detail and is known to the Tribunal. Therefore, in order to save time, I should like merely to touch this case in passing. I should like you to tell me: Did the High Command know, did you and Raeder know, at the beginning of September 1939 that the Athenia had been sunk by a German U-boat?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No. The Commander of U-boats reported on the 3d that the Athenia could not have been sunk by a German U-boat since, if I remember correctly, the nearest boat was about 70 nautical miles away.

DR. SIEMERS: When did you learn that a German U-boat had sunk the Athenia?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I believe 2 or 3 weeks afterwards, after this U-boat returned.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I should like to refer to a document, according to which the date was 27 September.

[Turning to the witness.] Do you know that a declaration had been made by State Secretary Von Weizsäcker on 3, 4, or 5 September to the effect that it was not a German U-boat? When it was established that it actually had been a German U-boat, what did Raeder do about it?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: The assumption that it had not been a German U-boat was at first justified and State Secretary Von Weizsäcker therefore acted in the best of faith, as did we. After this regrettable mistake became known, Raeder reported this fact to Hitler. Hitler then gave the order that he did not want the statement which had been made by the Foreign Office denied. He ordered that the participants, that is those who knew, should give their oath to remain silent until, I believe, the end of the war.

DR. SIEMERS: Did you give your oath of silence?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I personally did not give my oath of silence, and neither did Admiral Raeder. In the High Command we were the only ones, I believe, with the exception of Admiral Fricke who had knowledge of that, and we should probably have taken the oath.

DR. SIEMERS: At Hitler’s order you were obliged to administer an oath to the others who knew about this?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes. I am of the opinion that it was the crew of the U-boat, insofar as they knew about this mistake.

DR. SIEMERS: The Prosecution accuses Admiral Raeder of not having gone to Freiherr Von Weizsäcker to tell him that it actually was a German U-boat and of not having said to the American naval attaché, “I am sorry; it was a German U-boat after all.”

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Such thoughts occurred to us as well, but we thought that any discrepancies which might arise and lead to political ill-humor in America were to be avoided as much as possible. Stirring up this case once more would have greatly aroused public feeling. I remember, for instance, the Lusitania case during the first World War. To have stirred up this case again after a few weeks and to arouse public opinion, and then to force entry into the war would have had little sense.

DR. SIEMERS: And that was the train of thought which caused Hitler to issue this decree?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: It was the train of thought which we also shared.

DR. SIEMERS: You said it was not to be stirred up again but regrettably, as you know, this case was stirred up again. On 23 October 1939 in the Völkischer Beobachter a very unfortunate article appeared with the heading “Churchill Sinks the Athenia.” Do you remember that article?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, of course. That article was published without Raeder’s knowledge and without the knowledge or complicity of the Navy. Even today I do not know yet who the author of the article was. It originated in the Propaganda Ministry, and Raeder and the rest of us in the High Command of the Navy were most indignant, not so much because this topic was being stirred up again, but rather because of the tenor of the article for whether deliberately or unintentionally—we did not know which it was—there was a misrepresentation.

We were obliged to keep silence. To what extent the Propaganda Ministry had been informed about this matter by Hitler, we did not know. We also had no opportunity to speak with the Propaganda Ministry about this case and we were completely surprised when this article appeared several weeks later in the Völkischer Beobachter. We were therefore deeply indignant, especially Raeder, because it was fundamentally against his principles that leading foreign statesmen be attacked in a caustic manner; and, in addition, the facts were completely distorted. And besides—this may also be important—this involved Raeder’s opponent whom Raeder did not in the least wish to disparage before the German public, for Raeder took him only too seriously; and this was, I believe, no other than Churchill.

DR. SIEMERS: Now, one last question: Did the Propaganda Ministry call you or Raeder up before this article appeared?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, no.

DR. SIEMERS: Then I should like to turn to the last question of my examination. This is the last point.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, that is about the sixth final question you have asked.

DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon, Mr. President, the translation must have been wrong. The previous question was the final question on the Athenia problem. Now, this is actually the final question which I wish to put.

[Turning to the witness.] The Prosecution accuses Admiral Raeder of not supporting Generaloberst Freiherr Von Fritsch after the latter had been exonerated and acquitted in court and accuses Raeder of not having used his influence to reinstate Fritsch in office and restore his dignity. Is that correct?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, that is not correct. Raeder gave me all the files of the legal proceedings against Generaloberst Von Fritsch sometime in the beginning of 1939 to be kept in the safe. At that time he told me how the course of the proceedings had impressed him and also of the fact that he had made Generaloberst Von Fritsch the offer of a complete reinstatement, going so far as to have him reinstated in his previous office. Von Fritsch thanked him for that and told him personally that he would never assume his former office again, that he would not even consider returning after what had happened, for which reason he was requesting Raeder not to make any efforts in this direction.

Besides, Fritsch and Raeder were on good personal terms—to say that they were friends is going perhaps too far, but I have often seen Fritsch at Raeder’s house even after his dismissal.

DR. SIEMERS: Thank you, Admiral.

Mr. President, I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any other member of the defendants’ counsel want to ask any questions?

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Admiral Schulte-Mönting, you just spoke about the correct treatment of prisoners in connection with a U-boat attack on the Tirpitz. Do you mean by that the attack in November 1943 in the Alta Fjord?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, that is the one I mean.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Was it a two-man U-boat?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Whether it was a two-man or three-man U-boat, I do not know, but it was a midget U-boat. Several U-boats attacked simultaneously. Some of them were sunk, and the commander who successfully, I believe, placed his magnetic mine was taken prisoner.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: And this commander was treated according to the Geneva convention?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Absolutely.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?

MAJOR JONES: Witness, I want to ask you first about the Athenia episode. I take it you agree that the article in the Völkischer Beobachter was thoroughly dishonorable, lying, and discreditable.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I heard nothing at all in German.

MAJOR JONES: I will repeat my question. With regard to the Athenia—do you hear me now?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes.

MAJOR JONES: With regard to the Völkischer Beobachter article on the Athenia, do you agree that it was a thoroughly dishonorable publication?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, I agree that it was a dishonorable publication, untrue and dishonorable.

MAJOR JONES: Perhaps if you keep your headphones on—I have a number of questions to ask you, I am afraid—it might be more convenient for the work we have to do.

And you say that the Defendant Raeder thought it was dishonorable?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, he did as well.

MAJOR JONES: What action did he take to manifest his displeasure?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: In this case he valued the interests of the State more than a newspaper article. The interests of the State required that in any event all complications with the United States were to be avoided.

MAJOR JONES: That appears to be a characteristic on the part of Raeder that runs throughout the history from 1928 to 1943, that throughout he put what he thought were the interests of the Nazi State before conditions of morality, honor, and public decency, is that not so?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: That I do not believe. I believe that in this he acted consistently as a good patriot would act.

MAJOR JONES: You see, with regard to the invasion of Russia, for example, you said to the Tribunal that on both moral and strategic grounds, Raeder was against the invasion of Russia. Why did he not resign?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: By way of reply I must mention first Hitler’s answer to Raeder’s statements against a war with Russia. This answer was to the effect that he saw no possibility of avoiding a conflict for the following reasons:

First, because of the personal impression which he, Hitler, had received from Molotov’s visit, which had taken place in the meantime. By “in the meantime” I mean between the directive and the carrying through of the directive.

Secondly, the fact that allegedly the economic negotiations had not only been dragged out by the Russians but, as Hitler expressed it, had been conducted with blackmail methods.

Thirdly, as he had been informed by the German General Staff. Russian troop deployment had taken on such threatening proportions that he, Hitler, could not wait for the first blow from the other side because of the air threat to Brandenburg and the capital and to the Silesian industry. Raeder then, of course, had to realize that he could not refute these arguments or prove the opposite.

MAJOR JONES: You are not suggesting that you thought that the war between Germany and Russia was a defensive war so far as Germany was concerned, are you?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, we were of the opinion that the deployment of troops on both sides had reached such an extreme point that it would not take long for the storm to burst, and that from the military point of view anyone who sees that a conflict is inevitable, naturally likes to have the advantages which result from dealing the first blow.

MAJOR JONES: The invasion of Russia was a brutal aggression on the part of Nazi Germany, you admit that now, do you not?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, I do admit that.

MAJOR JONES: I want you to turn your mind for a moment, if you will, to Document L-79, which is in the British Document Book 10, Page 74. Those are the minutes of the Hitler conference on 23 May 1939 which you discussed in your evidence-in-chief this morning. I take it that you have read those minutes, Witness?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: May I look at them now? I have never seen these minutes before. If I were to be asked about them, I would first have to read them in toto.

MAJOR JONES: Well, you need not trouble to do that, Witness. You gave evidence this morning as to Raeder’s discussion with you about this conference. Did Raeder tell you that Hitler had said on 23 May 1939, for instance:

“There is no question of sparing Poland, and we are left with the decision to attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity. We cannot expect a repetition of the Czechoslovakian affair. There will be war.”

Then further, Page 76 of the report:

“The Führer doubts the possibility of a peaceful settlement with England. We must prepare ourselves for the conflict... England is therefore our enemy, and the conflict with England will be a life and death struggle.”

And then the next paragraph but one:

“The Dutch and Belgian air bases must be occupied by armed force. Declarations of neutrality must be ignored.”

Now, I am suggesting to you that those statements of Hitler’s represented Hitler’s considered policy, and that that policy was in fact carried out in the field of action. Is that not so?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: First of all, I must correct a mistake. I thought that you had shown me a record on Russia and not the one on Poland. I saw it in different writing, and I thought it was another record. If it is the same record which I mentioned this morning, then I must state again that Raeder did not agree with the belligerent wording of these minutes as written down by Schmundt.

MAJOR JONES: Just one moment, Witness, if you please. I have read out certain extracts from that document, which I take it that you heard interpreted. Do you agree with me that those extracts represented Hitler’s considered policy at the time and that that policy was in fact carried out in the field of action?

If you keep your headphones on—I know it is difficult. Just move them back if you wish to talk. Now, see if you can answer my question.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I should like to remark in this connection that Hitler in his speeches pursued a certain purpose. In preparations for war he saw a means of political pressure, and in the phrase “war of nerves” (which was not used in Germany only, but went everywhere through the ether far beyond Europe’s boundaries) he tried to find a means of preventing war as well as a means of exerting pressure. This document itself contains contradictions which lead to the conclusion that he himself could not seriously have thought that a war would develop. I can prove this by saying, for example, that he states that the General Staff or the general staffs are not to concern themselves with this question; but toward the end he says that all the branches of the Wehrmacht must get together to study the problem. He says that a war with Poland must in no event result in war with England; politics must see to that. But in the next paragraph one reads: “But if a war actually does arise, I shall deal short sharp blows for a quick decision.” In the next paragraph it says again, “But I need 10 to 15 years to prepare,” and in the concluding paragraph it says: “The construction program of the Navy will in no wise be changed.”

If, therefore, Hitler at that time had really been serious in his speech, that is, that an armed conflict with Poland would result shortly, then he would not have exclaimed first that we would have time until 1943 and, secondly, that there were to be no changes as far as the Navy was concerned. Rather he would have said to Raeder, privately at least: “In all haste prepare a strong U-boat program because I do not know what course events will take.”

MAJOR JONES: But it is a fact that at about this time, the Fall Weiss operation was being prepared to the very last detail, was it not? That is the operation against Poland.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: The operation was prepared to such a stage that when it was canceled at the last minute we thought that we would not be able to reach our forces at sea by wireless. We considered this an extreme policy of exerting pressure in the form of a war of nerves. Since at the last minute everything was canceled we believed without doubt that it was only a means of pressure and not an entry into war. Not until we heard the cannons were we convinced that the war was no longer to be prevented. I personally believe...

MAJOR JONES: If you would shorten your answers as best you can, it would be very convenient.

I want to go from Poland to Norway. The first conference of the Defendant Raeder with regard to Norway took place on 10 October, you have told us. I want you to hear the record of that conference, which is found in Admiral Assmann’s headline diary. It is dated 10 October 1939:

“The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy states conquering the Belgian coast no advantage for U-boat warfare; refers to value of Norwegian bases.”

I suggest to you that the interests of the German Navy in Norway from the point of view of requiring submarine bases was manifesting itself at that time; is that not so?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: May I look at this document first? It is unknown to me.

MAJOR JONES: You shall see the original diary, if you want to reassure yourself that I am reading it correctly.

[The document was handed to the witness.]

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: In this sentence, I do not see any belligerent intentions. It says expressly that he attaches importance to the winning of Norwegian bases.

MAJOR JONES: That is all I am putting to you at the moment. And do you know that on 3 October the Defendant Raeder was sending out a questionnaire upon the possibility of extending the operational base to the north, and upon the bases that it would be desirable for German power to acquire?

I am referring to Document C-122, My Lord. The document C-122 is in Document Book 10a at Page 91.

If you will look at that document, Witness, you will see in the second sentence:

“It must be ascertained whether it is possible to gain bases in Norway with the combined pressure of Russia and Germany, with the aim of improving fundamentally our strategic and operational position. The following questions are to be examined...”

And then there follow these questions:

“What places in Norway can be considered as bases?

“Can bases be gained by military force against Norway’s will, if it is impossible to achieve this without fighting?

“What are the possibilities of defense after the occupation?

“Will the harbors have to be developed completely as bases, or do they possibly have decisive advantages simply as supply centers? (The Commander of U-boats considers such harbors extremely useful as equipment and supply bases for Atlantic U-boats on temporary stops.)”

And then finally:

“What decisive advantages would there be for the conduct of the war at sea in gaining a base in North Denmark, for instance, Skagen?”

Now, I suggest to you that those documents are the clue to the German invasion of Norway. Do you not agree with that?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, I do not see any aggressive intentions in these purely operational plans and considerations when thinking of what bases might come into consideration for the conduct of the war. This morning I said that, to the best of my knowledge, Generaladmiral Carls as early as September sent a letter to this effect to Raeder in which he expressed his concern and stated his strategical ideas and plans in case of an Allied occupation of Norway.

MAJOR JONES: The source of the information which the Defendant Raeder was receiving you discussed this morning, but one source that you did not give wets the Norwegian traitor Quisling. The relations between the Defendant Raeder and him were very close, were they not?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: There was no contact at all between Raeder and Quisling until December 1939; then Raeder met Quisling for the first time in his life and never saw him again.

MAJOR JONES: But after December Quisling’s agent Hagelin was a very frequent visitor of the Defendant Raeder, was he not?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I do not believe that Hagelin ever went to Raeder before Quisling’s visit, unless I am very mistaken. I think he visited Raeder for the first time when he accompanied Quisling.

MAJOR JONES: Yes, but thereafter Raeder was in very close touch with the Quisling movement, the Quisling treachery, was he not?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No. Raeder had nothing at all to do with the Quisling movement.

MAJOR JONES: Do you know a man, Erich Giese, Walter Georg Erich Giese, who was an administrative employee of the adjutancy of the supreme commander of the Navy in Berlin?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I did not quite catch the name.

MAJOR JONES: Giese, G-i-e-s-e. He was a—part of his duties were to receive the visitors of the supreme commander. He was an assistant of the supreme commander’s adjutant and he was dismissed from his post in April 1942. And no doubt you recollect the man.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Will you please tell me the name again? Although it was spelled to me I did not catch it. Is this a Norwegian?

MAJOR JONES: This is a German subject, an employee of the supreme command of the Navy. Part of his duties were to receive all the supreme commander’s visitors, to accept applications for interviews, and draw up the list of callers for the supreme commander. Now you are looking at an affidavit from this man, Document D-722, to be Exhibit GB-479.

THE PRESIDENT: Has the witness answered the question yet?

MAJOR JONES: Not yet, My Lord.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Now I have the name. The man of whom you are talking was in the reception room of the adjutant’s office. It was not up to this man, who was to be admitted to the Admiral; that was up to me. I asked the callers for what reason they had come. Mr. Hagelin did not visit Raeder before Quisling’s visit, that is, not before December 1939.

MAJOR JONES: I am not suggesting that but what I am suggesting is that after December 1939 there was a very close link between Raeder and the Quisling movement. I just read out to you this extract from the affidavit of this man. From Page 3, My Lord, of the English text:

“I can state the following about the preparations which led up to the action against Denmark and Norway: An appointment with the Commander-in-Chief was frequently made for a Mr. Hagelin and another gentleman, whose name I cannot recall at present, by a party official of Rosenberg’s Foreign Political Office; as a rule they were received immediately. I also had received instructions that if a Mr. Hagelin should announce himself personally, I should always take him to the Commander-in-Chief at once. Shortly afterwards I learned from the minute book and from conversations in my room that he was a Norwegian confidential agent. The gentleman from the Foreign Political Office who frequently accompanied him and whose name I do not remember at the moment also conversed with me and confided in me, so that I learned about the Raeder-Rosenberg discussions and about the preparations for the Norway campaign. According to all I heard I can say that the idea of this undertaking emanated from Raeder and met with Hitler’s heartiest approval. The whole enterprise was disguised by the pretense of an enterprise against Holland and England. One day Quisling, too, was announced at the Commander-in-Chief’s by Hagelin and was received immediately. Korvettenkapitän Schreiber of the Naval Reserve, who was later naval attaché in Oslo and knew the conditions in Norway very well, also played a role in all these negotiations. He collaborated with the Quisling party and its agents in Oslo.”

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: It is not true that Mr. Hagelin was received by Admiral Raeder. Herr Giese cannot possibly have any information about that because he was stationed two rooms away. If he had perhaps noted down that he was received by me, that would in a certain sense be correct. The fact is that at the time, after the Quisling-Hagelin visit, I had said that if he were to pass through Berlin again and he had any naval political information in this connection, I should like him to make this information available to me.

MAJOR JONES: Are you saying that Defendant Raeder never met Hagelin?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: He did not meet him before Quisling’s visit in December. Later he did not receive him any more.

MAJOR JONES: But he in fact received Hagelin and took him to Hitler on 14 December 1939, did he not?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: He was accompanied by Quisling, that is correct. But he did not have any special discussion with Raeder alone.

MAJOR JONES: You said—you spoke this morning as to a conference between Quisling and Raeder on 12 December 1939 and suggested that politics were not discussed at that conference.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: By the word “politics” I mean politics in the National Socialistic sense, that is, National Socialistic politics on the Norwegian side and on our side. The matters discussed were only naval political questions.

MAJOR JONES: But I will not go into a discussion of the question of politics with you. I will consider the familiar German definition that politics is a continuation of war by other means. But if you look at the Document C-64 you will see that political problems were discussed on 12 December. You see that is a report of Raeder to Hitler. It is found on Page 31 of the Document Book 10a, in which Raeder writes in Paragraph 2:

“As a result of the Russo-Finnish conflict, anti-German feeling in Norway is even stronger than hitherto. England’s influence is very great, especially because of Hambro, the President of the Storting (a Jew and a friend of Hore-Belisha) who is all-powerful in Norway just now. Quisling is convinced that there is an agreement between England and Norway for the possible occupation of Norway, in which case Sweden would also stand against Germany. Danger of Norway’s occupation by England is very great—possibly very shortly. From 11 January 1940 on, the Storting and thereby the Norwegian Government is unconstitutional since the Storting, in defiance of the constitution, has prolonged its term for a year.”

Politics was very much under discussion at that conference, was it not? You have said that the Defendant Raeder was anxious for peace with Norway. Was it for peace with a Norway ruled by the traitor Quisling?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: In reply to your first question I should like to say that in the minutes it says:

“The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy points out that in connection with such offers we can never know to what extent the persons involved want to further their own party aims, and to what extent they are concerned about German interests. Hence caution is required.”

This entry in the document which you have just presented to me corroborates what I was trying to say, that is, that no party matters or matters depending on agreement along ideological lines were to be settled between Admiral Raeder and Quisling. For this reason I said that Raeder did not discuss politics with him, but merely factual matters. That Quisling, at the time of his introduction, should mention certain things as a sort of preamble is self-evident. But he points out the factor of caution and asks: “What does this man want? Does he want to work with the Party or does he really want to remain aloof?”

MAJOR JONES: At any rate, the Defendant Raeder was preferring the reports of Quisling to the reports of the German Ambassador in Oslo which were entirely different from the reports of the traitor Quisling. That is so, is it not?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I believe that Raeder never saw the reports from the German Ambassador in Oslo. I at any rate do not know these reports.

MAJOR JONES: Now the Tribunal has the documents with regard to that matter. I will not pursue it. I want to ask you next about the relations with the United States of America. When did the German Admiralty first know of Japan’s intention to attack the United States?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I can speak only for Raeder and myself. As far as I know, it was not until the moment of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

MAJOR JONES: But you had received a communication from your German naval attaché at Tokyo before the attack on Pearl Harbor, indicating that an attack against the United States was pending, had you not?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Pearl Harbor? No.

MAJOR JONES: But against the United States forces. Just look at the Document D-872, which will be Exhibit GB-480. You see that those are extracts from the war diary of the German naval attaché in Tokyo. The first entry is dated 3 December 1941:

“1800 hours. The naval attaché extended an invitation to several officers of the Japanese Naval Ministry. It transpires from the conversation that the negotiations in Washington must be regarded as having broken down completely and that, quite obviously, the beginning of actions to the south by the Japanese Armed Forces is to be expected in the near future.”

And then on 6 December 1941:

“Conversation with Fregattenkapitän Shiba.”

The outcome of the conversation is reported to Berlin in the following telegram:

“Naval Attaché, 1251. Military Secret:

“1. Last week America offered a nonaggression pact between the United States, England, Russia and Japan. In view of the Tripartite Pact and the high counterdemands, Japan rejected this offer. Negotiations have therefore completely broken down.

“2. The Armed Forces foresaw this development and consented to Kurusu’s being sent only to impress the people with the fact that all means had been exhausted.

“3. The Armed Forces have already decided 3 weeks ago that war is inevitable, even if the United States at the last minute should make substantial concessions. Appropriate measures are under way.”

And then—I will not read the whole document, and at the end it says:

“A state of war with Britain and America would certainly exist by Christmas.”

Assuming that signal reached you before 8 December, you became familiar with the plans of the perfidious Japanese attack upon the United States, did you not?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I do not quite grasp it. I have already said that we had no contact with the Japanese experts or attachés in Berlin. I asserted that we first learned of the Pearl Harbor incident by radio, and I cannot quite see what difference it makes whether on 6 December the attaché in Tokyo told us his predictions, or whether he was drawing conclusions about a future conflict from information sources which we could not control. That has nothing to do with our having advised the Japanese in Berlin to attack America.

MAJOR JONES: Are you saying that you had no conversations in Berlin with the Japanese attaché?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: To my knowledge there were no official conferences between the two admiralty staffs, that is, official operational conferences between the Naval Operations Staff and the Japanese admiralty staff.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Elwyn Jones, before you part from that document, I think you ought to read Paragraph 5.

MAJOR JONES: Paragraph 5, My Lord, reads:

“5. Addition—Naval Attaché.

“No exact details are available as to the zero hour for the commencement of the southern offensive. All the evidence, however, indicates that it may be expected to start within 3 weeks, with simultaneous attacks on Siam, the Philippines and Borneo.

“6. The Ambassador has no knowledge of the transmission of the telegram, but is acquainted with its contents.”

Now I want to...

THE PRESIDENT: With reference to what the witness has just said, I do not know whether I understood him right before, but what I took down he said was that the German Admiralty first knew of Japan’s intention to attack, after Pearl Harbor, not that it first knew of Pearl Harbor by radio. It was the first indication they had of an intention to attack.

MAJOR JONES: That is so, My Lord.

[Turning to the witness.] I am suggesting to you, Witness, that you knew perfectly well of the Japanese intention to attack the United States before the incident of Pearl Harbor.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I do not know whether you are stressing Pearl Harbor, or the fact that 2 days before the attack on Pearl Harbor we received a telegram from Tokyo to the effect that a conflict was to be counted on. I was asked whether we had known of the fact of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and to that I said: “No.” I said that we had had no conferences in Berlin between the Naval Operations Staff and the Japanese admiralty staff. What you are presenting to me...

MAJOR JONES: I just want to deal with that, but I want to read out to you what your Commander-in-Chief said about that, because it is not what you are saying, you know. On the interrogation of Admiral Raeder on 10 November 1945 (Document D-880, GB-483) he was asked:

“Question: Would such matters be accomplished by Foreign Office people alone, or would that be in collaboration with the High Command of the Navy and OKW?”

And Defendant Raeder’s answer was:

“No, the negotiations were conducted by the Foreign Office and on the part of the Japanese diplomats there was this delegate, Oshima, who was an officer. He negotiated with the Foreign Office in his capacity as delegate, but apart from that he was enough of an expert to look at this thing from a military standpoint as well. Military authorities had long before that carried on negotiations with military and naval attachés about the needs and other things that the Japanese needed... This was all talked about and thrashed out with the military and naval attachés.”

That is a very different version of the fact from the version you have given, Witness, is it not? Now, there are two more matters which I want to deal with.

I do not know whether it will be convenient, My Lord, to have a brief adjournment.

[A recess was taken.]

MAJOR JONES: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the extract from the interrogation of the Defendant Raeder which I read I wanted to be clear that the defendant was then dealing with the relationship generally between the German authorities in Berlin and the Japanese representatives. I do not want to have given the Court the impression it was a direct negotiation with regard to intervention against America itself. I do not want to mislead the Court in any way with regard to that matter.

[Turning to the witness.] Did you know of the shooting in December 1942 by a naval unit belonging to the German naval officer in command at Bordeaux of two British Royal Marines who took part in a raid on shipping in the Gironde estuary?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I learned of that later.

MAJOR JONES: Did you see the entry with regard to that shooting in the SKL War Diary?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, here in Nuremberg the defendant’s counsel showed me an entry, but I do not know whether it was the War Diary of the Naval Operations Staff.

MAJOR JONES: It has been suggested by both counsel for the Defendant Dönitz and counsel for the Defendant Raeder that the entry in D-658 which contained the sentence: “The measure would be in accordance with the Führer’s special order, but is nevertheless something new in international law since these soldiers were in uniform,” that that entry was not from the SKL War Diary. Now, you are familiar with the initial of the Defendant Raeder, are you not?

I want you now to look at the original of D-658, so that it may be established beyond peradventure that this matter was entered in the SKL War Diary. I will put in a photostatic copy of the original if the Tribunal will allow me, because the original is required for other purposes. D-658 was GB-229, and it may be convenient to call the photostats of the originals D-658(a) and GB-229(a). That is the War Diary of the SKL, is it not?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, I recognize it as such.

MAJOR JONES: And the SKL was perfectly familiar with that dreadful murder of the men at Bordeaux, was it not?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: From the War Diary I can see—such is my impression—that afterward on 9 December they were informed about the fact of the shooting.

MAJOR JONES: And their laconic comment was...

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: In the Armed Forces communiqué it says: “According to the Armed Forces communiqué, the two soldiers have been shot in the meantime.” This can be seen in the War Diary of the SKL and I acknowledged it.

MAJOR JONES: And the humane comment of the SKL is, “It is something new in international law, since the soldiers were in uniform.”

There is one final matter which I wish to ask you about: Is it your contention that the German Navy fought a clean war at sea?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I contend that the German Navy fought a very clean war and that has nothing to do with the fact that it is said here in the Diary of the SKL, as taken from the Armed Forces communiqué, that two soldiers were shot and that this was in accordance with the special order given by the Führer which has been cited but, as the Naval Operations Staff adds, was something new in the history of naval warfare. This too...

MAJOR JONES: I am turning to another matter, but you say generally...

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: May I just say in conclusion that this postscript has been confirmed and that the Navy, in this case Raeder, had no influence on these matters. If you ask me whether I approved that order or something of the sort I would give you my personal opinion of the matters which Raeder and I discussed.

MAJOR JONES: But you know Raeder was Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, and who would have influence in Germany if the commanders-in-chief did not have influence? Here was a matter directly reflecting on the honor of German Armed Forces and despite that deliberate denial of the protection of the Geneva Convention for those British marines he continued in office, after they were deliberately murdered.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: That is a matter of opinion. I may take the following stand: The fact is that in this war, for the first time, a form of sabotage was applied, whether behind the lines by means of air landings or otherwise.

MAJOR JONES: Just a moment. These were marines in uniform. Your own report in the SKL War Diary says so.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I have to comment on that order which was issued earlier. The preamble of that order said that, since there was knowledge of orders to the Allied soldiers or—I do not remember the exact wording any more—since these soldiers were given orders not to bother taking German prisoners but rather to shoot them while carrying out their work in the so-called Commando raids, the following directives had to be issued.

At that time I discussed this matter with Raeder, of course, and I can merely state my personal opinion. I felt that I could believe this preamble because I am of the opinion that if I resorted to, let us say, sabotage behind the lines then of course I could not be bothered with taking prisoners, because then the element of surprise would be excluded. If, therefore, a troop of three to five men, a so-called Commando undertaking, is sent behind the lines in order to destroy enemy installations, then of course they cannot burden themselves with prisoners without running the risk of being killed themselves or of being recognized before they can carry out their undertaking. Therefore I considered this preamble quite credible and I expressly said so at that time.

MAJOR JONES: And you think that that shooting of those two marines was therefore perfectly justified? That is your position on this matter, is it not? Just say “yes” or “no” on that; I will not argue with you.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I have not asserted that in any way. Rather I said, here is a fact of which we were informed only by the Armed Forces communiqué, and that Raeder and the High Command had not been heard on this point. That is what I stated.

MAJOR JONES: Now, the final matter I wanted to ask you about, you have indicated that in your opinion Germany fought a clean war at sea. I want you to look at the new Document D-873 which will be GB-481, which is the log book of U-boat U-71, under the date line 21 June 1941, when the Defendant Raeder was Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy. You see the entry reads:

“Sighted lifeboat of the Norwegian motor tanker John P. Pederson drifting under sail. Three survivors were lying exhausted under a tarpaulin and only showed themselves as the U-boat was moving away again. They stated that their ship had been torpedoed 28 days before. I turned down their request to be taken aboard, provisioned the boat with food and water and gave them the course and distance to the Icelandic coast. Boat and crew were in a state that, in view of the prevailing weather, offered hardly any prospects of rescue.”—Signed: “Flachsenberg.”

Is that your conception of a clean war at sea?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I observe that the commanding officer did what he could, in view of the weather which he described when he said that in view of the bad weather he could not rescue them. He threw provisions to them in a sack and gave them the course to the coast. I do not know what there is about that that is inhumane. If he had left without giving them food and the course, then you might make that accusation.

MAJOR JONES: But he could have taken them aboard, you know. These were three men who did...

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, I believe you cannot judge that. Only the commanding officer himself can judge that, the man in charge of the U-boat. I would have to look at the weather, because it says here “Medium swell.” That could also...

MAJOR JONES: But you see here the U-boat commander must have spoken to these people and physically it must have been possible to take them aboard, but he left them to their fate, you know, knowing quite well he was leaving them to die.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, not at all. Then he would not have needed to give them any food and to give them the course to the coast. What makes you think that they had to die? By the way...

MAJOR JONES: The last sentence is a clear indication that the U-boat captain knew he was leaving them to die. I am suggesting to you that he could have taken them aboard and should have done so if he had the elements of humanity in him.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No; I do not know the condition of the U-boat, whether the boat was in a position to take prisoners on board. I believe that you have never seen conditions on a U-boat; otherwise you would not judge it like that. Considering that the crew of a U-boat is under water for weeks and uses every last bit of space and is exposed to the greatest dangers day and night, one cannot simply say that it would have been a humane act to take these additional men aboard. Besides, the commander himself says there was hardly a chance of rescue in view of the prevailing weather.

MAJOR JONES: I have no further questions, My Lord.

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, I have some questions concerning a few points which Mr. Elwyn Jones put to you. An entry was shown to you from the document by Assmann of 10 October 1939 with the assertion that from this it can be seen that Raeder wanted to occupy Norway only in order to have Norwegian bases. I should like to read to you the full entry and I should like you then to take position to the entire document:

“The Führer agrees that full use of the only two battleships which we have at the time should not be made for the time being. Russia offered bases near Murmansk...

“Question of siege of England: Führer and Commander-in-Chief of Navy agree that all objections by neutrals have to be rejected, even in view of the danger of entry of U.S.A. into the war which seems certain if the war keeps on.

“The more brutally the war is conducted the sooner the effect, the shorter the war.

“Capacity for large U-boat production program. Führer rejects suggestion to have submarines built by or bought from Russia for political reasons. Commander-in-Chief of Navy states no advantages to be won for the U-boat war by conquest of Belgian coast; refers to the value of winning Norwegian bases—Trondheim—with the help of Russian pressure. Führer will consider the question.” (Document D-879, Exhibit GB-482)

Admiral, according to the entire contents, is this a complete clarification of the Norwegian problem?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, not at all.

DR. SIEMERS: Am I right in concluding that here a great number of questions are treated and only one strategic question with reference to Norway...

MAJOR JONES: If your Lordship pleases, the translation came through as, “no advantage of occupation of Norwegian bases” and the translation which is in the document is “Raeder stresses importance of obtaining Norwegian bases.” Perhaps if there might be a careful—I am not saying this in any critical sense—a very careful translation of the entry, it might be important.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the—did you give that an exhibit number?

MAJOR JONES: No, My Lord. That is the entry from Assmann’s headline diary.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know it is. But I want to know the exhibit number.

MAJOR JONES: I will have an extract made and the exhibit number given this evening, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: It would be GB-482, would it not?

MAJOR JONES: Yes, My Lord, that is it; GB-482.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, it is the same date; I beg your pardon if it does not agree; but the document from which I read I received through the courtesy of Mr. Elwyn Jones.

THE PRESIDENT: You had better go into the question of translation and get that settled.

MAJOR JONES: Yes, Your Lordship.

DR. SIEMERS: At any rate, Admiral, both entries are 10 October, that is, of the same conference. Am I right in saying that consequently there were many strategic questions, not one of which can be said to have been treated completely and conclusively?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, I believe that this complex of questions has nothing to do with the comprehensive discussion between Hitler and Raeder concerning the occupation of Norway. The Norwegian question was touched upon, the occupation of Norway, and then a few points brought up for discussion which Raeder usually jotted down in his notebook. Apart from the question whether an occupation of Norway was necessary or not, the possibility of conquering bases outside German territory was accidentally touched on the same day.

DR. SIEMERS: Therefore, Murmansk which had been offered by Russia was discussed.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: From Russia to Belgium—all along the coast, wherever there were possibilities and advantages for our submarine strategy.

DR. SIEMERS: If in the War Diary a sentence in connection with a conference between Raeder and Hitler is in quotation marks, does that mean that these words were used by Hitler? Can one assume that?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: If it says...

MAJOR JONES: If your Lordship please, the translation has now been checked, and the original reading of “Raeder stresses the importance of obtaining Norwegian bases” appears to be a perfectly correct translation.

THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Siemers.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I understood, Dr. Siemers; shall I speak about that?

DR. SIEMERS: Yes, did you want to add something to that point?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes. I understand that the other gentleman just pointed out that Raeder allegedly called Hitler’s attention to the necessity of acquiring submarine bases and in that connection once spoke about Russian assistance and also about the possibility of acquiring bases from Norway. But that does not reveal any aggressive intentions.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, in order to save time, I also asked Dr. Kranzbühler to check the translation. The German text as I should like to point out right now says: “The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy points out the value of winning Norwegian bases.” That is something different from the English translation. But I should like to come back to this later.

[Turning to the witness.] Admiral, Mr. Elwyn Jones then submitted the affidavit of Walter Giese. I should be grateful if you would look at it again. It is D-722. The first line reads:

“I was born at Stettin on 24 November 1900, the son of a bricklayer’s foreman, Ernst Giese.”

Then it says:

“I sat in the reception room of the Commander-in-Chief as assistant to the adjutant.”

Then it says, in the same paragraph:

“I received the minute book from the adjutant at midday after the conferences had ended and locked it up in the general safe.”

Then it says on the second page:

“I did not have much contact with the Commander-in-Chief personally. This consisted merely in my submitting to him or fetching from him top-secret correspondence.”

Admiral, am I right in assuming, therefore, that Giese was a sort of messenger?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes. In order to save officers we filled a large number of unimportant positions with civilians, people who we thought were worthy of our confidence. The care of a safe or guarding the key was really the task of the second adjutant, who later had to be used elsewhere.

Giese had been a sergeant in the Navy for many years and for 12 years had been a clerk in the Navy, and therefore had had a certain amount of practice in keeping files.

THE PRESIDENT: All this is stated in the document. If there is anything inaccurate in the document, you can put it to him. But it all is set out in the document, exactly as the Admiral said. You are wasting the time of the Tribunal by repeating it.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I believe what Mr. Elwyn Jones presented was also in the document. What matters is the question of interpretation and the witness has been referred to very definite points. If I should be mistaken, I beg your pardon. I believed that I also had the right in re-examination to refer to certain points in the document.

THE PRESIDENT: If you want to, you can draw our attention to the paragraphs.

SCHUJLTE-MÖNTING: I can be very brief.

Giese had no inside information about the facts, and even if he had, without permission, looked into the minutes of the adjutant, which were not a shorthand record but merely notes to aid the memory of the adjutant, he could never have received the right impression without having taken part in the conference. And it was not up to him in the reception room to decide who should be admitted to the Commander-in-Chief, but rather up to the adjutant or to me. He did not even know who was to be admitted. And it is a bold statement or assumption when he says that a man like Hagelin saw Raeder each time instead of seeing me first. By the way, Hagelin came to me perhaps four or five times.

DR. SIEMERS: Do you believe Giese was present when Raeder talked to Hitler?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Giese? No, never. Giese sat in the reception room and took care of Raeder’s telephone calls.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, nobody here suggests that he was. Mr. Elwyn Jones was not putting it that this man Giese was present at talks between Raeder and the Führer or Raeder and Hagelin.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, this is his affidavit, and in the affidavit, it says, as I should like to point out now, on Page 5, “According to all I heard, I can say that the idea of this undertaking emanated from Raeder and met with Hitler’s joyous agreement.”

How could he know that?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I might stress that even I as chief of staff was not present at these private conferences, and Herr Giese had to stay with the telephone and had no other way of gaining an insight than by giving his imagination free rein.

DR. SIEMERS: That is enough, thank you. I come now to Document D-872. That is the war diary of the naval attaché in Japan, in connection with which you were told that you must have known that Japan would attack America on 7 December. The telegram which is mentioned here is of 6 December. When could that telegram have arrived in your office?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: You mean, when could I have received it personally?

DR. SIEMERS: Yes; or Raeder.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Not before the next morning.

DR. SIEMERS: That would be 7 December.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: At the earliest. In this case, the Chief of Staff of the Naval Operations Staff would decide whether for operational reasons that telegram should be presented at once, or not.

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, do you remember that document?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: Is Pearl Harbor mentioned in the document?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No. I tried to explain that Pearl Harbor had no connection with that telegram from Admiral Wennecker at all and that Wennecker depended on sources of information and on his assumptions or formulated his assumptions in a telegram on the basis of his information without having any definite facts. Such telegrams were received continuously. Sometimes these assumptions were correct; sometimes they were incorrect.

DR. SIEMERS: Admiral, the Prosecution has submitted it to prove that military negotiations had taken place with Japan. Am I correct in saying that that was only a message concerning possible developments?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, of course. I have tried before to explain that there were no military negotiations between the admiralty staffs. Rather the naval attaché was charged with examining and transmitting all information of value which came to him.

DR. SIEMERS: Then a document was shown you which was not submitted, an interrogation of Raeder of 10 November 1945. May I ask to look at the bottom of Page 5 of this document which I am handing to you and the passage which was read on Page 6?

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Elwyn Jones, that ought to have a number, ought it not?

MAJOR JONES: That will be GB-483, My Lord.

DR. SIEMERS: On that document, Page 5 at the bottom, is Document C-75 mentioned?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No.

DR. SIEMERS: I believe you are mistaken, Admiral, or else I have made a mistake.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I have an English copy—do you mean the English one?

DR. SIEMERS: Yes, the English copy because it does not exist in German.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: You mean the last paragraph?

DR. SIEMERS: I believe the last line or the line before the last. The page numbers are very hard to read. Maybe you have the wrong page.

This interrogation, Mr. President, concerns Document C-75. I believe the witness will find it soon. Mention has been made of this document recently and in accordance with the wish recently expressed by the Tribunal, I am submitting C-75; that is Directive Number 24 about the co-operation with Japan, and the full text is Document Number Raeder-128. The Tribunal will recall that the British Delegation...

THE PRESIDENT: Has it already been put in, C-75, has it already been put in?

DR. SIEMERS: I submit it now, C-75.

THE PRESIDENT: No, has it already been put in? Has it already been offered in evidence?

DR. SIEMERS: You may recall that the Prosecution has submitted Document C-75 as USA-151...

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is all I wanted to know. If it has already been put in, it does not need a new number, is that not the position?

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I remind you that it needs a new number because only the first part was submitted by the Prosecution.

MAJOR JONES: It has already been exhibited as USA-151, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we are not giving fresh numbers, Dr. Siemers, to parts of documents which had already been put in. If the document has been put in, then where you want to use a fresh part of the document it has the same number as the old number; that is all.

DR. SIEMERS: But, Mr. President, if the Prosecution in their document put in only the first three paragraphs then I cannot...

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know; I know that perfectly well, but you are perfectly entitled to put in any part of the document. It is only a question of what number is to be given to it and I think—I may be wrong—that up to the present we have not given new numbers to documents once that they have been put in, although fresh parts of the documents are put in.

MAJOR JONES: My Lord, the position with regard to C-75 is that the whole of the original has been put in as USA-151, but only an extract from the original was included in the English document which was put before the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see. All I was concerned with was the number of the thing. It has got the number USA-151 and I thought our practice had been that it should continue to have that number. You can put in any part of it you like, and if it is a question of translation, no doubt the Prosecution will hand it to the translation department and have it translated for you; but you are attempting to give it a new number, that is all.

DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon, once more, but I was asked recently to submit the document anew and that is where the misunderstanding arose. Under these circumstances, now that I hear that it has been submitted in its entirety, I can withdraw it; I should be grateful if the Tribunal were also to receive the complete translation of the document in English and not only the first two paragraphs.

[Turning to the witness.] Admiral, have you found it in the meantime?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, it is on Page 7 as you thought and not on Page 5. The document refers...

DR. SIEMERS: I apologize. It is right then that the interrogation refers to Document C-75?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: Document C-75, Admiral, is Directive Number 24 concerning collaboration with Japan, and it says: “The following rules apply: Our common war aim is to defeat England quickly and thereby keep the U.S.A. out of the war.”

Besides that the document also mentions the fact I referred to recently, that Singapore should be occupied by Japan.

Now Raeder, on 10 November ’45 stated his position in respect to this and, according to the next page of the document, he said that which Mr. Elwyn Jones has just put to you. May I ask you to look at it again? It says there, on Page—I thought it was at the top of Page 6, maybe it is at the top of Page 8...

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: The top of Page 8. I do not know English as well as German, but I would translate it: “If that which Japan needs...”

DR. SIEMERS: If I remember correctly, the word is “need.”

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, he uses the word “need”—“and other things, things that the Japanese need.”

DR. SIEMERS: That is to say, Japan’s needs and other things which Japan requires. Therefore, the conversations mentioned by Raeder were not concerned with strategic points?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, these are two entirely different things.

DR. SIEMERS: So that Raeder’s answer is concerned purely with questions of supplies and material.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Yes, purely questions of supplies and material...

DR. SIEMERS: Thank you.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: ...which we had with all the navies, not only with the Japanese.

DR. SIEMERS: Then I come to the Commando Order about which you testified already. I want to put to you the following: You have been shown Document D-658, which says that according to the Armed Forces communiqué the soldiers were executed, that the soldiers wore uniforms and that the Führer’s Order was something new in international law. I believe that the naval commander in western France reported this and that this was contained in the Armed Forces communiqué. The man who compiled the War Diary wrote: “A new thing in international law.” I am not a military man, but I should like to ask you, would you consider such a reference a criticism of the order?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I believe that I have to answer the question in the following manner: Normally, the fact of an execution is not entered in a war diary on operational matters.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think that is really a matter which we can go into, whether he thinks this is an entry which is a criticism of the order.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I believe he wanted to establish that it was something new.

DR. SIEMERS: Never mind, Admiral. A factual question. The Prosecution asserts again that it concerns soldiers in uniform. The Wehrmacht communiqué announced the execution on 9 December. The execution, as I have already shown in another connection, did not take place until 11 December. I am presenting to you now Document UK-57, and ask you to look at the second paragraph under Figure 4. The heading Figure 4 reads: “Sabotage against German ships near Bordeaux”; then it says: “December 12, 1942”; and further on we read:

“From the submarine the participants went two by two in paddle boats up the Gironde estuary. They wore special olive gray uniforms. After carrying out the blastings they sank their boats and tried, with the aid of French civilians, to escape to Spain in civilian clothes.”

Did these soldiers behave correctly according to the provisions of international law?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: In my opinion, no.

DR. SIEMERS: Then I have no more questions.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: If they had had a clear conscience, they would not have needed to wear civilian clothes.

DR. SIEMERS: Excuse me, just this final question:

Did you personally in the High Command receive an inquiry or any information before this execution which was carried out at the direct order of the Führer?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: No, neither an inquiry nor any information.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Mr. President, the question as to whether a document concerning Norway had been translated correctly was just discussed. I shall find out what number it is. The English translation which I have before me is not identical with the German original. It deviates considerably. It is Document GB-482.

I shall read the German text which in my opinion differs from the English translation.

“The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy states: Conquest of Belgian coast provides no advantage for our submarine warfare; points out value of winning Norwegian bases (Trondheim) with the help of Russian pressure. The Führer will consider the question.”

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbühler, would it not save time, really, if we have the sentence which is said to have been wrongly translated referred to a committee of experts in the translating division?

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Mr. President...

THE PRESIDENT: It really is not a matter which it is worth while wasting time over.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I beg your pardon, I did not know that it was to be examined again.

THE PRESIDENT: I think we had better have it examined and then the translation certified to.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I beg your pardon, Mr. President. I, myself, have a question to put to the witness.

Admiral, Document D-873 has been put to you before. That was a war diary of U-71 and concerned the supplying of three Norwegians in a lifeboat. The entry was on 21 June. I have already submitted it to the Tribunal under Dönitz Number 13, on Page 23 of my document book, a statement by the above-mentioned commanding officer Flachsenberg. According to that statement this submarine put to sea on 14 June. It was west of Norway. Can you tell me if that U-boat, therefore, on 21 June, was putting out for operations or returning from operations?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: You mean from memory?

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: No, considering the dates, put out to sea on 14 June, this entry on 21 June.

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: Putting out.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Putting out. As you know, this submarine was a 500-ton vessel. Is a boat of that size in a position to carry out an operation over several weeks with three additional people on board?

SCHULTE-MÖNTING: I believe not. I am not enough of an expert to be able to judge definitely what the extra weight of additional persons on board might mean as far as trimming experiments and such things are concerned; but aside from that, I do not believe that such a small boat, which is putting out to sea for an operation, can load itself on the way with prisoners. I do not consider that possible.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.

DR. SIEMERS: Then, with the permission of the Court, the witness may retire.

[Turning to the President.] Mr. President, in accordance with my statement at the beginning of this case, I have already submitted the majority of my documents during the examination. With the permission of the Tribunal, may I proceed now to submit as quickly as possible the remainder of the documents with a few accompanying statements.

I submit to the Tribunal Exhibit Number Raeder-18, an excerpt from the Document Book 2, Page 105, an excerpt from a book which Churchill wrote in 1935 called Great Contemporaries. I ask the Tribunal to take official notice of the contents. Churchill points out that there are two possibilities, that one cannot say whether Hitler will be the man who will start another world war or whether he will be the man who will restore honor and peace of mind to the great German nation and bring it back serene, helpful and strong to a galaxy of the European family of nations.

As Exhibit Number Raeder-20 I submit a short excerpt from Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf with reference to the fact that the Prosecution has said that from that book one could see that Hitler intended to wage aggressive wars. I shall show in my final pleadings how much one can see from that book. I ask that the Tribunal take judicial notice of the short excerpt on Page 154: “For such a policy there was but one ally in Europe, England.”

Exhibit Number Raeder-21, a speech made by Hitler to the German Reichstag on 26 April 1942, is to show how rights were increasingly limited in Germany and how the dictatorship became more and more powerful.

Document Book 4, Exhibit Number Raeder-65, intended to facilitate my arguments, is the Hague Agreement about the rights and duties of neutrals in naval warfare. I need that for my final pleadings in connection with Exhibit Number Raeder-66, the statement of opinion by Dr. Mosler in Document Book 4, Page 289, the first document.

THE PRESIDENT: Can you give us the pages?

DR. SIEMERS: Page 289, Mr. President. It is the first page of the Document Book 4.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. SIEMERS: Then I ask the Tribunal to be kind enough to take up Document Book 5, since the remaining documents have already been submitted. I submit as Exhibit Number Raeder-100, Document Book 5, Page 437, a document from the White Book concerning the “top-secret” meeting of the French War Commission on 9 April 1940, with Reynaud, Daladier, Gamelin, General Georges, the Minister of the Navy, the Minister of the Colonies and the Air Minister present. It concerns the suggestion by Admiral Darlan of moving into Belgium. The suggestion was supported by General Gamelin and also by the Minister for National Defense and War. On Page 442 there is mention of the march into Holland and finally of Luxembourg. Since the High Tribunal has knowledge of the contents from the discussion of the documents, I do not want to read any details. I simply ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. I should also like to point out that on Page 443 of this very long document mention is made of the occupation of the harbor of Narvik and of the intention to get hold of the mines of Gallivare.

I now submit Exhibit Number Raeder 102, in the same document book, Page 449. This is an order of the 2d Belgian Infantry Regiment of 13 April 1940 concerning information about friendly troops and the building of a fortified position. It can be seen from the document that the friendly troops mentioned are the Allies.

Then I submit Exhibit Raeder-103, Page 452, which is a French document of 16 April 1940 from headquarters concerning measures about the rail transportation of French troops in Belgium.

I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of all these documents, which I shall not read in detail.

The same applies to Exhibit Number Raeder-104, Document Book 5, Page 455, which is the order of 19 April 1940 of the 2d British Division concerning security measures in Belgium. There we find a directive similar to one in a document which has been submitted by the Prosecution, a directive to establish contact with Belgian civilian authorities.

Exhibit Number Raeder-105, Document Book 5, Page 459, is the statement of a Luxembourg citizen which shows that 200 men, French soldiers in uniform, entered Belgium in armored cars 7 days before the outbreak of the German-Belgian hostilities.

May it please the Tribunal, I originally intended not to submit anything in this Trial concerning the character of my client because I was of the opinion that Admiral Raeder, both at home and abroad, enjoyed great respect. The first trial brief against Raeder did not affect that intention. Shortly before the presentation of that trial brief it was changed, becoming considerably more severe and containing moral accusations which seriously injure and insult Raeder’s honor. I have no doubt that the High Tribunal will understand why under these circumstances I ask to be permitted to submit some of the documents granted me which concern Raeder’s character. I submit Exhibit Raeder-119, Document Book 6, Page 514. That is a letter from Frau Von Poser addressed to me. It is not an affidavit and quite purposely I have submitted the original because in my opinion it will make a more immediate and direct impression than an affidavit which I would first have to ask for in my capacity as defendant’s counsel.

Similarly, there is a fairly long letter from Professor Dr. Seibt who approached me on his own initiative. I submit Exhibit Number Raeder-120, Document Book 6, Page 517. I would be grateful to the Tribunal if it would take judicial notice of that letter. In order to save time I refrain from reading it since it is six pages long.

Then I submit Exhibit Raeder-122, Document Book 6, Page 526, a letter from Herr Erich Katz, which I submit with its appendices and I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. This presents one of the cases in which Raeder intervened personally, using his influence and position—he used the official stationery of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy to intervene on behalf of Herr Katz who had been attacked as a Jew—and actually succeeded in protecting him. Herr Katz has sent me these documents on his own initiative in order to show his gratitude.

As Exhibit Raeder-123 I submit a letter from Günter Jacobsen that concerns a similar case. Jacobsen also, without my asking it, approached me in order to testify that Raeder rescued his father, who as a Jew had been accused of race defilement, from the concentration camp Fuhlsbüttel—I believe it was still a prison at that time—so that Jacobsen could emigrate to England where he is living now.

I submit as Exhibit Number Raeder-124, an affidavit...

GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, I must make the following statement. All four exhibits mentioned just now by Dr. Siemers are personal letters from various persons to Dr. Siemers. They are not sworn affidavits. They are not interrogations. Therefore these documents have little probative value, and I hold the view that they ought not to be admitted as evidence. Many letters are received, and if they were all to be submitted to the Tribunal, the Tribunal would have great difficulty in establishing the truth and how far they are of probative value. In that connection, I personally object to the fact that these documents should be accepted as evidence in Raeder’s case.

DR. SIEMERS: My Lord, may I...

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not think that the matter is of sufficient importance to insist upon evidence being upon oath. The documents are admitted.

DR. SIEMERS: As Exhibit Number Raeder-124 I submit an affidavit by Konrad Lotter. The affidavit is very short and with the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to read this one page:

“Grand Admiral Raeder has always appeared to me a man who embodied the finest traditions of the old Imperial Navy. This was true particularly in regard to his philosophy of life. As a man and as an officer he was at all times the best model imaginable.

“In 1941, when the anti-Christian policy of the Hitler regime was in full force in Bavaria, when cloisters were closed and in the education of the youth intolerance against every creed became crassly manifest, I sent a memorandum of 12 pages to the Admiral in which I presented to him my objections to this policy. Admiral Raeder intervened at once. Through his mediation, I was called to the Gauleiter and Minister of the Interior, Wagner, in Munich. After a series of discussions between the clerical, governmental, and Party authorities an agreement was reached which had the following results: The school prayer was retained, the crucifix was allowed to remain in the schools, et cetera; furthermore, 59 clergymen who had been fined 500 marks each were pardoned.

“The closing down of cloisters was also stopped at that time. Gauleiter Wagner had to...”

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, all these documents have been read by us very recently.

DR. SIEMERS: Very well. Then I just ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the remainder.

I submit also the two documents, Exhibit Number Raeder-125 and Exhibit Number Raeder-126. Number 125 is an affidavit by the former Reich Defense Minister, Dr. Otto Gessler, and Number Raeder-126 is an affidavit by the Navy Chaplain Ronneberger. I ask you to take judicial notice of this latter document.

I should like to be permitted to read the short affidavit by Dr. Gessler since it contains not only something of a purely personal nature, but also remarks concerning the accusations against Raeder.

“I, Gessler, have known the former Admiral Dr. Raeder personally since about the middle of the 20’s when I was Reichswehrminister. Raeder was then inspector of the educational system in the Navy. I have always known Raeder as a man of irreproachable, chivalrous character, as a man fully conscious of his duty. As to the subject of the Indictment, I know very little.

“Raeder visited me repeatedly after my release from imprisonment by the Gestapo in March 1945 when I lay in the Hedwig Hospital in Berlin and he also made arrangements for me to get home, as I was ill and completely exhausted. I told him then about the ill-treatment I had suffered, especially the torture. He was obviously surprised and incensed about this. He said he would report this to the Führer. I asked him at once to refrain from that, for I had been told before the torture, and officially, that all of this was taking place at the explicit order of Hitler. Moreover, I knew definitely that I would immediately be rearrested, since on my release I had signed the well-known declaration and could not even obtain a confirmation of my detention in order to get a ticket for my trip home.

“I heard nothing about secret rearmament in the Navy, neither during my term of office nor later. During my term of office, until January 1928, Admiral Raeder would not have been responsible either, for at that time he was not Chief of the Naval Command.

“At the time of the National Socialist regime I was ignored by my former department and snubbed. One of the few exceptions was Dr. Raeder. Before 1939 among other things he invited me three times to visit on the cruiser Nürnberg although I had refused twice. During the visit in June 1939 he came to Kiel personally to pay his respects to me. At that time we also discussed the political situation. I expressed the apprehension that an attack on Poland would mean a European war. Raeder declared positively that he considered it out of the question that Hitler would attack Poland. When this did happen later, I explained this to myself on the grounds that Hitler liked to place even the highest military leaders face to face with accomplished facts.”

Then there is the statement “under oath” and the signature of the notary.

As to the last Exhibit Number Raeder-126, from the Navy Chief Chaplain Ronneberger, I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it since it is too late to read it. It is a factual description and survey of church questions and of religious matters in the Navy.

Mr. President, with that, with the exception of three points, I can conclude my case. There are still two interrogatories missing which have not yet been returned. I ask permission to submit these as soon as they are received.

Then, there is the witness Generaladmiral Böhm, who has already been approved, but who on account of illness has not yet been able to appear. The British Delegation, through Sir David, has been kind enough to agree that if necessary this witness can be interrogated at a later date. May I be permitted to ask the Tribunal to keep this open, and if possible to permit Admiral Böhm to be questioned at a later date. I want to point out now that it will not be so large a complex of questions as in the case of Admiral Schulte-Mönting, which the Tribunal knows from the material I have submitted.

This concludes my case Raeder.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 23 May 1946 at 1000 hours.]

ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SEVENTH DAY Thursday, 23 May 1946

Morning Session

THE PRESIDENT: With reference to the documents of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, the Tribunal admits the following documents which were objected to: Number 11, Number 47, Number 48, Number 50, Number 54, and Number 71.

The remainder of the documents which were objected to are rejected. I will enumerate them: Number 5, Number 10, Number 14, Number 19b, Number 21, Number 22, Number 27, Number 31, Number 39, Number 55, Number 60, Number 61, Number 68, Number 69.

That is all.

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, last night at the end of the session the counsel for Admiral Raeder submitted a certain number of documents including Document Raeder-105 of Document Book 5. This document is an excerpt from the German White Book, Number 5. It is the testimony of an old man of 72, a native of Luxembourg, who had lived in Belgium for only 6 months, and who affirms that in April 1940 he saw 200 French soldiers in Belgium. These soldiers, who he said were French, were in armored cars.

I must ask the Tribunal to allow me to make objection to this Document Number 7 of the White Book Number 5, the original of which has never been submitted and has not even been reproduced in the White Book, as is the case with a certain number of documents in the German White Book. It is necessary that in the name of France and of Belgium a protest—a formal, categorical protest—be made against such an assertion. At no time before the invasion of Belgium by the German forces did any French troops set foot on Belgian soil. The reading of this document, Number Raeder-105 of Document Book 5 of Admiral Raeder, enables us to understand how there came to be the error in the testimony by Grandjenet that is cited.

I have already told the Tribunal that this man is 72 years old and was from Luxembourg. To the question put to him by the German authorities as to how he recognized the soldiers he had seen as being of French nationality, he answered:

“I was quite sure that they were French soldiers because I know their uniform well. Moreover, I recognized the soldiers because of the language they used when they spoke to me.”

Now, as far as the uniform is concerned, the Tribunal knows that at the time when these events took place, the Belgian Army had a uniform of the same color as the French Army and a helmet of the same shape. As for the language, the Tribunal knows that a great part of the Belgian population who live along the Luxembourg frontier speak French, and the Belgian soldiers recruited in these districts speak French.

The Tribunal will certainly remember that this witness, who is a very old man, had only been living for 6 months in Belgium and probably had only a limited experience with things Belgian—and especially with the Belgian Army.

At any rate, we assert in the name of France and in the name of Belgium that before 10 May 1940 no French troops, no organized French troops, penetrated Belgium, and that the isolated individuals who did go into Belgium were interned there.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Siemers?

DR. SIEMERS: If it please the Tribunal, may I reply very briefly?

This matter concerns a document from the White Book, on which a decision has already been handed down once and which was granted me. I propose that the Prosecution be requested to submit the original if they dispute the correctness of this document. In this I am in agreement with a decision of the Tribunal according to which the application is to be made for the presentation of the original if it is available, or application should be made so that whoever has the original should produce it. As far as I know the Prosecution have the original, since all original documents were located in the Foreign Office in Berlin, or in the alternative place of safekeeping, and all the originals of these White Books fell into the hands of the Allies.

THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by “original”? The original, I suppose, is the original of the White Book. Is that what you mean?

DR. SIEMERS: Yes, I mean now, Mr. President, the original of this court record.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, this comes from a White Book. That is a printed document, I suppose, I do not suppose it contains the original of the statement of this Luxembourg man.

DR. SIEMERS: The White Book is a collection of numerous documents, and the single original documents are in the possession of the Foreign Office; in part they were from the files of the French General Staff, and partly they were records of court proceedings. Regarding the contents of this document...

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, you are not proposing that we should strike the document out, but the Tribunal will certainly take into account the facts to which you have drawn our notice.

M. DUBOST: This is an application that the Tribunal shall refuse to admit that document, Mr. President. At the same time this is a protest against the assertion made by the Defense that French soldiers violated Belgian neutrality in the course of the month of April. I hope the Tribunal will allow me to add a few words of explanation. The White Book, which we have here, comprises two parts. The first part reproduces texts and the second part gives photostatic copies of these texts. In the first part, which simply reproduces the texts, is found the document which I ask the Tribunal to strike from the record. We have searched in the second part which gives the photostatic copies of the documents in the first part, and we do not find it. We state to the Tribunal that the original of the document, which we ask the Tribunal to strike out, has not been reproduced in the German White Book, since it is not to be found in the second part.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I believe that M. Dubost’s entire explanation refers to the question of the value of the document as evidence and not to the question of the admissibility of the document. That this document is in order appears to me to be quite clear, since it is a record of court proceedings where a certain person, namely Grandjenet, has been interrogated. Everything said by M. Dubost referred more to the contents of the document than to the question of its value as evidence. May I ask therefore that the document be admitted, as has been done up to now, and ask that consideration be given to the fact that the document has value in connection with the other documents which have been granted to me and to Dr. Horn in his document book with reference to Holland and Belgium.

If, in the second part of the document book there is no photostatic copy...

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Siemers, and M. Dubost, the Tribunal will consider the objection that has been made.

DR. SIEMERS: May I merely mention, Mr. President, that if the photostat is not in the book, as M. Dubost states, then this is due to the fact that this court record in its original text was German, and the facsimiles are those prepared from the original text in French, that is to say, of those documents which in their original version were in French. If necessary I would appeal to Geheimrat Von Schnieden as a witness regarding this record, since he at the time was informed about all the records of this type and helped in the work of compiling the book.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider the objection.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Mr. President, with the permission of the Tribunal I should like to say that the interrogatory put to the American Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral Nimitz, is available. I received it the day before yesterday and in the meantime it has gone in to the interpreters for translation. With the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to submit it now, in connection with the cases of Admiral Dönitz and Admiral Raeder.

THE PRESIDENT: Have the Prosecution seen it?

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you got copies for us?

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I had been informed that the copies for the Tribunal would be handed on by the General Secretary.

THE PRESIDENT: Unless we have copies, the document must not be read. It must be put off until we have copies.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: There are two copies in English and one in French.

I present the document as Number Dönitz-100.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbühler, the Soviet members of the Tribunal do not have a copy of the document translated into their language, so you will present it at a later date.

Will the counsel for the Defendant Von Schirach present his case?

DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for the Defendant Von Schirach): Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I propose first of all to conduct the examination of the Defendant Schirach himself, and in the course of this examination I will bring to your attention the passage of the document book concerned, as the individual points come up. Following the examination of the defendant I shall then call my four witnesses, and at the end I intend to submit the remaining documents, insofar as these documents have not by that time been presented during the examination of the Defendant Von Schirach. I presume, Mr. President, that you agree to this procedure.

I now call to the witness stand, first, Baldur von Schirach.

[The Defendant Baldur von Schirach took the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat the following oath after me: I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.

[The defendant repeated the oath in German.]

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, what is the date of your birth?

BALDUR VON SCHIRACH (Defendant): 9 May 1907.

DR. SAUTER: That means that a few days ago you were 39. You have been married for 14 years; is that correct?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: And you have four children, whose ages are...

VON SCHIRACH: 4, 8, 11, and 13 years.

DR. SAUTER: In the Third Reich you were mainly active as Youth Leader?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: What offices did you fill in that connection, that is, offices in the Party and in the Government—please state also how long you held these various offices?

VON SCHIRACH: To start with, in 1929 I was the leader of the National Socialist Students’ Union. In 1931 I became Reich Youth Leader of the NSDAP, at first on the staff of the SA Supreme Command; in 1932, Reich Leader for Youth Education of the NSDAP; in 1933, Youth Leader of the German Reich, at first under the Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick. In 1934, I held the same position under the Reich Minister of Education, Rust. In 1936 the Reich Youth Leader became a leading Reich official, and in that capacity I came directly under the Führer and Reich Chancellor.

DR. SAUTER: Now, which of your offices were Party positions and which of the ones you have mentioned were offices of the Reich?

VON SCHIRACH: Party positions were the office of Reich Youth Leader of the NSDAP, and that of Reich Leader for Youth Education. Government positions: The Youth Leader of the German Reich, at first subordinate to the Minister of the Interior as I have described or under the Minister for Education, and then in an independent position.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, you were removed from some of these offices in 1940. What positions in Youth Leadership did you lose in 1940, and what positions did you still continue to fill to the end?

VON SCHIRACH: In 1940 I left the position as the leader of Youth, that is, I left the office of the Reich Youth Leadership of the NSDAP, but I retained the office of Reichsleiter for Youth Education and with that the entire responsibility for German youth. I received as an additional new post that of Gauleiter of Vienna, which was combined with the governmental post of Reichsstatthalter of Vienna and also that of Reich Defense Commissioner for Wehrkreis XVII.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, we want now to come back to your activity as Youth Leader. There is an affidavit by you here dated 4 December 1945, 3302-PS. In this affidavit you stated to the Prosecution in December that you acknowledge yourself to be responsible for all youth education in the Third Reich.

VON SCHIRACH: That is correct.

DR. SAUTER: Were you, when you gave the statement of guilt, under the impression that your successor, the late Reich Youth Leader Axmann, was dead?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: You thought that he died in the last battles of the war?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, I was convinced that he had died in Berlin.

DR. SAUTER: In the meantime, Witness, you have learned from newspaper reports that your successor as Reich Youth Leader, this man Axmann, is still alive. Is that correct?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: Do you want then, today, to support your affidavit regarding your personal responsibility as Youth Leader without reservation; or do you want to limit it in any respect today?

VON SCHIRACH: I do not want to limit this affidavit in any way. Although during the last years of his life Hitler gave orders to the Youth of which I do not know and also my successor, Axmann, particularly in 1944, gave orders with which I am not acquainted since the relationship between us had been broken off due to the events of the war, I stand by the statement that I have made in the expectation that the Tribunal will consider me the only person responsible in Youth Leadership and that no other Youth Leader will be summoned before a court for actions for which I have assumed responsibility.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, I would now be interested in knowing whether possibly principles and directives which you received from Hitler or from any Party office or from any governmental quarter were the formula for your youth education; or whether, for your youth education, the principles were derived from the experiences which you had during your own youth and among the youth leaders of that time.

VON SCHIRACH: The latter is correct. Of course, the education of the Hitler Youth was an education on the basis of the National Socialist idea. But the specifically educational ideas did not originate with Hitler, they also did not originate with other leaders in the Party; they had their origin in youth itself, they originated with me, and they originated with my assistants.

DR. SAUTER: Perhaps you will be good enough now to explain to the Tribunal somewhat more in detail how you, yourself, arrived at those principles and that type of youth education, based on your own education, your personal development, and so forth?

VON SCHIRACH: I believe that the simplest way for me to do this would be for me here, very briefly, to sketch the story of my youth and describe also in that connection the youth organizations with which I came in contact. I can in that way save much time for my further statements.

My father was a professional officer in the Garde-Kürassier Regiment of the Kaiser. I was born in Berlin and one year later my father retired and moved to Weimar, where he took over the management of the Court Theater there, which later became the Weimar National Theater. Thus I grew up in Weimar, and that town, which in a certain sense is the native city of all Germans, I regard as my native city. My father was well off; our home offered a great deal of intellectual and artistic stimulation, above all in the literary and musical field, but apart from and beyond the educational opportunities of our home, it was the atmosphere of the town itself, that atmosphere of the classic and also the postclassic Weimar which influenced my development. It was most of all the genius loci, which early captured my imagination. It is directly due to those experiences of my youth that later on I led the youth back again, year after year, to Weimar and to Goethe.

And the first document which is important in this connection for my case, which is Document Schirach-80, will prove just that. There is a brief reference in that document to one of the many speeches which I made in the course of my activity as Youth Leader to the leaders of the young generation, and in which I directed the youth to Goethe...

DR. SAUTER: May I interrupt you for a moment, Herr Von Schirach?

In this Document Number Schirach-80, Mr. President, there is—on Page 133 of Schirach’s document book—a brief report on a Reich Cultural Convention (Reichskulturtagung) of the Hitler Youth in Weimar. This happens to be a report from 1937, but the defendant has already told you that such cultural conventions of the Hitler Youth took place every year in Weimar, the city of Schiller and Goethe. In this report, Document 80 of document book Schirach, there is, for instance, discussion of a speech of the defendant on the importance of Goethe for the National Socialist education of youth. It is said, in this connection, that at that time Schirach stated, and I quote...

THE PRESIDENT: You need not read it to us, Dr. Sauter. It refers to Goethe, that is all.

DR. SAUTER: In that case, Herr Von Schirach, will you continue?

VON SCHIRACH: It was not only the annual cultural convention but the annual meeting of the leaders of the Hitler Youth which took place in Weimar. Apart from that there were also what we called the “Weimar Festivals of German Youth.”

What is important in this connection is that in this speech I quoted a sentence of Goethe which, to a certain extent, became the leitmotiv of all my educational work: “Youth fashions itself afresh from youth.”

Even my worst enemy cannot deny the fact that I was to the young generation of the German people at all times not only the propagandist of National Socialism but also the propagandist of Goethe. A certain Herr Ziemer has submitted a lengthy affidavit against me in which he quarrels with the youth education for which I am responsible. I believe that Herr Ziemer did his work a little too superficially. In his description of German national education he should at least have taken into consideration my educational efforts designed to guide youth toward the life work of Goethe.

I joined my first youth organization when I was 10 years old. I was then just the age of the boys and girls who later on entered the Jungvolk. That youth organization which I joined was the so-called “Young German League,” (Jungdeutschland Bund), which Count von der Goltz had founded, a Boy Scout organization. Count von der Goltz and Haeseler, impressed by the British Boy Scout movement, had formed Pathfinder units in Germany, and one of these Pathfinder organizations was the Jungdeutschland Bund just mentioned. It played an important part in the education of German youth until about 1918 or 1919.

Much more significant in my development, however, was the time which I spent in a country boarding school (Waldpädagogium). This was an educational institution directed by an associate of the well-known educator, Hermann Lietz. There I was educated in the way which I later, on an entirely different basis...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, do you think the education of the defendant himself is in any way material for the Tribunal to hear? It is the education which he imparted which is the matter that is material. What he imparted, not what he himself took in.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the defendant would nevertheless ask you to allow him these statements, particularly, from the point of view that with them he wants to show you that the principles according to which he led youth education came to him not from Hitler and not from any Party source, but that they resulted from his own experiences in his own youth. It is, indeed, of some importance for the Tribunal to examine the question: According to what principles did the defendant direct youth education and how did he arrive at these principles? The defendant is asking permission to explain that.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Sauter, the defendant has already taken some considerable time in telling us about his early youth and his education, and the Tribunal thinks that it ought to be cut short, and that not much more time ought to be taken up in dealing with the education of the defendant. As I have pointed out to you, what is material for us is the education he imparted to German youth and not the education which he received himself.

DR. SAUTER: We shall, of course, comply with your wish, Mr. President.

[Turning to the defendant.] Herr Von Schirach, will you please make your statements as brief as possible?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, I can be very brief.

DR. SAUTER: Please, go on.

VON SCHIRACH: Lietz’ idea was to give youth an education in which they have in the school an image of the state. The school community was a miniature state and in this school community was developed a self-administration of youth. I only want to point out in passing that he, too, was applying ideas which long before him had been developed by Pestalozzi and the great Jean Jacques. All modern education, of course, goes back somehow to Rousseau, be it a question of Hermann Lietz or the Boy Scouts, the Pathfinder movement or the German Wandervogel movement. At any rate, that idea of self-administration of youth in a school community gave me my idea of the self-leadership of youth.

My thought was to attract the younger generation in school to ideas that Fröbel had originated 80 years before. Lietz wanted to win over youth from early school days onward.

I may perhaps mention very briefly that when in 1898 Lietz began his educational work, the British Major Baden-Powell was being surrounded by rebels in a South African town, and was training youngsters to scout in the woods and with this laid the groundwork for his own Boy Scout movement, and that in that same year, in 1898, Karl Fischer from Berlin-Steglitz founded the Wandervogel movement.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, I think that this chapter, which is merely the historic background, might perhaps, in accordance with the wish of the President, be terminated now. If I understand you rightly then, you mean that those principles which you applied later on as Reich Youth Leader had become familiar to you in your own youth and in the youth movement of the time. Is that right?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes; basically, yes. The basic principles of my later work originate there.

DR. SAUTER: There is one more point I want to know in this connection. Did this education at that time have any political or anti-Semitic tendencies and how did you happen to get into politics?

VON SCHIRACH: No, that educational work had no political and most certainly no anti-Semitic tendencies, because Lietz came from the circles around the Democrat Naumann, from the Damaschke circle.

DR. SAUTER: But how did you get into politics?

VON SCHIRACH: In the meantime the revolution had broken out. My father...

DR. SAUTER: The revolution of 1918-1919?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, the revolution of 1918-1919. My father had been thrown out of his position by the Reds. The National Assembly in Weimar had convened. The Weimar Republic had been founded. We had a parliamentary system, we had a democracy, or what we in Germany thought was a democracy—I doubt that it was one. It was about 1923. I was at home at the time. It was a period of general insecurity, want, and dissatisfaction; many respectable families had become beggars through the inflation, and the worker and the citizen had lost their savings. The name “Hitler” made its appearance in connection with the events of 9 November 1923. I was not able at the time to gain any exact information about him. This Trial has informed me and people of my generation for the first time what Hitler actually wanted. At that time I was not a National Socialist. Together with some boys of my age I joined a youth organization which had the name “Knappenschaft.” It was in some way connected with the people’s movement, but it was not bound to any party. The principles of that organization were simply comradeship, patriotism, and self-control. There were about 100 boys from my city in it at the time who, in this youth organization, fought against the shallow tendencies of youth in the postwar period and against the dissipation indulged in by growing youngsters.

In that circle, as a 16-year-old, I first came in contact with socialism, for here I found youths from every level, working boys, craftsmen, young office employees, sons of farmers. But there were some older ones among us too, who were already settled in life, and some also who had been in the World War. From discussions with these comrades I came to grasp for the first time the consequences of the Versailles Treaty in their full import. The situation of the youth at the time was this: The school boy had the prospect of struggling through somehow or other as a working student, and then he would in all probability become a member of the academic proletariat for the possibility of an academic career practically did not exist for him at all. The young worker had no prospect of finding an apprenticeship. For him there was nothing other than the grim misery of unemployment. It was a generation nobody would help unless it helped itself.

DR. SAUTER: And that circle to which you belonged as a 16-year-old boy, then, gradually drifted into the currents of National Socialism?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, and in quite a natural way.

DR. SAUTER: How did it happen?

VON SCHIRACH: In central Germany there were disturbances. I need only mention the name of the Communist bandit leader, Max Hölz, to indicate what conditions obtained at the time. And even after outward calm had come, conditions still prevailed that made it impossible to hold patriotic meetings because they were usually broken up by Communists. There came an appeal to us young people to furnish protection for these patriotic meetings, and we did. Some of us were wounded in doing this. One of us, a certain Garschar, was killed by Communists. In that manner a large number of national meetings took place which otherwise could not have been held in the Weimar Republic, National Socialist meetings, too; and to an increasing degree it was exactly such meetings that we had to protect because the Communist terror was directed against them particularly.

Through this protective activity I met leading National Socialists—at first as speakers, naturally, not personally. I heard Count Reventlow speak; I think I heard Rosenberg then too; I heard Streicher speak and heard the first oratorical efforts of Sauckel, who soon after became Gauleiter of the National Socialist Party in Thuringia. In this way...

THE PRESIDENT: What date is he speaking of?

DR. SAUTER: This is the period around 1924, that is, a year after the Hitler Putsch.

In that way, Witness, the circle of which you were then a member came under National Socialist influences. Was this also supported with reading, reading of National Socialist literature?

VON SCHIRACH: Of course, I do not know what my comrades read, with the exception of one book which I shall give you directly. I know only what I read myself; I was interested at that time in the writings of the Bayreuth thinker, Chamberlain, in The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, in the writings of Adolf Bartels, in his Introduction to World Literature and History of German National Literature. There were works...

THE PRESIDENT: I have already told you that we do not want to know the full story of the defendant’s education. He is now giving us a series of the books which he has read, but we are not interested.

DR. SAUTER: Very well, Mr. President.

VON SCHIRACH: I shall only say in one sentence that these were works which had no definite anti-Semitic tendencies, but through which anti-Semitism was drawn like a red thread. The decisive anti-Semitic book which I read at that time and the book which influenced my comrades...

DR. SAUTER: Please...

VON SCHIRACH: ...was Henry Ford’s book, The International Jew; I read it and became anti-Semitic. In those days this book made such a deep impression on my friends and myself because we saw in Henry Ford the representative of success, also the exponent of a progressive social policy. In the poverty-stricken and wretched Germany of the time, youth looked toward America, and apart from the great benefactor, Herbert Hoover, it was Henry Ford who to us represented America.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, the Tribunal thinks, as I have said twice now, that the educational influences of the defendant are quite irrelevant to us. I do not want to say it again and, unless you can control the defendant and keep him to the point, I shall have to stop his evidence.

DR. SAUTER: But, Mr. President, is it not of interest to the Tribunal when judging this defendant and his personality that they know how the defendant became a National Socialist and how the defendant became anti-Semitic? I had thought...

THE PRESIDENT: No, it is not of interest to the Tribunal.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, how did you then meet Hitler and how did you happen to join the Party?

VON SCHIRACH: I must say that I did not become a National Socialist because of anti-Semitism but because of Socialism. I met Hitler as early as 1925. He had just left Landsberg on the Lech, his imprisonment was ended, and he came to Weimar and spoke there. It was on that occasion that I was introduced to him. The program for the national community which he developed appealed to me so enormously because in it I found on a large scale something I had experienced in a small way in the camaraderie of my youth organization. He appeared to me to be the man who would pave the way into the future for our generation. I believed that through him there could be offered to this younger generation the prospect of work, of happiness. And in him I saw the man who would liberate us from the shackles of Versailles. I am convinced that without Versailles the rise to power of Hitler would never have happened. That dictate led to dictatorship.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, when did you then become a member of the Party?

VON SCHIRACH: I became a member of the Party in 1925. I joined the SA at the same time, with all my comrades.

DR. SAUTER: You were 18 at the time?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: Why did you join the SA?

VON SCHIRACH: The SA furnished the protection for the meetings, and we simply continued in the SA, as part of the Party, the activities which we had carried out before in our youth organization.

DR. SAUTER: In 1926, Witness, that is when you were 19 years old, there was a Party rally in Weimar?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: As far as I know, you talked to Hitler personally on that occasion; is that correct?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes. I was to have talked personally to Hitler one year earlier. On this occasion there was another meeting. He was making speeches at various mass meetings in Weimar, and he came back to Weimar again during the same year to speak before a smaller circle. Together with Rudolf Hess he paid a visit to the home of my parents and on that occasion he suggested that I should study in Munich.

DR. SAUTER: Why?

VON SCHIRACH: He thought I ought to know the Party at its very core and thought I would become acquainted with the Party work in that way. But I want to say here that at that time I did not have any intention at all of becoming a politician. Nevertheless, I was very much interested, of course, in getting acquainted with the Movement at the place where it had been founded.

DR. SAUTER: You went, then, to Munich, and studied there?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, I then went to Munich. At first I did not concern myself with the Party. I was occupied with Germanic studies, history, and the history of art; I wrote and I came into contact with many people in Munich who were not actually National Socialists but who belonged, I should say, to the periphery of the National Socialist movement. At that time I lived in the house of my friend, the publisher Bruckmann...

DR. SAUTER: Then in 1929 you became the head of the Movement within the universities. I think you were elected, not nominated, to that post?

VON SCHIRACH: The situation at the beginning was this: I attended Party meetings in Munich; in Bruckmann’s salon I met Hitler and Rosenberg and many other men who later played an important role in Germany. And at the university I joined the university group of the National Socialist German Students League.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.

DR. SAUTER: Go on, Herr Von Schirach, you have just told us that you joined this university group in Munich. Will you please continue?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, and I also started to take an active part in this group. I spoke there before my comrades, at first about my own work in the literary field, and then I began to give lectures to the students also about the National Socialist movement. I organized Hitler student meetings among the students in Munich, and then I was elected a member of the General Students Committee, the ASTA, and through this activity among the students I came more and more into contact with the Party leadership. In 1929, the man who was the then so-called Reich Leader of the National Socialist Students Union retired, and the question arose of who should be given the leadership of all the university groups. At that time Rudolf Hess, on behalf of the Führer, questioned all university groups of the National Socialist University Movement and the majority of all these groups cast their vote for me to head the National Socialist Students Union. This accounts for the curious fact that I am the only Party leader who was elected into the Party leadership. That is something which has otherwise never occurred in the history of the Party.

DR. SAUTER: You mean to say by that, that all the others were nominated, and you alone were elected?

VON SCHIRACH: I was elected, and then I was confirmed in office.

DR. SAUTER: And if I am right, you were elected at the students’ meeting at Graz in 1931.

VON SCHIRACH: That is not correct. That is wrong. I am now talking only of the National Socialist University Movement; I will come back to this point later.

Now I was leader of the National Socialist University Movement, and I reorganized this movement. I began my work as a speaker. In 1931 I was...

THE PRESIDENT: Surely it is sufficient that he became the leader. It really does not matter very much to us whether he was elected or not.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I am making every effort all the time to abbreviate this speech. But perhaps I may ask just one more question with reference to this subject.

Witness, then in 1931 you were, as far as I know, elected to the presidency of the General Congress of Austrian and German Students, comprising all parties, and elected, I think, unanimously. Is that correct?

VON SCHIRACH: It is not correct.

DR. SAUTER: Then explain briefly, Herr Von Schirach.

VON SCHIRACH: That is not correct. At the meeting of the General German Students Congress in 1931, at which all German students and all Austrian students and Sudeten-German students were represented, one of my collaborators whom I had suggested as leader was unanimously elected head of the entire student group. This was a very important affair for the youth and for the Party. Two years before the seizure of power the entire academic youth had unanimously given their vote to a National Socialist. After this students’ rally at Graz, I had with Hitler a...

THE PRESIDENT: I think this would be a convenient time to adjourn.

DR. SAUTER: Very well.

[A recess was taken.]

DR. SAUTER: Witness, before the recess we stopped at the fact that in 1929 you had been elected the leader of the academic youth. Two years later, Hitler made you Reich Youth Leader. How did that appointment come about?

VON SCHIRACH: After the student meeting at Graz in 1931, the success of which was very surprising to Hitler, I had a conference with him. In the course of that meeting, Hitler mentioned a conversation we had had previously. At that time he had asked me how it came about that the National Socialist University Movement was developing so quickly, whereas the other National Socialist organizations lagged behind in their development.

I told him at that time that one cannot lead youth organizations as an appendix of a political party; youth has to be led by youth, and I developed for him the idea of a youth state, that idea which had come to me from experiencing the school community, the school state. And thereupon in 1931 Hitler asked me whether I would like to assume the leadership of the National Socialist Youth Organization. This included youth cells, then the Hitler Youth and the National Socialist Students Organization, which also was in existence at that time. Several men had already tried their hand at the leadership of these organizations: the former Oberstführer SA Leader Pfeffer, the Reichsleiter Buch, actually without much result.

I agreed and became then Reich Youth Leader of the NSDAP, temporarily a member of the staff of the Oberst SA Leader Röhm. In that position, as Reich Youth Leader of the NSDAP in the staff of Röhm, I had the rank of an SA Gruppenführer and kept that rank also when, half a year later, I became independent in my position. That explains also the fact that I am an SA Obergruppenführer. I got that rank many years later, honoris causa. However, I did not possess an SA uniform—even after 1933.

DR. SAUTER: Then in 1931 you became Reich Youth Leader of the NSDAP?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: That, of course, was a Party office?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: Then in 1932 you became Reichsleiter? At that time you were 25 years old. How did that come about?

VON SCHIRACH: I have already said that I had expressed the opinion to Hitler that youth could not be the appendix of another organization, but youth had to be independent; it had to lead itself; it had to become independent; and it was in fulfillment of a promise which Hitler had already given me that, half a year later, I became an independent Reichsleiter.

DR. SAUTER: Independent Reichsleiter, so that you were subordinate directly to the Party leader Hitler?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: With what material means was that youth organization created at that time?

VON SCHIRACH: With the means furnished by the young people themselves.

DR. SAUTER: And how were those funds raised? By collections?

VON SCHIRACH: The boys and girls paid membership fees. A part of these membership fees was kept at the so-called district leadership offices, which corresponded to the Gauleitung in the Party or to the SA Gruppenführung in the SA. Another part went to the Reich Youth Leader. The Hitler Youth financed its organization with its own means.

DR. SAUTER: Then, I am interested in the following: Did the Hitler Youth, which you created and which was given Hitler’s name, get its importance only after the seizure of power and by the seizure of power only, or what was the previous size of this youth organization which you created?

VON SCHIRACH: Before the seizure of power, in 1932 the Hitler Youth was already the largest youth movement of Germany. I should like to add here that the individual National Socialist youth organizations which I found when I took over my office as Reich Youth Leader were merged by me into one large unified youth movement. This youth movement was the strongest youth movement of Germany, long before we came to power.

On 2 October 1932, the Hitler Youth held a meeting at Potsdam. At that meeting more than 100,000 youth from all over the Reich met without the Party’s providing a single pfennig. The means were contributed by the young people themselves. Solely from the number of the participants, it can be seen that that was the largest youth movement.

DR. SAUTER: That was, therefore, several months before the seizure of power, and at that time already more than 100,000 participants were at that rally at Potsdam?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: The Prosecution has made the accusation, Witness, that later, after the seizure of power—I believe in February 1933—you took over the Reich Committee of German Youth Organizations. Is that correct, and against whom was that action directed?

VON SCHIRACH: That is correct. The Reich Committee of Youth Organizations was practically no more than a statistical office which was subordinate to the Reich Minister of the Interior. That office was managed by a retired general, General Vogt, who later became one of my ablest assistants. The taking over of that Reich Committee was a revolutionary act, a measure which youth carried out for youth, for from that day on dates the realization of the idea of the Youth State within the State. I cannot say any more about that.

DR. SAUTER: The Prosecution further accuses you, Witness, of having dissolved the so-called “Grossdeutscher Bund” in 1933, that is, after the seizure of power. What was the Grossdeutscher Bund, and why did you dissolve it?

VON SCHIRACH: The Grossdeutscher Bund was a youth organization, or rather a union of youth organizations, with pan-German tendencies.

I am surprised, therefore, that the Prosecution has made the dissolution of that organization an accusation at all.

DR. SAUTER: Many members of this Grossdeutscher Bund were National Socialists. There was no very essential difference between some of the youth groups associated in that organization and the Hitler Youth. Is that correct?

VON SCHIRACH: I wanted youth to be united, and the Grossdeutscher Bund wanted to continue a certain separate existence. I objected to that, and there was agitated public controversy between Admiral Von Trotha, the leader of the Grossdeutscher Bund and me, and in the end the Grossdeutscher Bund was incorporated into our youth organization. I do not recall exactly whether I banned the organization formally; I know only that the members came to me, and that between Admiral Von Trotha and me a discussion took place, a reconciliation. Admiral Von Trotha until his death was one of the warmest sponsors of my work.

DR. SAUTER: How did the suppression of the Marxist youth organization come about?

VON SCHIRACH: I believe that the suppression of the Marxist youth organizations, if I remember correctly, came about in connection with the suppression of trade unions. I have no exact documents any more regarding that. But at any rate, from the legal point of view, I was not authorized in 1933 to order a suppression of that kind. The Minister of the Interior would have had to do that. I had the right to ban youth organizations, de jure, only after 1 December 1936. That the Marxist youth organizations had to disappear was a foregone conclusion for me, and in speaking about this suppression order as such, I can only say that the German working youth found the realization of its socialistic ideas, not under the Marxist governments of the Weimar Republic, but in the community of the Hitler Youth.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, at first you were Reich Führer of the NSDAP; that was a Party office. And after the seizure of power, you became Youth Leader of the German Reich; that was a State office. On the basis of this State or national office, did you also have jurisdiction over and responsibility for the school system, for the elementary schools, for instance?

VON SCHIRACH: For the school system in Germany the Reich Minister for Science, Education, and Culture was the only authority. My field was education outside the schools, along with the home and the school, as it says in the law of 1 December 1936. However, I had some schools of my own, the so-called Adolf Hitler Schools, which were not under national supervision. They were creations of a later period. And during the war, through the Child Evacuation Program that is, the organization by which we took care of evacuating the young people from the big cities endangered by bombing—I was in charge of education within the camps where these children were housed. But on the whole I have to answer the question about competence for the school system in Germany in the negative.

DR. SAUTER: This youth which you had to educate outside of the schools was called the Hitler Youth, the HJ.

Was membership in the Hitler Youth compulsory or voluntary?

VON SCHIRACH: The membership in the Hitler Youth was voluntary until 1936. In 1936 the law already mentioned concerning the HJ was issued which made all the German youth members of the HJ. The stipulations for the carrying out of that law, however, were issued only in March 1939, and only during the war, in May 1940, was the thought of carrying out a German youth draft considered within the Reich Youth Leadership and discussed publicly. May I point out that my Deputy Lauterbacher, at the time when I was at the front, stated in a public meeting—I believe at Frankfurt in 1940—that now, after 97 percent of the youngest age group of youth had volunteered for the Hitler Youth, it would be necessary to draft the remaining 3 percent by a youth draft.

DR. SAUTER: In this connection, Mr. President, may I refer to two documents of the document book Schirach. That is Number Schirach-51.

THE PRESIDENT: I did not quite understand what the defendant said. He said that the membership was voluntary until 1936, that the HJ Law was then passed, and something to the effect that the execution of the law was not published until 1939. Was that what he said?

DR. SAUTER: Yes, that is correct. Until 1936—if I may explain that, Mr. President—membership in the Hitler Youth was absolutely voluntary. Then in 1936 the HJ Law was issued, which provided that boys and girls had to belong to the Hitler Youth. But the stipulations for its execution were issued by the defendant only in 1939 so that, in practice, until 1939 the membership was nevertheless on a voluntary basis.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that right, Defendant?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, that is right.

DR. SAUTER: And these facts which I have just presented, Mr. President, can also be seen from two documents of the document book Schirach, Number Schirach-51, on Page 91, and Number Schirach-52 on Page 92. In the latter document...

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Sauter, I accept it from you and from the defendant. I only wanted to understand it. You can go on.

DR. SAUTER: And in the second document mention is also made of the 97 percent which the defendant has said had voluntarily joined the HJ, so that now there were only 3 percent missing. May I continue:

[Turning to the witness.] Witness, what was the attitude of the parents of the children on the question of whether the children should join the HJ or not? What did the parents say?

VON SCHIRACH: There were, of course, parents who did not like to have their children join the HJ. Whenever I made one of my radio speeches to the parents or to the youth, many hundreds of parents sent me letters. Among these letters, there were many in which the parents voiced their objections to the HJ, or expressed their dislike for it. I always considered that a special proof of the confidence which the parents had in me. I should like to say here that never, when parents restrained their children from joining, have I exerted any compulsion or put them under pressure of any kind. In doing that I would have lost all the confidence placed in me by the parents of Germany. That confidence was the basis of my entire educational work.

I believe that on this occasion I have to say also that the concept that any youth organization can be established and carried on, and successfully carried on, by coercing youth, is absolutely false.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, did youngsters who did not join the Hitler Youth suffer any disadvantage for that reason?

VON SCHIRACH: Youngsters who did not join the Hitler Youth were at a disadvantage in that they could not take part in our camping, in our trips, in our sporting meets. They were in a certain sense outsiders of the youth life, and there was a danger that they might become hypochondriacs.

DR. SAUTER: But were there not certain professions in which membership in the HJ was a prerequisite for working in those professions?

VON SCHIRACH: Of course.

DR. SAUTER: What were the professions?

VON SCHIRACH: For instance, the profession of teacher. It is quite clear that a teacher cannot educate youth unless he himself knows the life of that youth, and so we demanded that the young teachers, that is those in training to teach, had to go through the HJ. The junior teacher had to be familiar with the ways of life of the pupils who were under his supervision.

DR. SAUTER: But there were only a few such professions, whereas for other professions membership in the HJ was not a prerequisite for admission. Or what was the situation?

VON SCHIRACH: I cannot answer that in detail. I believe that a discussion about that is not even possible, because the entire youth was in the Hitler Youth.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, you know that the Prosecution has also accused the defendants of having advocated the Führer Principle. Therefore, I ask you:

Was the Führer Principle also valid in the HJ, and in what form was it carried out in the HJ? I should like to remind you that I mean that kind of Führer Principle of which we have heard in the testimony.

VON SCHIRACH: Of course, the HJ was built up on the Führer Principle; only the entire form of leadership of youth differed basically from that of other National Socialist organizations. For instance, we had the custom in youth leadership of discussing frankly all questions of interest to us. There were lively debates at our district leader meetings. I myself educated my assistants even in a spirit of contradiction. Of course, once we had debated a measure and I had then given an order or a directive, that ended the debate. The youth leaders—that is the young boy and girl leaders—through years of working together and in serving the common purpose, had become a unity of many thousands. They had become friends. It is evident that in a group of that kind the carrying out of orders and directives takes place in ways entirely different from those in a military organization or in any other political organization.

DR. SAUTER: Witness...

VON SCHIRACH: May I add something?

Leadership based on natural authority such as we had in the youth organization is something which is not alien to youth at all. Such leadership in the youth organization never degenerated into dictatorship.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, you have been accused of training the youth in a military way, and in that connection, the fact has been pointed out that your HJ wore a uniform. Is that correct, and why did the HJ wear a uniform?

VON SCHIRACH: I have stated my opinion about that in many instances. I believe there are also documents to illustrate it. I have always described the uniform of the HJ as the dress of comradeship. The uniform was the symbol of a community without class distinctions. The worker’s boy wore the same garb as the son of the university professor. The girl from the wealthy family wore the same garb as the child of the day laborer. Hence the uniform. This uniform did not have any military significance whatsoever.

DR. SAUTER: In that connection, Mr. President, may I ask you to take judicial notice of Document Number Schirach-55 of the document book Schirach, then of Numbers Schirach-55a and 117, where the Defendant Von Schirach, many years ago, expressed in writing and repeatedly the same trends of thought which he is expressing today.

I should only like to ask, Mr. President, for permission to correct an error in Document 55, on Page 98. Rather far down, under the heading “Page 77,” is a quotation from a book by Schirach. There it says:

“Even the son of the millionaire has no other power...”

I do not know whether you have found the passage. It is on Page 77 of the book quoted, and Page 98 of the document book, Number Schirach-55. There is a quotation near the bottom of the page:

“Even the son of the millionaire has no other power...” It should read “dress,” not “power.” The German word “Macht”, is an error, and should be the word “Tracht.”

So I ask now to have the word “Macht” (power), changed to the word “Tracht” (dress).

Witness, I shall then continue with the interrogation. You have been accused of having prepared youth for the war, psychologically and pedagogically. You are alleged to have participated in a conspiracy for that purpose, a conspiracy by which the National Socialist movement acquired total power in Germany, and finally planned and carried out aggressive wars. What can you say about that?

VON SCHIRACH: I did not participate in any conspiracy. I cannot consider it participation in a conspiracy if I joined the National Socialist Party. The program of that party had been approved; it had been published. The Party was authorized to take part in elections. Hitler had not said—neither he nor any of his collaborators—“I want to assume power by a coup d’état.” Again and again he stated in public, not only once but a hundred times: “I want to overcome this parliamentary system by legal means, because it is leading us, year by year, deeper into misery.” And I myself as the youngest deputy of the Reichstag of the Republic told my 60,000 constituents similar things in electoral campaigns.

There was nothing there which could prove the fact of a conspiracy, nothing which was discussed behind closed doors. What we wanted we acknowledged frankly before the nation, and so far as printed paper is read around the globe, everyone abroad could have been informed also about our aims and purposes.

As far as preparation for war is concerned, I must state that I did not take part in any conferences or issuing of orders which would indicate preparation for an aggressive war. I believe that can be seen from the proceedings in this Court up to now.

I can state only that I did not participate in a conspiracy. I do not believe either that there was a conspiracy; the thought of conspiracy is in contradiction to the idea of dictatorship. A dictatorship does not conspire; a dictatorship commands.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, what did the leadership of the Hitler Youth do to prepare the youth for war and to train it for warlike purposes?

VON SCHIRACH: Before I answer that question, I believe I will have to explain briefly the difference between military and premilitary training.

Military training, in my opinion, is all training with weapons of war, and all training which is conducted by military personnel, that is, by officers, with and without weapons of war. Premilitary education—premilitary training is, in the widest sense, all training which comes before the time of military service; in particular cases it is a special preparation for military service. We, in the Hitler Youth, were opponents of any military drills for youth. We disliked such drills as not youthful. I am not giving my personal opinion here, but the opinion of thousands of my co-workers.

It is a fact that I rejected the Wehrjugend (the Youth Defense Groups), which had formerly existed in Germany, and did not allow any continuation of Wehrjugend work within the HJ. I had always been strongly opposed to any soldier-playing in a youth organization. With all my high esteem for the profession of an officer, I still do not consider an officer capable of leading youth because in some way or other, he will always apply the tone of the drill field and the forms of military leadership to youth.

That is the reason why I did not have any officers as my assistants in the Hitler Youth. Just on account of my refusal to use officers as youth leaders, I was severely criticized by the Wehrmacht on occasion. I should like to stress that that did not come from the OKW; Field Martial Keitel, especially, had a great deal of understanding for my ideas. However, in the Wehrmacht, now and again, criticism was heard on account of the general attitude of opposition of the Youth Leadership corps toward having officers used as leaders of a youth organization. The principle of “youth leading youth” was never broken in Germany.

If I am now to answer definitively the question of whether the youth was prepared for the war and whether it was trained in a military sense, I shall have to say, in conclusion, that the main efforts of all youth work in Germany culminated in trade competition, in the trade schools, in camping, and competition in sports. Physical training, which perhaps in some way could be considered a preparation for military service, took only a very small part of our time.

I should like to give as an example here: A Gebiet, or district, of the Hitler Youth, for instance the Gebiet of Hessen-Nassau which is about the same as a Gau in the Party, contributed from its funds in 1939 as follows: For hikes and camping, 9/20; for cultural work, 3/20; for sports and physical training, 3/20; for the Land Service (Landdienst), and other tasks and for the offices, 5/20.

The same area spent, in 1944—that is, 1 year before the end of the war—for cultural work, 4/20; for sports and defense training, 5/20; for Landdienst and other tasks, 6/20; and for the evacuation of children to the country, 5/20.

In that connection I should like to mention briefly that the same area, in the time from 1936 until 1943, made no expenditures for racial-political education; in 1944 there was an entry of 20 marks under the heading of racial-political education for the acquisition of a picture book about hereditary and venereal diseases. However, in that same district, in one single town, during the same time, 200,000 marks were given to have youth visit the theaters.

The question concerning premilitary or military education cannot be answered by me without describing small-caliber shooting practice. Small-caliber firing was a sport among the German youth. It was practiced on the lines laid down in the international rules for sport shooting. Small-caliber shooting, according to Article 177 of the Treaty of Versailles, was not prohibited. It states expressly in that article of the treaty that rifle clubs, sporting, and hiking organizations are forbidden to train their members in the handling and use of war weapons. The small-caliber rifle, however, is not a war weapon. For our sport shooting we used a rifle similar to the American 22-caliber. It was used with the 22-caliber Flobert cartridge for short or long distance.

I should like to say here that our entire marksmanship training and other so-called premilitary training have been collected in a manual entitled “HJ Service.” That book was printed and sold not only in Germany but was also available abroad.

The British Board of Education in 1938 passed judgment on that book, in the educational pamphlet, Number 109. With the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to quote briefly what was said about it in this educational pamphlet. I quote in English:

“It cannot fairly be said to be in essence a more militaristic work than any thoroughgoing, exhaustive, and comprehensive manual of Boy Scout training would be. Some forty pages are, to be sure, devoted to the theory and practice of shooting small-bore rifle and air gun, but there is nothing in them to which exception can reasonably be taken, and the worst that one can say of them is that they may be confidently recommended to the notice of any Boy Scout wishing to qualify for his marksmanship badge.”

As to the mental attitude of the Hitler Youth, I can only say that it was definitely not militaristic.

DR. SAUTER: We will perhaps come back to that later with another question. You say the Hitler Youth had been trained with Flobert rifles, or small-caliber rifles, as they are also called. Was the Hitler Youth also trained with infantry rifles, or even machine guns or machine pistols?

VON SCHIRACH: Certainly not.

DR. SAUTER: Not at all?

VON SCHIRACH: Not a single German boy, until the war, had been trained with a war weapon, a military weapon, be it an infantry rifle, machine gun, or infantry gun; nor with hand grenades in any form.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, in the document book Schirach are several documents which will show that the attitude of the Defendant Von Schirach concerning the question of military or premilitary education of the Hitler Youth was exactly the same as he has stated it today, particularly, that he expressed himself against any military drill, barracks language, and all such things.

These are mainly documents in the document book Schirach: 55, then 122, 123, 127, 127a, 128, and 131. I ask you to take judicial notice of these documents. They contain, on the whole, the same statements which Herr Schirach has made briefly already.

Herr Von Schirach, in connection with the so-called military training of the youth, I should like to know what influence the SA had on the training of youth?

VON SCHIRACH: None at all. The SA tried to have an influence on the education and training of youth.

DR. SAUTER: In what way?

VON SCHIRACH: It was in January of 1939. At that time I was in Dresden, where I arranged a performance which presented modern gymnastics for girls. I still remember it distinctly. While I was there, a newspaper was shown to me which carried a decree by Hitler, according to which the two oldest age groups of the Hitler Youth were to receive premilitary training from the SA. I protested against that at once and after my return to Berlin I succeeded not in having the decree withdrawn for that could not be done for reasons of prestige since Hitler’s name was on it—but invalidated as far as the youth were concerned.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, that incident is contained in a document in the document book Schirach, Number Schirach-132. That is a statement from Das Archiv, a semiofficial news periodical. I should like to refer to that as evidence; and in regard to the question of training in shooting I should like to ask the defendant one more question.

What part of the entire training did the shooting practice have in the HJ? Was it a very essential part or the essential part?

VON SCHIRACH: Unfortunately, I do not have the documentary material here which would enable me to answer that exactly. But at any rate, it was not an essential part of the training in the HJ.

DR. SAUTER: Did that marksmanship training go any further, according to your experiences and observations, than the marksmanship training of youth in other nations?

VON SCHIRACH: The marksmanship training of youth in other nations went much further, much beyond that which we had in Germany.

DR. SAUTER: Do you know that from your own observation?

VON SCHIRACH: I know that from many of my assistants who constantly made a detailed study of the training in other countries, and I know about it from my own observation.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you think that is relevant, the fact that other nations trained in marksmanship? I am not sure it is true either, but anyhow, it is not relevant.

DR. SAUTER: Then I come to another question, Witness. The Prosecution have asserted and I quote:

“...that thousands of boys were trained militarily by the HJ in the work of the Navy, of the naval aviation and of the armored troops, and that over seven thousand teachers trained over a million Hitler Youth in rifle marksmanship.”

That is the citation of the Prosecution referring to some meeting of the year 1938. I should like to have you state your position with regard to the question here, the question of the special units of the Hitler Youth.

VON SCHIRACH: The Prosecution refers, if I am not mistaken, to a speech which Hitler made. How Hitler arrived at the figures concerning training, I cannot say. Concerning training in the special units I can only say, and prove with documents, the following:

In the year 1938 the motorized Hitler Youth—that is that special unit of our youth organization which the Prosecution think received preliminary training in the tank branch—in 1938 the motorized Hitler Youth had 328 vehicles of their own.

DR. SAUTER: In all Germany?

VON SCHIRACH: In all Germany. There were 3,270 private cars of their family members which, of course, were at their disposal for their work; and 2,000 cars of the NSKK (National Socialist Motor Corps). In the year 1938 21,000 youth got their driving licenses. I believe, but I cannot be sure about it, that that is twice the number of youngsters that received a driving license in 1937—that is, the driving license for a passenger car. These figures alone show that the motorized Hitler Youth did not receive preliminary training for our armored forces. The motorized Hitler Youth had motorcycles; they made cross-country trips. That is correct. What they learned in this way was, of course, useful for the Army too, when these boys later were drafted into the motorized units; but it was not true that the boy who had been in the motorized Hitler Youth went to the Army. There was no compulsion in that respect at all. The motorized Hitler Youth was not created upon the request of the Wehrmacht, but it was already created in the fighting years—long before the seizure of power, simply from the natural desire of the boys who owned a motorcycle and wanted to drive it. So we formed our motorized HJ; we used these boys as messengers between tent camps and we used them as drivers for our minor leaders, and later, in order to give them a regular training, especially knowledge of motors, of engines, we made an arrangement with the NSKK, which had motor schools and could train the boys.

Other units were created in the same way. The Flieger HJ, for example, never had any airplanes. We had only gliders. The entire Hitler Youth had but one airplane and that was my own, a small Klemm machine. Aside from that, the Hitler Youth had only model airplanes and gliders. The Hitler Youth not only taught their own members the use of gliders in the Rhön Hills and elsewhere, but also thousands of youth from England and other countries. We had glider camps where young Englishmen were our guests and we even had camps in England.

DR. SAUTER: The Navy HJ, did they perhaps have warships?

VON SCHIRACH: The Navy HJ, of course, had not a single warship, but from time to time our former Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Raeder, kindly gave us an old cutter and with that we put to sea.

The boys, for instance, who lived in a city like Berlin, near the Wannsee, and did some rowing, became members of the Navy HJ. When entering the Wehrmacht they did not, just because they had been in the Navy HJ, go into the Navy, but just as many went afterwards into the Army or the Air Force, and it was the same with other special units.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, you say therefore that in your opinion the Hitler Youth was not educated in a military way for the war?

VON SCHIRACH: I should like to be quite precise about that. The training in these special units was carried out in such a manner that it really had a premilitary value. That is to say that whatever the boy learned in the Navy Hitler Jugend, regardless of whether he wanted to use it only as a sportsman later, or whether he actually went into the Navy, the basic principles were valuable as premilitary education. If one considers these special units of the HJ, one can establish that here a premilitary education actually took place, but not a military training. The youth were not prepared for the war in any place in the HJ; they were not even prepared for the military service, because the youth did not go direct from the Hitler Youth into the Army. From the Hitler Youth they went into the Labor Service.

DR. SAUTER: And how long were they in the Labor Service?

VON SCHIRACH: Half a year.

DR. SAUTER: And only then did they get to the Wehrmacht?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: In that connection, however, the Prosecution has used an agreement which was made between the HJ leadership and the OKW in August 1939, and which has been submitted as Document 2398-PS by the Prosecution. What are the facts about that agreement between you and the OKW?

VON SCHIRACH: I cannot remember any details. Between Field Marshal Keitel and myself, according to my recollection, there was no discussion concerning that agreement, but I believe we arranged that by correspondence. And I should just like to state that during the entire time from 1933 to 1945, only one or two conversations of about half an hour took place between Field Marshal Keitel and me. The agreement, however, resulted from the following considerations: We endeavored in the Hitler Youth, and it was also the endeavor of the leading men in the Wehrmacht, to take nothing into our training which belonged to the later military training. However, in the course of time, the objection was raised on the part of the military, that youth should not learn anything in its training which later would have to be corrected in the Wehrmacht. I am thinking, for instance, of the compass. The Army used the infantry compass; the Hitler Youth, in cross-country sports, used compasses of various kinds. It was, of course, quite senseless that youth leaders should train their boys, for instance, to march according to the Bèzar compass if later, in their training as recruits, the boys had to learn something different. The designation and the description of the terrain should also be given according to the same principles in the Hitler Youth as in the Army, and so this agreement was made by which, I believe, thirty or sixty thousand HJ leaders were trained in cross-country sports. In these cross-country sports no training with war weapons was practiced.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, now I come to another chapter. It may be that this is the best time to adjourn.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session

[The Defendant Von Schirach resumed the stand.]

DR. SAUTER: Witness, before the adjournment we spoke about the question of the military or premilitary education of the youth. And now I come to a similar chapter; that is the question of whether you, as Youth Leader, in your articles, speeches, and orders did in any way attempt to influence young people psychologically towards an aggressive war in order to make them war-minded by such means.

VON SCHIRACH: No, never in my speeches to German youth, or in anything which I laid down for youth in the way of orders and directives, did I prepare German youth for war; nor have I ever, even in the smallest circle of my collaborators, expressed myself in such terms. All my speeches are contained in the collection Das Archiv, at least their essential contents. A considerable part of my speeches is collected also in a book Revolution der Erziehung (The Revolution in Education), which has been submitted to the Tribunal.

All this evidence shows that I never spoke to the youth of the country in that sense; it would have been in direct contradiction to all my aims of co-operation with the youth of other nations.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, perhaps I may draw your attention in this connection to the document which is in the Schirach document book under Number Schirach-125, I repeat 125—and also 126, where Schirach expresses his opinion about the question of preserving peace and rejecting war. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of these documents as evidence.

Witness, you have just spoken of co-operation between your Reich Youth Leadership Office and the German Hitler Youth with the youth of other nations. Could you give us a more detailed statement on that, in particular which youth associations of other nations you co-operated with, which you attempted to approach, and in which way and to what degree?

VON SCHIRACH: Starting in 1933, and in an increasing degree year by year, I made efforts to bring about exchange camps with youth organizations in other countries. Here in Germany these groups of English youth, French youth, Belgian youth, and the youth of many other countries, particularly, of course, from Italy, often came as our guests. I remember that in one year alone, I think in 1936, there were approximately 200,000 foreign youths who stayed overnight in our youth hostels.

Perhaps it is important in this connection to say that the youth hostel system, which I took over in 1933, was developed by me and finally formed a part of an international youth hostel system, the president of which was sometimes a German, sometimes an Englishman. An international youth hostel agreement made it possible that youngsters of our nations could stay overnight in youth hostels of the guest nations.

I myself took great pains to bring about an understanding with the youth of France. I must say that this was a pet idea of mine. I think that my former assistants will remember just how intensely I worked towards the realization of that idea. I had my leaders’ periodical appear in the French language; I do not know whether more than once, but certainly at least once, so that the understanding between the French and the German youth could be strengthened thereby.

I went to Paris and I invited the children of one thousand veterans of the first World War to come to Germany. I very often had young French guests as visitors in Germany. But over and above this understanding with France, which eventually also led to difficulties between the Führer and myself, I co-operated with many, many other organizations.

Perhaps I may add that German-French co-operation, as far as youth was concerned, was supported particularly by Ambassador Poncet in Berlin, Premier Chautemps, and other French personalities who wrote in my leadership periodical on that particular subject. I exchanged views with youth leaders all over the world, and I myself undertook long journeys to visit youth organizations in other countries and establish contact with them. The war terminated that work. I do not want to omit mentioning here that for one whole year I put the entire youth program under the slogan “Understanding,” and that in all my speeches before the youth I tried to direct and educate it toward a better understanding of other nations.

DR. SAUTER: Is it true that, for instance, even during the last years before the war, I think even in the winter of 1937-1938 and again 1938-1939, you received large delegations of English youth in skiing camps of the Hitler Youth and that vice versa also during those years considerable delegations of Hitler Youth leaders and Hitler Youth members were sent to England so that the people could get to know and understand each other?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, that is correct. There were innumerable encampments of foreign youth in Germany and very many camps of German youth abroad, and I myself often visited such camps or received delegations from them.

I would like to add that as late as 1942 I made an attempt to co-operate with the youth of France. At that time the difficulty lay in Mussolini’s attitude. I went to Rome and, through Count Ciano’s intervention, had a long conversation with Mussolini and succeeded in having him withdraw his objections to having our youth invite all French groups to come to Germany.

Unfortunately, when I reported this result to our Foreign Minister, Hitler turned it down. At any rate, that is what Herr Von Ribbentrop said.

DR. SAUTER: From an article in the paper Das Archiv of 1938 I gather, for instance, that during that year you invited among others, 1,000 children of French war veterans to come into the Hitler Youth camps in Germany and into the German-French youth skiing camps. Is that correct?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, I have already told you that.

DR. SAUTER: Another article shows me that, for instance, I believe in 1939, you had a special memorial erected, I think in the Black Forest, when some members of an English youth delegation were accidentally killed there during games.

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the defendant had mentioned earlier that near Berlin he erected a special house for these purposes under the name “The Foreign House of the Hitler Youth.” May I present to the Tribunal in the original, pictures of this “Foreign House,” as Document Number Schirach-120; and may I ask the Tribunal to look at these pictures, because in them...

THE PRESIDENT: We are quite prepared to take it from you without looking at the house. The particular style of architecture will not affect us.

DR. SAUTER: Yes, but if you will not look at the pictures, then you will not know how the house was furnished; and you will not see that in the house, for instance, there was not a single swastika, not a single picture of Hitler, or any such things. That, again shows considerations for the views of the foreign guests.

In this connection, Mr. President, may I also ask you to take judicial notice of a number of documents, all of which refer to the efforts of the Defendant Von Schirach to bring about an understanding between German youth and the youth of other nations. These are the documents in Schirach’s document book which have the Numbers Schirach-99 up to and including Schirach-107, then Documents Schirach-108 through 113, and also Documents Schirach-114 up to and including 116, and then Documents Schirach-117, 119, and 120. All these documents refer to the same subject.

Witness, when you invited such delegations from foreign youth organizations to Germany, was anything concerning German institutions and organizations, particularly with reference to the Hitler Youth, ever kept secret from these delegations, or how was that?

VON SCHIRACH: No, as a matter of principle, foreign youth leaders who wished to get to know our institutions were shown everything without any reservations whatever. There was, in fact, no institution of German youth in the past which was not shown to our foreign guests. Also the so-called premilitary education was demonstrated to them in every detail.

DR. SAUTER: And then in 1939 the second World War broke out. During the last months before that happened, did you seriously expect a war; or with what did you occupy yourself at the time?

VON SCHIRACH: I was firmly convinced that Hitler would not allow a war to break out. It was my opinion that he was in no way deceived about the fact that the Western Powers were firmly resolved to be serious. Until the day when war broke out, I firmly believed that the war could be avoided.

DR. SAUTER: Did you discuss with military leaders or political personalities at that time the danger of war and the prospects of maintaining the peace?

VON SCHIRACH: No; in fact, I want to say something here and now about my discussions with military personalities.

I have already stated that over a period of 12 years—that is from 1933 to 1944 or 1945; that is, 13 years—I had perhaps one or possibly two half-hour conversations with Field Marshal Keitel. I remember that one of them dealt entirely with a personal matter.

During the same period I had, I think, only one single discussion with Admiral Raeder, and Admiral Dönitz I met for the first time here in Nuremberg.

I never had any official discussions with Generaloberst Jodl at all, and I talked to the late Field Marshal Von Blomberg, if I remember rightly, possibly twice for half an hour. I had no official discussions at all with the former Supreme Commander of the Army, Von Fritsch. I was his guest on one occasion only, when he was running skiing competitions for the army, and he kindly invited me because he knew that I was interested in skiing.

With his successor, Von Brauchitsch, I had a general chat on questions of education when I talked before the youth of Königsberg in 1933. Later, I believe, I visited him once on official business; and we discussed a question which was of no particular importance for the education of youth. It was some technical matter.

These are the discussions which I have had with military personalities. In fact, altogether I must say that I did not have time for conferences. I led an organization comprising 8 million people; and my duties in that organization were such that I did not possibly have the time to participate in conferences and discussions in Berlin regarding the situation, even if I had been admitted to them, which was not the case.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, from 1932 you were a Reichsleiter. That means that you belonged to the highest level of leaders in the Party. Were you not, in that capacity as Reichsleiter, informed by Hitler, his deputy, or other political personalities about the political situation?

VON SCHIRACH: I think that Hitler invited the Reichs- and Gauleiter, on an average, twice a year to a conference, during which he retrospectively discussed political events. Never at any time did Hitler discuss before these men operations of the future, whether of a political or military nature.

DR. SAUTER: Then, if I understand your answer correctly, you were always surprised by these foreign developments.

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: Does the same apply to the question of the Austrian Anschluss?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes. I heard of the Anschluss of Austria, which of course I hailed enthusiastically, through the radio, if I remember rightly, during a trip by car from my Academy at Brunswick to Berlin. I continued my journey to Berlin, boarded a train at once, and arrived the following morning in Vienna. There I greeted the young people: youth leaders, some of whom had been in prisons or in a concentration camp at Wöllersdorf for a long time, and also many women youth leaders, who had also experienced great hardships.

DR. SAUTER: And what about the march into Czechoslovakia?

VON SCHIRACH: Like every other German citizen, I heard of that through the radio, and did not learn any more than any other citizen learned from the radio.

DR. SAUTER: Were you, in any capacity, a participant in the negotiations regarding the Munich Pact with Chamberlain and Daladier in 1938?

VON SCHIRACH: No.

DR. SAUTER: And what was your opinion?

VON SCHIRACH: I regarded that agreement as the basis for peace, and it was my firm conviction that Hitler would keep that agreement.

DR. SAUTER: Did you know anything about the negotiations with Poland in 1939?

VON SCHIRACH: No, I heard about the negotiations which led to the war, only here in this courtroom. I was merely acquainted with that version of the negotiations which was officially announced through the radio or by the Ministry of Propaganda; and I know no more, therefore, than what every other German citizen knows. The version which Hitler announced before the Reichstag was considered by me to be absolutely true; and I never doubted it, or at least I did not doubt it until about 1943, and all I have heard about it here is new to me.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, the Prosecution, among other things, have made the accusation against you that in your book, Die Hitler-jugend—Idee und Gestalt (Hitler Youth—Idea and Form)—which, Mr. President, is Number 1458-PS—you used the expression “Lebensraum” (living space) and “Ostraum” (eastern space) and that by doing so you welcomed or considered as a necessity German conquests in the East, that is, at the expense of Soviet Russia and Poland.

What do you have to say about that?

VON SCHIRACH: In this book of mine, Die Hitler-jugend—Idee und Gestalt, the word “Lebensraum” (living space) is not used at all to my knowledge. Only the word “Ostraum” (eastern space) is used, and I think it is in connection with a press service in the East. In a footnote, in connection with a description of the tasks of the Colonial Advisory Board in the Reich Youth Leadership, there is a statement to the effect that, as a result of the activities of this Colonial Advisory Board the necessity of drawing the attention of youth to the exploitation of the eastern territory—and by that is meant the thinly populated eastern area of Germany—should not be overlooked.

That was at a time when we in the youth organizations were particularly concerned with the problem of the “flight from the land,” that is to say, the migration of the second or third sons of farmers to the cities. I formed a special movement of youth to combat that trend, the Rural Service, which had the task of stopping this flow of youth from the country to the towns and also of bringing home to youth in towns the challenge of the country.

Of course I never thought of a conquest of Russian territory because ever since I occupied myself with history it was always my point of view politically that the policy regarding mutual security with Russia, which broke off with Bismarck’s dismissal, should be resumed. I considered the attack against the Soviet Union as the suicide of the German nation.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, did you, as the Youth Leader of the German Reich, have the right to report to Hitler directly?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, that is true; but this right to make reports was more or less only on paper. To picture that precisely, before the seizure of power I frequently reported to Hitler in person. In 1932 he quite often announced his intention to dine with me in the evening, but it is clear that in the presence of my wife and other guests political questions were not discussed, particularly not the questions which fell into my special sphere. Only now and then, perhaps, could I touch upon a subject which interested me in connection with education.

In 1933, as far as I can remember, I reported twice to him personally, once regarding the financing of the youth movement, and the second time in connection with the Party Rally of 1933. During the following years my reports averaged one or two a year whereby I was treated in the same way as most people who reported to Hitler. Of the 15 odd points on which I wanted to report to him, I managed to deal with 3 or 4, and the others had to be dropped because he interrupted me and very explicitly elaborated on the things which interested him most.

I then tried to help myself by taking along models of youth buildings, views of the big stadiums and of youth hostels, which I had set up in a hall in the Reich Chancellery, and when he looked at them I used the opportunity to put two or three questions to him.

I must state here—I think I owe it to German youth—that Hitler took very little interest in educational questions. As far as education was concerned, I received next to no suggestions from him. The only time when he did make a real suggestion as far as athletic training was concerned was in 1935, I believe, when he told me that I should see to it that boxing should become more widespread among youth. I did so, but he never attended a youth boxing match. My friend Von Tschammer-Osten, the Reich Sports Leader, and I tried very often to persuade him to go to other sporting events, particularly to skiing contests and ice hockey championships in Garmisch, but apart from the Olympic Games, it was impossible to get him to attend.

DR. SAUTER: You have told us a little earlier about this so-called military or premilitary education, stating that, as far as one could talk about such education at all, it played only a minor part in the training of the Hitler Youth.

May I ask you to tell us, though not at length but only in condensed phrases, what, in your mind, were the chief aims of your youth education program. Be very brief.

VON SCHIRACH: Tent encampments.

DR. SAUTER: Tent encampments?

VON SCHIRACH: Trips, construction of youth hostels and youth homes.

DR. SAUTER: What do you mean by “trips”?

VON SCHIRACH: Youth hikes, individually and in groups; also the construction of more and more youth hostels. In one year alone, more than 1,000 homes and youth hostels were built by me in Germany. Then there was additional professional training, and then what I called the “Labor Olympics,” namely, the annual Reich trade contests, voluntary competition between all youth of both sexes who wanted to participate. In fact millions participated. Then our great Reich sports contests, championships in every type of sport, our cultural work, and the development of our singing groups, our acting groups, youth concert choirs, and the development of our youth libraries, and then something which I mentioned in connection with combating the migration from the country, the Rural Service with its rural help groups, those youths, who for idealistic reasons were working in the country, even town boys—to show the farmer boys that the country was really more beautiful than the city, that even a city boy will give up his life in the city temporarily to devote himself to the land and to tilling the soil. Then, as a great communal accomplishment of youth, I must mention the dental improvement and the regular medical examinations.

These, in a few summary words, were the main tasks which our youth organizations had, but they are by no means all.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, these ideas, these thoughts, and these aims of the Defendant Von Schirach are contained in a number of documents which are found in the Schirach document book, and which are extracts from his works, speeches, and orders. I am referring to Schirach document book, Numbers Schirach-32 through 39, 44 through 50, 66 through 74(a), 76 through 79, and, finally, 80 through 83.

All these documents deal with the tasks which the Defendant Schirach has just described to you, and I am asking the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the details in these documents.

[Turning to the defendant.] There is only one point of that Hitler Youth program, if I may call it that, with which I would like to deal, because it has been particularly stressed against you in the Indictment. That is your collaboration with the Lawyers’ League, that is to say, your occupation with law. In that connection I would like to know why you, the Reich Youth Leader, were interested in legal problems at all. What were you striving for, and what did you achieve? Please, will you tell us that briefly, because it has been emphasized in the Indictment.

VON SCHIRACH: May I remind you that the youth of the state was regarded by me as being a Youth State. In that Youth State all professions and all tasks were represented. My collaboration with the Lawyers’ League was due to the necessity of training legal advisers for our working youth whom they could offer the necessary legal protection. I was anxious that those Hitler Youth leaders who were studying law should return to the organization to deal with just such tasks within the organization.

From this type of training a large organization developed within the ranks of youth which was equivalent to the organization of doctors within the youth organization; our medical organization comprised approximately 1,000 doctors, men and women. These legal men assisted the staff, in the districts and other units of our youth organization, putting into practice those demands which I had first enunciated early in our fighting days, before the seizure of power, and which I had championed in the State later on, namely, the demand for free time and paid vacations for the young worker.

This legal work of our youth led to the founding of seminars for Youth Law and Working Youth Law, et cetera, attached to the universities at Kiel and Bonn. In particular it had the result that those demands which I voiced in a speech in 1936, before the Committee for Juvenile Law of the Academy for German Law, could be carried through.

DR. SAUTER: Just one moment.

[Turning to the Tribunal.] This is the speech of which excerpts are reproduced, in Schirach document book, Number Schirach-63. It is copied from Das Archiv of October 1936.

Herr Von Schirach, perhaps you can tell us very briefly which social demands you, as Reich Youth Leader, made regarding youth. You said earlier, “free time.” What did you mean by that?

VON SCHIRACH: In the first place, a shortening of working hours for young people, the abolition of night work for young people, a fundamental prohibition of child labor, extended weekends, and 3 weeks’ paid vacation every year.

In 1937 at Liegnitz I noticed that at that time 50 percent of the young workers had no holidays at all and that only 1 percent had 15 to 18 days per annum. In 1938, on the other hand, I had put through the Youth Protection Law which prohibited child labor, raised the age of protection for juveniles from 16 to 18 years, prohibited night work, and realized my demand regarding the extended weekend, at the same time stipulating at least 15 days’ vacation annually for youngsters. That was all I could achieve. It was only part of what I wanted to achieve.

DR. SAUTER: These are the demands which are contained in the following documents in the document book: Schirach-40 to 41 and 60 to 64. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of these.

Witness, I now come to another problem, and that is your position within the Party. Some time ago we were shown a chart here giving a clear picture of the organization of the Party. Was that plan correct, or what was your position within the Party?

VON SCHIRACH: My position in the Party was not correctly depicted in that chart, at least not as far as the channels of command are concerned. According to the chart which was exhibited here, the channel of command would have been from the Reich Leader for Youth Education to the Chief of the Party Chancellery, and from there to Hitler and from Hitler to the Reich Youth Leadership Office of the Party. That, of course, is an erroneous picture.

I was not in the Party Directorate to give my orders via the Gauleiter to the district leaders but as the representative and head of the youth movement, so that if you want to describe my position and the position of my organization in the framework of the NSDAP correctly, you would actually have to draw a pyramid, the apex of which, that is to say my position in the Party Directorate, would be above the Reichsleiter. I was the only person in the youth movement who was connected with the Party.

DR. SAUTER: And the other leaders and subleaders of the youth movement?

VON SCHIRACH: Some of them may have been Party members, but not all. At any rate, they were not members of the Gauleitung or Kreisleitung. The entire staff of the youth movement, the entire youth organization, stood alongside the Party as a unit.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, as the Youth Leader of the German Reich, were you a civil servant?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: And from 1 December 1936, I believe, you were the chief of a high Reich office?

VON SCHIRACH: I was a civil servant only from 1 December 1936.

DR. SAUTER: With the title?

VON SCHIRACH: Youth Leader of the German Reich.

DR. SAUTER: As the chief of a high Reich office, were you actually independent of the Minister of the Interior and the Minister for Education?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, that was, after all, the purpose of creating an independent Reich office.

DR. SAUTER: Did you thereby become a member of the Reich Cabinet, as has been claimed?

VON SCHIRACH: I am sure I did not. I heard here for the first time that I was supposed to have been a member of the Cabinet. I never participated in a Cabinet meeting. I never received a decree or anything of the sort which would have made me a member of the Cabinet. I never received invitations to attend Cabinet meetings. I never considered myself a member of the Cabinet, and I believe that the Ministers did not consider me a member either.

DR. SAUTER: Were you in any way informed of the resolutions passed by the Reich Cabinet, for instance, by having the minutes of the meetings sent to you?

VON SCHIRACH: No. Resolutions passed by the Reich Cabinet, insofar as any were passed after 1 December 1936, only came to my attention in the same way as they reached any other higher official or employee of the Reich who read the Reichsgesetzblatt or the Reichsministerialblatt. Records and minutes: were never sent to me.

DR. SAUTER: When you became a high Reich authority, did you receive the staff which you needed through a ministry, or how did you obtain that staff for yourself?

VON SCHIRACH: A few youth leaders who had worked on my staff for a number of years were made civil servants through me. I did not receive a single official from any ministry to deal with matters relating to the youth organization. The entire high Reich office, if I remember correctly, consisted of no more than five officials. It was the smallest of the high Reich offices, something I was particularly proud of. We carried out a very large task with a minimum of personnel.

DR. SAUTER: And now, Witness, I want to come to a subject which is going to be rather extensive and that is the affidavit by Gregor Ziemer, which you have already mentioned. It is a very lengthy affidavit which has been presented by the Prosecution under Document Number 2441-PS.

Witness, what do you have to say in detail with regard to that affidavit? Do you know it? Do you know this man Gregor Ziemer?

VON SCHIRACH: No.

DR. SAUTER: Have you found out who he is and from where he gathered his alleged knowledge?

VON SCHIRACH: I gather from the affidavit that Herr Ziemer before the war was headmaster of the American school in Berlin and that he has written a book which apparently deals with youth and school education in Germany. This affidavit is an extract from that book.

The affidavit as such, if you regard it in its entirety, has, I believe, more importance as propaganda than as an impartial judgment.

I want to start by quoting something from the very first page, which is the page containing Ziemer’s affidavit, and in the last paragraph it says that street fights took place outside the American school between the Jewish children going to this school and the local youngsters. I need not deal with the difficulties which the school itself had, because that was not part of my department. But these street fights took place outside the school, and I think I ought to say something about them. I never heard anything about these clashes, but I should have heard about them under all circumstances, because during most of 1938 I was in Berlin. I should have heard of them first through the youth organization itself, because the senior youth leaders would have been obliged to report to me if such incidents had taken place.

Furthermore, I would have had to hear about it through the Foreign Office, because if youngsters from the American colony had been molested, protests would certainly have gone through the Embassy to the Foreign Office, and these protests would without fail have been passed on to me at once or reported to me by telephone.

I can only imagine that the whole affair is a very gross exaggeration. The American Ambassador Wilson even had breakfast with me—I think in the spring of 1939, and I do not think I am wrong about the date—in Gatow.

DR. SAUTER: In the Foreign House?

VON SCHIRACH: In the Foreign House.

And we discussed a number of subjects privately. I believe that on that occasion or afterwards he would most certainly have mentioned such incidents if they had in reality occurred in the way Herr Ziemer describes them.

DR. SAUTER: I believe I can go over to Page 2, where...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, how much of this document has been read by the Prosecution? As far as I know, very little.

DR. SAUTER: I beg your pardon?

THE PRESIDENT: How much of this affidavit has been read and put in evidence by the Prosecution?

DR. SAUTER: I cannot tell you that offhand, Mr. President. But judging by practice, I must assume that if a document is submitted to the Tribunal, judicial notice of the entire document is taken by the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: That is not so. We have stated over and over again that we take only judicial notice on documents which have been read to the Tribunal, unless they are documents of which full translations have been given. This document was, I suppose, presented in the course of the Prosecution’s case, and probably one sentence out of it was read at the time. I do not know how much was read; but you and the defendant ought to know.

MR. DODD: There was only one paragraph read, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: One paragraph?

MR. DODD: One full paragraph and perhaps one short one on Page 21.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have it here.

MR. DODD: I think the Prosecution covered the part having to do with the speech at Heidelberg.

THE PRESIDENT: And that is the only part of it that has been read, and that is, therefore, the only part of it that is in evidence.

VON SCHIRACH: Perhaps for the sake of credibility—and I shall not deal in detail with the accusations contained in that affidavit—I might be allowed to say, with one sole exception, all the annual slogans of the Hitler Youth are reproduced falsely in this affidavit and that Gregor Ziemer nevertheless swears to the correctness of his statement.

THE PRESIDENT: Wouldn’t it be the best, if you want to reply to his affidavit, that you should direct the defendant’s attention to the part which has been read? Then he can make an answer to that.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, in Ziemer’s affidavit, which the defendant has told me he regards as a clearly inflammatory piece of writing, the annual slogans are mentioned which are supposed to have been issued by the defendant, that is, the slogans for the work for the following year.

THE PRESIDENT: One passage of this document has been put in. If you want to put in the rest, you are entitled to do so. But I should have thought that it would have been the best way for you to answer the passage which has been put in. The rest of the affidavit is not in evidence.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, in that case my client would get the worst end of the bargain, because in other passages which have not been used by the Prosecution...

THE PRESIDENT: I said you could use the other passages if you want to.

DR. SAUTER: Certainly, but I want to prove that Herr Ziemer’s statements are not correct; that is why I have just been discussing the question of annual slogans with the defendant. This is only one example.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, the defendant is apparently saying that the affidavit is unreliable because of the slogans which are referred to in it. Is that not sufficient for your purpose?

DR. SAUTER: Yes; but I intend to prove that Herr Ziemer’s statements are untrue. The defendant maintains that the statements contained in that affidavit are not true. But I am trying to prove to you that, in fact, Herr Ziemer has deliberately stated and sworn to untruths.

THE PRESIDENT: Surely, Dr. Sauter, there being one passage in this affidavit which is in evidence, you can deal very shortly with the question of the credit of the person who made the affidavit.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, this Herr Ziemer, in his affidavit, has made statements regarding the annual slogans...

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: ...which you issued for the Hitler Youth. How these annual slogans were worded can be easily seen by the Tribunal from the affidavit. I now ask you to tell us how the annual slogans of the Hitler Youth were worded during your time; that is, 1933 to 1940.

VON SCHIRACH: Herr Ziemer mentions the slogan on Page 15 of the English document. Herr Ziemer says that in 1933 the motto for German Youth had been “One Reich, One Nation, One Führer.” He probably means “One People, One Reich, One Führer.” Actually, the year 1933 was the year of “Unity.”

DR. SAUTER: What do you mean by “Unity”?

VON SCHIRACH: The year in which German youth joined ranks in one organization.

DR. SAUTER: I want to skip a few years now and come to the year 1938. What was your slogan for the Hitler Youth in 1938?

VON SCHIRACH: 1938 was the year of “Understanding.”

DR. SAUTER: The year of “Understanding”?

VON SCHIRACH: Herr Ziemer says the slogan was “Every Youth a Flyer.”

DR. SAUTER: And then in 1939 what was your slogan?

VON SCHIRACH: That was the year of “Duty Towards Health.”

DR. SAUTER: The year of “Duty Towards Health”?

VON SCHIRACH: According to Herr Ziemer, it was “Hitler Youth on the March.”

DR. SAUTER: And finally 1940, your last year?

VON SCHIRACH: It was the year of “Instruction.” But he called it “We March Against England.”

But I want to add that the first slogan, “One People, One Reich, One Führer,” which Ziemer says was the official slogan of the year 1933 for German youth, arose first in 1938 when Hitler went into Austria. Before that, that slogan did not exist at all. It was never the annual slogan of German youth.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, we must comply with the wish of the Tribunal and not go into the affidavit of Ziemer any further, with the exception of the one point which has been used by the Prosecution in the Indictment against you in connection with the accusation of anti-Semitism. I skip Herr Ziemer’s further statements and come to this speech at Heidelberg. Will you tell me first of all, what Ziemer said, and then make your own comments on that.

VON SCHIRACH: Ziemer said that during a meeting of students in Heidelberg—I think either at the end of 1938 or the beginning of 1939—I had made a speech against the Jews in connection with a rally of the National Socialist Student Union. He says that on that occasion I praised the students for the destruction of the Heidelberg Synagogue, and that following that I had the students file past me and gave them decorations and certificates of promotion.

First of all, I have already referred to my activity in the student movement. Upon the request of the Deputy of the Führer, Rudolf Hess, I handed the leadership of the student movement over to him in 1934. He then appointed a Reich student leader; and after that I did not speak at any student meetings.

As far as I can remember, I visited Heidelberg during the summer of 1937; and there I spoke to the youth group. This was 1 or 1½ years before Ziemer’s date. And on one occasion I attended a festival play at Heidelberg.

DR. SAUTER: All of this is irrelevant.

VON SCHIRACH: I have no recollection of any meeting of this sort with students, and I have no recollection of ever having publicly stated my views about the Jewish pogrom of 1938. I will state at another point what I said in my capacity as Youth Leader regarding this.

Ziemer says—I am translating from the English text—he says that “the day will come when the students of Heidelberg will take up their place side by side with the legions of other students to win the world over to the National Socialist ideology.”

I have never spoken like that before youth, in public, or even in a small circle. These are not my words; I did not say that. I had no authority whatsoever to confer decorations or certificates, et cetera, upon students. Medals of distinction for students did not exist. All decorations were conferred by the head of the State.

I personally had the right to confer the golden youth decoration, and I think it was conferred by me about 230 times in all, almost entirely upon people who earned distinction in the field of education, but not upon unknown students.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, the important point in your testimony is to tell us whether it is correct that the speech made at the end of 1938 before the students at Heidelberg, in which the speaker referred to the wreckage of the synagogues, was not made by you, because at that time you had not had anything to do with the student movement for years. Is that correct?

VON SCHIRACH: I had nothing to do with the student movement, and I do not remember having spoken before such a meeting. I consider it quite out of the question that such a meeting of students took place at all. I did not make those statements.

DR. SAUTER: Have you got the affidavit before you?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes. I cannot find that particular passage at the moment.

DR. SAUTER: It says something which I have translated into German, namely, it mentions the “small, fat student leader.” Have you got that passage? Does it not say so?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, it says so.

DR. SAUTER: Well then, surely “small, fat student leader” cannot be applied to you.

May I, Mr. President, in this connection, draw your attention to an affidavit which appears in Schirach’s document book under Number Schirach-3, and which I herewith submit to the Tribunal. It is an affidavit of a certain Hoepken, who, beginning with 1 May 1938, was the female secretary of the Defendant Von Schirach and who, in this affidavit under the Figure 16—which is Page 22 of the document book—mentioning exact details—states under oath that during the time with which we are here concerned the defendant was not at Heidelberg at all.

I do not suppose it is necessary for me to read that part of the affidavit. I am asking the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it.

THE PRESIDENT: I think this would be a good time to break off.

[A recess was taken.]

DR. SAUTER: Witness, you have spoken in another connection about the fact that you did not consider officers suitable as youth leaders. I would be interested to know how many members of the leadership corps of the Hitler Youth in 1939 at the outbreak of the war were reserve officers in the Armed Forces.

VON SCHIRACH: I would judge that the leadership corps of the HJ had about 1,300 leaders. Those were leaders of the Banne, leaders of the districts or regions, and the corresponding staff of assistants. Of these 1,300 youth leaders, 5 to 10 men were reserve officers.

DR. SAUTER: And how many active officers did you have at that time on your staff or in the leadership corps?

VON SCHIRACH: Active officers were not youth leaders and could not be youth leaders.

DR. SAUTER: Why not? Was that contained in the regulations?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes. An officer was not permitted to be a member of the Party or any one of its organs or affiliated organizations.

DR. SAUTER: Who was responsible to you for the physical education and sports programs in the Hitler Youth?

VON SCHIRACH: Obergebietsführer Von Tschammer-Osten, who was also Reich Sports Leader. In the Olympic year he co-operated very closely with me and voluntarily subordinated himself to me in December or November 1936. He was responsible to me for the entire physical education of the boys and girls.

DR. SAUTER: This Herr Von Tschammer-Osten, who was very well known in the international sports world, was he an officer by profession?

VON SCHIRACH: According to my recollection he had been an officer during the first World War. Then he left the Army and was a farmer by profession. Later on he concerned himself only with questions of physical education and sport. One of his brothers was an active officer.

DR. SAUTER: Did Von Tschammer-Osten become an officer during the second World War?

VON SCHIRACH: No, he did not.

DR. SAUTER: Do you remember that? A document has been submitted here by the Soviet Prosecution, namely a report from Lvov, in which it is stated that the Hitler Youth or the Reich Youth Leadership had conducted courses for young people from Poland, and these young people were to be trained as agents, spies, and parachutists. You have stated today that you take the complete responsibility for the youth leadership. I ask you to tell us something about that.

VON SCHIRACH: We had absolutely no possibilities for espionage training in our youth organization. Whether Heydrich on his part, without my knowledge and without the knowledge of my assistants, had hired youthful agents in Poland and used them within his intelligence service, it is not possible for me to say. I myself did not conduct any espionage training; I had no courses for agents, and courses for training parachutists were out of the question because, after all, I had no air force. Training of that kind could only have been conducted through the Air Force.

DR. SAUTER: Then you, as Reich Youth Leader or, as you were called later, Reich Leader for Youth Education, have never known anything about these things before this Trial? Can you state that under oath?

VON SCHIRACH: That I can state upon my oath. I should like to add that shortly before the war young refugees from Poland came to us in large numbers, but they of course could not return to Poland. The persecution of the Germans in Poland is a historical fact.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, the Prosecution has asserted that in the Hitler Youth a song was sung, “Heute gehört uns Deutschland, und morgen die ganze Welt” (Today Germany belongs to us, tomorrow the whole world); that is the alleged title of that song, and that is supposed to have expressed the will for conquest of the Hitler Youth; is that correct?

VON SCHIRACH: The song says, in the original text which was written by Hans Baumann and is also included in a document here: “Heute da hört uns Deutschland und morgen die ganze Welt” (Germany hears us today and tomorrow the whole world). But it had come to my knowledge also that the song, from time to time, was being sung in the form which has been mentioned here. For that reason I issued a prohibition against singing the song which differed from the original text. I also prohibited, years ago, the song “Siegreich wollen wir Frankreich schlagen” (Victoriously we will conquer France) from being sung by the German Hitler Youth.

DR. SAUTER: You prohibited the last mentioned song entirely?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: Out of consideration for your French guests?

VON SCHIRACH: Not out of consideration for guests but because it was contrary to my political conceptions.

DR. SAUTER: Thus, Mr. President, I submit the correct text which I got from a song book. It is Number Schirach-95 of the Schirach document book.

In connection with the question of whether the Hitler Youth intended a premilitary training of youth, I should like to put the following additional questions. Did the physical and sport training of youth apply only to the boys, Herr Von Schirach?

VON SCHIRACH: No. Of course all young people received physical training.

DR. SAUTER: Also the girls?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: Is it correct that your efforts directed toward the physical training and physical strengthening of youth also applied to the physically handicapped and to the blind and other young people who from the very outset could not be used for military purposes?

VON SCHIRACH: Very early in our work I included the blind and deaf and the cripples in the Hitler Youth. I had a periodical especially issued for the blind and had books made for them in Braille. I believe that the Hitler Youth was the only organization in Germany which took care of these people, except for special organizations of the NSV (National Socialist Welfare Organization) and so on.

DR. SAUTER: I ask, in connection with that, Mr. President, that you take notice of Document Schirach-27 of the Schirach document book. That is a long article entitled “Admission of Physically Handicapped Young People in the Hitler Youth,” where the deaf, dumb, and blind are especially mentioned and their training to enable them to take up a professional occupation.

MR. DODD: I have refrained all day from making any objection, but I think this examination has gone very far afield. We have made no charge against this defendant with respect to the blind, the deaf, the lame, and halt. He keeps going way back to the Boy Scouts and we haven’t gotten to any of the relevant issues that are between us and this defendant. At the present rate I fear we will never get through.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, we have listened to this somewhat long account of the training of the Hitler Youth. Don’t you think you can go on to something more specific now? We have got a very fair conception, I think, of what the training of the Hitler Youth was; and we have got all these documents before us.

DR. SAUTER: I shall try, Mr. President, to proceed according to your wishes so far as it is at all possible.

Witness, is it correct that you personally intervened with Hitler to prevent the re-establishment of cadet academies as institutions for purely military training?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, that is correct. I prevented the re-establishment of cadet academies.

DR. SAUTER: I come now to another chapter. The defendant has been accused of wrecking the Protestant and Catholic youth organizations. What can you say in answer to that?

VON SCHIRACH: First, the following: I wanted, as I have already explained, the unification of all our youth. I also wanted to bring the Protestant organizations, which were not very large numerically, and the numerically very large Catholic organizations into the Hitler Youth, particularly because some of the organizations did not limit themselves to religious matters but competed with the Hitler Youth in physical training, hikes, camping, and so on. In this I saw a danger to the idea of unity in German national education, and above all I felt that among young people themselves there was a very strong tendency toward the Hitler Youth. The desertion from the confessional organizations is a fact. There were also many clergymen who were of the opinion that the development should perhaps take the following direction: All youth into the Hitler Youth; the religious care of the youth through clergymen; sports and political work through youth leaders.

In 1933 or 1934—but I think it was as early as 1933—Reich Bishop Müller and the Protestant Bishop Oberheidt approached me on their own initiative and proposed that I incorporate the Protestant youth organizations into the Hitler Youth. Of course I was very happy about that proposal and accepted it. At that time I had no idea that there was opposition to Reich Bishop Müller within the Protestant Church. I found out about that only much later. I believed that I was acting with the authority and in the name of the Evangelical Church, and the other bishop who accompanied him further strengthened this belief of mine. Even today I still believe that with the voluntary incorporation of the Protestant youth into the Youth State, Müller acted in accordance with the will of the majority of the Protestant youth themselves; and in my later activity as Youth Leader I frequently met former leaders from the Protestant youth organizations, who had leading positions with me and worked in my youth organization with great enthusiasm and devotion.

Through that incorporation of Protestant youth—I should like to stress this—spiritual ministration to youth was not limited or hindered in any way; there never was a restriction of church services for youth in Germany, either then or later. Since Protestant youth had been incorporated on the basis of an agreement between the Church and the Hitler Youth, there was practically only a dispute about youth education between the Catholic Church and the Hitler Youth.

In May or June 1934 I asked personally to participate in the negotiations for the Reich Concordat because I wanted to eliminate entirely the differences between the Catholic Church and the Hitler Youth. I considered an agreement in this field to be very important and in fact I was allowed to participate in these negotiations which took place in June ’34 in the Reich Ministry of the Interior under the chairmanship of Reich Minister for the Interior Frick. On the Catholic side Archbishop Gröber and Bishop Berning took part in the negotiations; and at that time I personally proposed a formula for co-operation, which met with the approval of the Catholic side, and I believed that I had found the basis for agreement in this sphere.

The conferences were unfortunately interrupted on the evening of 29 June; and on 30 June ’34 we experienced the so-called “Röhm Putsch,” and the negotiations were never resumed. That is not my fault, and I bear no responsibility for that. Hitler simply did not want to accept the consequences of the Concordat. I personally desired to conclude that agreement, and I believe that the representatives of the Church saw from these negotiations and from certain later conferences with me that the difficulties did not originate with me. At any rate Bishop Berning came to me, I believe in 1939. We discussed current questions between the youth leadership and the Church. I believe that he also got the impression at that time that it was not I who wanted to make difficulties.

The difficulties arose at that time from the increasingly strong influence of Martin Bormann, who tried to prevent absolutely any kind of agreement between the Party offices and the Church or between the youth leadership and the Church.

In the course of the dispute about the leadership of confessional youth organizations and their incorporation, animated public discussions arose. I myself spoke at various meetings. Statements were issued by the Church also, which according to the state of affairs, were more or less sharp. But I did not make statements inimical to religion in connection with that subject, nor did I at any time during my life.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, is it correct that in 1937 you concluded an agreement with the Church to the effect that the Hitler Youth should, in principle, not be on duty on Sundays during church time, so that the children could attend religious services, and furthermore, that on account of this agreement you ran into considerable difficulties?

VON SCHIRACH: That is correct.

DR. SAUTER: Will you tell us very briefly about that?

VON SCHIRACH: I do not believe one can say that it was an agreement with the Church. If I remember correctly, I issued a decree based on various letters I had received from clergymen—which to a very great extent took into account the wishes expressed in these letters. I then issued that decree and I gather from many affidavits which have been sent by youth leaders to me recently that that decree was very carefully obeyed.

Difficulties arose in the Party Chancellery on account of my attitude. Bormann, of course, was an energetic enemy of such a basic concession to the Church, and Hitler himself—I don’t know whether it was in connection with this decree, but, at any rate, in connection with the regulation of the dispute between the youth leadership and the Church—also reprimanded me once.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, I have a small book here, entitled A Good Year 1944, with the sub-title “Christmas Gift of the War Welfare Service of Reich Leader Von Schirach.” I submit that book as Document Number Schirach-84 to the Tribunal for judicial notice. On Page 55 is a picture of the Madonna. On Page 54 is a Christian poem written by the defendant, with the title “Bavarian Christmas Crib.” On the lower half of Page 54 there is the famous “Wessobrunner Prayer,” the oldest prayer in the German language, dating from the eighth century.

Witness, is it also correct that on account of the Christian content of that book you had difficulties with Reichsleiter Bormann; and if so, what were they?

VON SCHIRACH: That is correct. I had that Christmas gift made for, I believe, 80,000 to 100,000 soldiers and sent to them at the front as late as 1944. I did not hear anything directly from Bormann, but he suddenly asked for 10 copies of that book; and I was informed by people who were near the Führer in his headquarters that he used that book in some way in order to incite Hitler against me.

I should like to add that at all times of my life, at any rate insofar as I have written poetry, I have expressed myself in the same way as in this poem. Also in the collection of poems, The Flag of the Persecuted, which I do not have here unfortunately but which was distributed among the youth in a very large edition, where my revolutionary poems can be found, there are poems of a Christian content which, however, were not reprinted by the Party press in the newspapers and therefore did not become so well-known as my other verses. But I should like to express quite clearly that I was an opponent of confessional youth organizations, and I wish to make it just as clear that I was not an opponent of the Christian religions.

DR. SAUTER: Not an opponent?

VON SCHIRACH: Of course not.

DR. SAUTER: Did you leave the Church?

VON SCHIRACH: In spite of many hints by Bormann, I never left the Church.

DR. SAUTER: May I, Mr. President, ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of Documents Schirach-85 to 93, inclusive, of the Schirach document book. All of these are documents from the period when he was Reich Youth Leader and show his attitude toward the Church.

VON SCHIRACH: May I add something to that?

DR. SAUTER: If you please.

VON SCHIRACH: As far as my religious attitude is concerned, I always identified myself with the thoughts expressed in Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre about religions in general and the importance of the Christian religion in particular. I should like to say here that in my work as an educator I was mistaken in holding the opinion that positive Christianity existed outside of the Church.

However, I never made any anti-Christian statements; and I should like to say here for the first time in public that in the closest circles of the Hitler Youth I have always expressed a very unequivocal belief in the person and teachings of Christ. Before educators of the Adolf Hitler School—a fact which naturally was never allowed to come to the knowledge of the Party Chancellery—I spoke about Christ as the greatest leader in world history and of the commandment to “Love thy neighbor” as a universal idea of our culture. I believe that there are also several testimonials by youth leaders about that in your possession, Mr. Attorney.

DR. SAUTER: Yes, I shall refer to that later. I should like to begin a new chapter now. In 1940 you were dismissed as Reich Youth Leader?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: And you were succeeded by Axmann who has already been mentioned. But you remained connected with youth education through what office?

VON SCHIRACH: Through the office of the Reichsleiter of Youth Education.

DR. SAUTER: And in addition to that you received another title, I believe?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, I became Deputy of the Führer for the Inspection of the Hitler Youth.

DR. SAUTER: Was that only a title, or was that some kind of office?

VON SCHIRACH: That was an office to the extent that the Reichsleiter office was concerned with youth work in the Party sector. The Youth Leader of the German Reich—that was Axmann as my successor—also had a field of activity in the State, and I too became competent for that by my appointment as inspector.

DR. SAUTER: How did your dismissal as Reich Youth Leader come about, and why were you called specifically to Vienna as Gauleiter? What can you tell us about that?

VON SCHIRACH: At the end of the French campaign, in which I participated as an infantryman, I was in Lyon when a wireless message from the Führer’s headquarters was received, and the chief of my company told me that I had to report to the Führer’s headquarters. I went there at once; and at the Führer’s headquarters, which was at that time situated in the Black Forest, I saw the Führer standing in the open speaking to Reich Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop. I waited a while, maybe a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes, until the conversation had ended and then reported at once to Hitler and there, outside, before the Casino building where later we all had our meal together, he told me the following in about 10 minutes:

I should propose to him a successor for the leadership of the youth. He intended for me to take over the Reich Gau Vienna. I at once suggested my assistant, Axmann, who was not a man who advocated physical or military training but was concerned with social work among the youth, and that was most important to me. He accepted this proposal...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, we need not go through Axmann’s qualifications, need we? Is it material to the Tribunal to know what his successor was like?

DR. SAUTER: Axmann? Axmann was successor as Reich Youth Leader.

THE PRESIDENT: What I was asking you was whether it was material for the Tribunal to know the qualities of Axmann. We have nothing to do with that.

DR. SAUTER: Herr Von Schirach, you can be more brief about that point, can you not?

VON SCHIRACH: Hitler then said that I should keep my job as Reich Leader of Youth Education and that I should assume at the same time the office of the Inspector of Youth and that I should go to Vienna as the successor to Bürckel. In Vienna, especially in the cultural field, serious difficulties had arisen; and therefore I was to direct my attention to the case of the institutions of culture, particularly of theaters, art galleries, libraries, and so forth; and I was to be especially concerned about the working class. I raised the objection that I could carry out that cultural work only if independent of Goebbels, and Hitler promised at that time that this independence would be fully safeguarded; but he did not keep that promise later.

And lastly he said that he was sending the Jewish population away from Vienna, that he had already informed Himmler or Heydrich—I do not remember exactly what he said—of his intentions, or at least would inform them. Vienna had to become a German city, and in that connection he even spoke of an evacuation of the Czech population.

That concluded that conversation. I received no other instructions for this office, and then we dined together as usual. I took my leave then and went to Berlin to talk to my assistants.

DR. SAUTER: Vienna was considered at that time, if I am correctly informed, the most difficult Gau of the Reich; is that right?

VON SCHIRACH: Vienna was by far the most difficult political problem which we had among the Gaue.

DR. SAUTER: Why?

VON SCHIRACH: Because—I learned the details only from other persons in Berlin, after I had received my mission from Hitler—in Vienna the population had sobered considerably after the first wave of enthusiasm over the Anschluss had subsided. Herr Bürckel, my predecessor, had brought many officials to Vienna from the outside; and the German system of administration, which was in no wise more practicable or efficient than the Austrian, was introduced there. This resulted in a certain over-organization in the administrative field, and Bürckel had started on a Church policy which was more than unsatisfactory. Demonstrations took place under his administration. On one occasion the palace of the archbishop was damaged. Theaters and other places of culture were not taken care of as they should have been. Vienna was experiencing a feeling of great disillusionment. Before I got there I was informed that if one spoke in the streetcars with a North-German accent, the Viennese took an unfriendly attitude.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, what duties did you have or what offices did you hold in Vienna?

VON SCHIRACH: In Vienna I had the office of Reich Governor (Reichsstatthalter), which included two administrations, the municipal administration and the national administration. In addition, I was Reich Defense Commissioner for Wehrkreis XVII, but only until 1942. In 1942, the Wehrkreis was subdivided, and each Gauleiter of the Wehrkreis became his own Reich Defense Commissioner.

DR. SAUTER: And then you also were Gauleiter?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, I was also Gauleiter, the highest official of the Party.

DR. SAUTER: In other words, you represented city, state, and Party, all at once—the highest authority of city, state, and Party in Vienna?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes. Now the situation was such in the administration that there was an official representative to take charge of national affairs, namely, the Regierungspräsident; for the municipal administration there was another representative, the mayor; in the Party, the Deputy Gauleiter in Vienna had the title of Gauleiter.

I should not like to belittle my responsibility for the Gau by explaining that, and I want to protect the exceptionally efficient Deputy Gauleiter who was there. I just want to say that in order to clarify my position.

DR. SAUTER: What really was your position as Reich Defense Commissioner, Witness? Was that a military position, or what was it?

VON SCHIRACH: That was not a military position at all. The Reich Defense Commissioner was simply the head of the civil administration, in contrast to the situation prevailing during the first World War, where the head of the civil administration was assigned to and subordinated to the commanding general; in this war the Reich Defense Commissioner was co-ordinate with him, not subordinate.

The tasks of the Reich Defense Commissioner—at least, that is how I saw my tasks—were at certain intervals, to co-ordinate the most pressing problems of food economy, transportation—that is, local and distant transportation, coal supplies, and price regulation for the Gaue of Vienna, Upper Danube, and Lower Danube, all of which belonged to Wehrkreis XVII.

There were several meetings for that purpose—I believe three all together. In 1942 the reorganization which I previously mentioned took place. Bormann carried his point against the Reich Marshal. The Reich Marshal was of the opinion that the Reich Defense Commissioner had to be Defense Commissioner for the entire Wehrkreis. Bormann wanted each Gauleiter to be Defense Commissioner, and so that led to the division. From 1942 on I was only Reich Commissioner for Vienna.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, it seems that a decree was issued at that time—will you please tell me when you were informed about it—namely, a decree by Reichsleiter Bormann, that not more than two Gauleiter could meet.

VON SCHIRACH: That is not a decree by Bormann; that was an order by Hitler.

DR. SAUTER: What were its salient points?

VON SCHIRACH: I must explain that briefly. Because of the fact that the Reich Commissariat was subdivided, I had to meet from time to time with the Reichsstatthalter of other provinces in order to discuss the most important questions, especially concerning our food economy. However, I believe it was in 1943, Dr. Ley came to me in Vienna and brought me an official order from the Führer, according to which it was considered illegal—that was the way he expressed it—for more than two Gauleiter to meet for a conference.

At that time I looked at Dr. Ley speechless; and he said:

“Yes, that does not concern you alone. There is still another Gauleiter who has called a conference of more than two, and that fact alone is already considered as virtual mutiny or conspiracy.”

DR. SAUTER: Witness, when you were in Vienna, were you given a further mission which took up much of your time? Please tell us briefly about that.

VON SCHIRACH: I had just started to work in Vienna when, in October 1940, I received an order to appear at the Reich Chancellery.

DR. SAUTER: Will you please be very brief.

VON SCHIRACH: And there Hitler personally gave me the mission of carrying out the evacuation of all German youth from areas endangered by aerial attack, and simultaneously to carry out the evacuation of mothers and infants; and he said that that should begin in Berlin and then gradually take in the entire Reich. He said that education was of secondary importance now; the main thing was to maintain the nervous energy of the youth and to preserve life. However, I asked at once that I be given the possibility of establishing an educational organization, and I did so.

I do not wish to speak about details, but one of the demands, which I made at once—this is important in connection with the Indictment—was that there should be no difficulties placed in the way of young people’s participation in church services. That was promised to me, and it was expressed very clearly in my first directives for the children’s evacuation. The youth leaders who were active in this field of my organizational work will confirm this.

DR. SAUTER: This evacuation of children to the country was a very extensive task, was it not?

VON SCHIRACH: It was the most difficult, and from a psychological point of view, the most complicated work which I ever carried out. I transferred millions of people in this way; I supplied them with food, with education, with medical aid, and so on. Of course that work took up my time fully or to a large extent only during the first years. After that I had trained my assistants for that kind of work.

DR. SAUTER: Later, as I have heard from you, you tried from time to time to report to Hitler about your successes and about problems requiring decision. How often during the entire years of the war were you admitted to discuss that important field of work with Hitler?

VON SCHIRACH: Mr. Attorney, I am afraid I have to correct you. I never tried to report to Hitler about my successes, but only about my problems.

DR. SAUTER: Problems, yes.

VON SCHIRACH: About that entire program of evacuation of children I could only report to him twice; the first time in 1940, after I had got the whole program under way, and the second time in 1941, when the evacuation had reached very large proportions.

And about Vienna I could only report on very rare occasions, and in 1943 the possibility of reporting ceased altogether with the breach of relations which I will describe later.

DR. SAUTER: Then, during your period in Vienna you became the Chairman of the Würzburg Bibliophile Society.

VON SCHIRACH: That is an honorary office, the Würzburg Bibliophile Convention had appointed me Chairman of the German Bibliophile Society.

DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, Schirach—Number Schirach-1 of the document book makes reference to that matter, and I submit it as a piece of evidence. It it an affidavit by an old anti-Fascist, Karl Klingspor, an honorary member of the society, who gives valuable information about the character of the Defendant Von Schirach.

And in addition, Herr Von Schirach, I believe you were the Chairman of the Southeast Europe Society, is that correct?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: In brief, what was the mission of that society?

VON SCHIRACH: It had as its purpose the improvement of trade relations, economic relations, with the southeast. Its functions were essentially in the field of research and representation.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, what were your main Viennese activities?

VON SCHIRACH: My principal activities in Vienna were social work and cultural work, as I have already explained before.

DR. SAUTER: Social work and cultural work?

VON SCHIRACH: These were the two poles which dominated my entire political life.

DR. SAUTER: I come now to the particular accusations which have been made against you by the Prosecution concerning that period in Vienna. Among other things you have been accused of participating in the so-called slave-labor program, and I ask you to state your position concerning that, and in that connection also to deal with Directive Number 1 of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, of 6 April 1942, which was presented, I believe, as Document 3352-PS. Please go ahead.

VON SCHIRACH: Maybe I would do best to start with the decree by which Gauleiter were appointed Plenipotentiaries for the Allocation of Labor under the Plenipotentiary General.

DR. SAUTER: 6 April 1942.

VON SCHIRACH: In the way of documentary material that decree contains no more than that the Gauleiter could make suggestions and submit requests to the competent offices for the allocation of labor. But they were held responsible—I do not know whether by this decree or another one—for the supervision of the feeding and quartering, et cetera, of foreign workers. This feeding and quartering, et cetera, of foreign workers was—in my Gau and I believe also in all other Gaue of the Reich—mainly in the hands of the German Labor Front.

The Gauobmann of the German Labor Front in Vienna reported to me very frequently about the conditions among German workers and foreign workers in the Gau. He often accompanied me on inspection tours of industries; and from my own observations I can describe my impressions here of the life of foreign workers in Vienna as far as I could watch it.

I well remember, for instance, my visit to a large soap factory where I saw barracks in which Russian and French women were living. They had better quarters there than many Viennese families which lived six or eight people in the usual one-room apartments with kitchen. I remember another inspection where I saw a billet of Russian workers. It was clean and neat, and among the Russian women who were there I noticed that they were gay, well-nourished, and apparently satisfied. I know about the treatment of Russian domestic workers from the circle of my acquaintances and from the acquaintances of many assistants; and here, also, I have heard, and in part observed myself, that they were extremely well treated.

Let me say something in general about Vienna as a place for foreign workers. For centuries foreign workers have worked in Vienna. To bring foreign workers from the southeast to Vienna is no problem at all. One likes to go to Vienna, just as one likes to go to Paris. I have seen very many Frenchmen and French women working in Vienna, and at times I spoke with them. I also talked to French foremen in the factories. They lived as tenants somewhere in the city, just like any other private person. One saw them in the Prater. They spent their free time just as our own native workers did.

During the time I was in Vienna, I built more factory kitchens than there are in any other Gau in Germany. The foreign workers frequented these kitchens just as much as the native workers.

About treatment at the hands of the population, I can only say that the population of a city which has been accustomed for centuries to work together with foreign elements, will spontaneously treat any worker well who comes from the outside.

Really bad conditions were never reported to me. From time to time it was reported that something was not going well here or there. It was the duty of the Gauobmann of the Labor Front to report that to me. Then I immediately issued a directive from my desk by telephone to the regional food office or the quota office for the supply of material, for kitchens or heating installations, or whatever it was. At any rate, I tried within 24 or 48 hours to take care of all complaints that came to me.

While we are on the subject I would like to give my impression of the use of manpower in general. I am not responsible for the importation of labor. I can only say that what I saw in the way of directives and orders from the Plenipotentiary General, namely the Codefendant Sauckel, always followed the line of humane, decent, just, and clean treatment of the workers who were entrusted to us. Sauckel literally flooded his offices with such directives.

I considered it my duty to state that in my testimony.

DR. SAUTER: These foreign workers, who were in the Gau Vienna and for whom you do not consider yourself responsible, were they employed in the armament industry or elsewhere?

VON SCHIRACH: A large portion was employed in agriculture, some in the supply industry. Whether there were some directly in the armament industry I could not say. The armament industry was not accessible to me in all its ramifications, even in my functions as Gauleiter, because there were war production processes which were kept secret even from the Reichsstatthalter.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, in connection with the subject of Jewish forced labor, a letter was read, Document 3803-PS. It is, I believe, a handwritten letter from the Defendant Kaltenbrunner to Blaschke. Blaschke, I believe, was the second mayor of Vienna.

VON SCHIRACH: He was the mayor of Vienna.

DR. SAUTER: This is a letter of 30 June 1944. In that letter Kaltenbrunner informs Blaschke that he had directed that several evacuation transports should be sent to Vienna-Strasshof. “There are four transports,” it says in the letter, “with about 12,000 Jews, which will arrive in the next few days.” So much about the letter. Its further content is only of importance because of what it says in the end—and I quote:

“I beg you to arrange further details with the State Police Office, Vienna, SS Obersturmbannführer Dr. Ebner, and SS Obersturmbannführer Krumey, of the Special Action Command Hungary, who is at present in Vienna.”

Did you have anything to do with that matter, and if so what?

VON SCHIRACH: I do not know of the correspondence between the Codefendant Kaltenbrunner and the mayor of Vienna. To my knowledge Camp Strasshof is not within Gau Vienna at all. It is in an altogether different Gau. The designation, “Vienna-Strasshof,” is, therefore, an error. The border runs in between the two.

DR. SAUTER: And were you informed of the matter itself at that time, or only here in the courtroom?

VON SCHIRACH: I know of that matter only from this courtroom, but I remember that mention was made about the use of Jewish workers in connection with the building of the Southeast Wall or fortifications. The Southeast Wall, however, was not in the area of Reich Gau Vienna. It was a project in the area of Gau Lower Danube, Lower Austria, or Styria. I had nothing to do with the construction of the Southeast Wall; that was in the hands of Dr. Jury, that is, the O. T....

DR. SAUTER: O. T. is the Organization Todt?

VON SCHIRACH: ...the Organization Todt. And in the other part of the border it was in the hands of Dr. Uiberreither, the Gauleiter of Styria, and his technical assistants.

DR. SAUTER: So I can sum up your statement to mean that you had nothing to do with these things because they were matters which did not concern your Gau.

VON SCHIRACH: Yes. I cannot understand what connection there should be with Gau Vienna. Whether the mayor intended to divert some of these workers for special tasks in Vienna is not known to me. I do not know about that matter.

DR. SAUTER: In the same connection, Witness, another document has been submitted, 1948-PS, a file note of 7 November 1940. That was a date on which you had already been Gauleiter in Vienna for several months and it, too, concerns forced labor of the Jews who were capable of work. That file note was written on stationery with the heading “The Reichsstatthalter in Vienna,” and apparently the note in question was written by a Dr. Fischer. Who is Dr. Fischer? What did you, as Reichsstatthalter, have to do with that matter? What do you know about it?

VON SCHIRACH: First of all, Dr. Fischer is not known to me personally. I do not want to dispute the possibility that he may have been introduced to me once and that I do not remember him; but I do not know who Dr. Fischer is. At any rate, he was not an expert working in my central office. I assume that he may have been an official, because his name appears in connection with another document also. He was probably the personal consultant of the Regierungspräsident. The note shows that this official used my stationery, and he was entitled to do that. I believe several thousand people in Vienna were entitled to use that stationery, according to the usage of German offices.

On this note he has put down a telephone conversation with the Gestapo from which it can be seen that the Reich Security Main Office—that is Heydrich—was the office which decided, by internal directives to the Gestapo, on the use of Jewish manpower.

The Regierungspräsident wanted to know more about that; but I believe one cannot draw the conclusion from this that I was informed about cruelties committed by the Gestapo, as the Prosecution has concluded. It is doubtful whether I was in Vienna at all at that time. I want to remind you of my other tasks, which I have described before.

However, if I was there, I certainly did not concern myself with the work of cleaning up the streets. But I should like to say that the variety of my tasks caused me to establish an organizational structure which did not exist in other Gaue, namely, the Central Office of the Reich Leader.

DR. SAUTER: Perhaps you will tell us, before concluding for today, approximately how many officials in Vienna were subordinated to you.

VON SCHIRACH: I guess it may have been about 5,000 officials and employees.

DR. SAUTER: Shall I continue, Mr. President? It is 5:00 o’clock.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn.

[The Tribunal adjourned, until 24 May 1946 at 1000 hours.]

ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-EIGHTH DAY Friday, 24 May 1946

Morning Session

[The Defendant Von Schirach resumed the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: Is counsel for the Defendant Bormann present?

DR. FRIEDRICH BERGOLD (Counsel for Defendant Bormann): Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Would it be convenient to you to present your documents on Tuesday at 10 o’clock?

DR. BERGOLD: Yes, agreed.

THE PRESIDENT: Would it be convenient to the Prosecution?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: Quite convenient, would it?

DR. BERGOLD: Yes, indeed.

DR. SAUTER: Your Honors, we left off yesterday with Document Number 1948-PS. That, as you will recall, is a memorandum by a certain Dr. Fischer about a telephone conversation he had held with an official of the Secret State Police, Standartenführer Huber, from Vienna, and refers to forced labor of Jewish youth. Special mention is made of the employment of Jews in the removal of ruined synagogues. In connection with this memorandum I should like to put just one more question to the Defendant Schirach.

[Turning to the defendant.] When were these synagogues destroyed in Vienna? Was it in your time and on your responsibility, or at another time?

VON SCHIRACH: The synagogues in Vienna were destroyed 2 years before I assumed office in Vienna.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, I now proceed to the chapter on anti-Semitism which—according to your admission yesterday—you followed in your youth. I should like to know what your attitude was, when you joined the Party and when you became an official in the Party, toward a practical solution of this anti-Semitism?

VON SCHIRACH: According to my opinion—in 1924-1925—Jews were to be entirely excluded from the civil service. Their influence in economic life was to be limited. I believed that Jewish influence in cultural life should be restricted. But for artists of the rank of, for instance, Max Reinhardt, I still envisioned the possibility of a free participation in this cultural life. That, I believe, exactly reflects the opinion which I and my comrades held on the solution of the “Jewish Problem” in 1924-1925 and in the following years.

Later, when I was leading the high-school youth movement, I put forward the demand for the so-called Numerus clausus. It was my wish that the Jews should be allowed to study only on a proportional basis commensurate to their percentage of the total population. I believe one can realize from this demand for the Numerus clausus, known to the entire generation of students in that period, that I did not believe in a total exclusion of the Jews from artistic, economic, and scientific activities.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, I have submitted a document, Document Schirach-136, in the Schirach document book, which contains statements by an official of the Reich Youth Leadership about the treatment of Jewish youth as contrasted with Christian youth. Do you know what attitude the Reich Youth Leadership had adopted at that time toward the Jewish youth?

VON SCHIRACH: I believe that we are dealing with the decree of the year 1936.

DR. SAUTER: Autumn 1936?

VON SCHIRACH: Autumn 1936. According to that, Jewish youth organizations were to exist under the official supervision of the Reich Youth Leader, who controlled all the youth of Germany, and Jewish youth would be able to carry out their own youth education autonomously.

DR. SAUTER: It says in that decree, inter alia—I quote one sentence only from Document Schirach-136 of the Schirach document book:

“Today in its youth, Judaism already assumes that special, isolated position, free within its own boundaries, which at some future date Judaism will occupy within the German State and in the economy of Germany and which it has already occupied to a great extent.”

Witness, at about the same time, or shortly before then, the so-called Nuremberg Laws had been promulgated, those racial laws which we have frequently heard mentioned here.

Did you help pass these laws, and how did you personally judge these laws?

VON SCHIRACH: I had no part in the drafting of these laws. In my room at the Hotel Deutscher Hof, here in Nuremberg, I was surprised to find a slip of paper stating that there would be a Reichstag meeting on the next day and that it would take place in Nuremberg. At that Reichstag meeting, at which I was present, the Nuremberg Laws were promulgated. I do not know to this day how they were drafted. I assume that Hitler himself determined their contents. I can tell you no more about them.

DR. SAUTER: Can you state on your oath, and with a clear conscience, that before these laws were published you had not known of the plan for such laws, although you had been Reich Youth Leader and Reichsleiter?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: After these laws had been promulgated in Nuremberg, how did you personally envisage the further development of the Jewish problem?

VON SCHIRACH: I must say, first of all, that we had, as a matter of fact, not expected these laws at all. I believe that the entire youth of the country at that time considered the Jewish problem as solved, since in 1935 there could be no more question of any Jewish influence. After these laws had been published we were of the opinion that now, definitely, the last word had been spoken on the Jewish problem.

DR. SAUTER: Briefly, Witness, you are accused of having incited and influenced the youth of the country. I therefore ask you: As Reich Youth Leader did you incite youth to anti-Semitic excesses, or did you, as Reich Youth Leader, and particularly at meetings of the Hitler Youth, make any inflammatory anti-Semitic speeches?

VON SCHIRACH: I did not make any inflammatory anti-Semitic speeches, since I attempted, both as Reich Youth Leader and youth educator, not to add fuel to the fire; for neither in my books nor in my speeches—with the exception of one speech in Vienna, to which I shall refer later on and which was not made at the time when I was Reich Youth Leader—have I made any inflammatory statements of an anti-Semitic nature.

I will not make myself ridiculous by stating here that I was not an anti-Semite; I was—although I never addressed myself to the youth in that sense.

DR. SAUTER: The office of the Reich Youth Leader published an official monthly entitled Will and Power, Leadership Publication of the National Socialist Youth. Excerpts from this official publication have previously been submitted to the Tribunal in the document book.

Now I would be interested to know: Is it true that certain Party authorities repeatedly demanded from you that you publish a special anti-Semitic issue of this official Youth Leadership publication in order to show the youth of the country the path to follow in the future, and what was your attitude with regard to that demand?

VON SCHIRACH: It is true that the Reich Minister for Propaganda repeatedly demanded of my editor-in-chief that such an anti-Semitic issue should be published. On receiving the report of the editor-in-chief I invariably refused to comply with this request. I believe that the editor-in-chief has already signed a sworn affidavit to that effect.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, the question of anti-Semitism would also include your attitude to Der Stürmer, the paper issued by your fellow-Defendant, Streicher. Did you distribute this anti-Semitic paper Der Stürmer within your youth organization, and did you in any way further its distribution?

VON SCHIRACH: Der Stürmer was not distributed within the youth organization. I believe that with the sole exception of those of the young people who lived in this Gau...

DR. SAUTER: Gau Franken?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, Gau Franken—that the rest of the German youth organization never read Der Stürmer at all. The paper was definitely rejected by all the youth leaders—both boys and girls—in my organization.

DR. SAUTER: Then, Witness, I must point out to you that the Prosecution have accused you of having given, on one occasion, an introduction to this paper, this anti-Jewish paper Der Stürmer. Do you know about it, and what have you got to say on the matter?

VON SCHIRACH: I can say the following in this respect. I was always in close collaboration with the press; in fact, I came from the press myself. In my press office, as Reich Youth Leader, I gave definite instructions that all requests from Gau papers for an introduction, or something else of the kind from me should be granted on principle. Therefore, whenever a Gau paper celebrated a jubilee—perhaps the tenth or twentieth anniversary of its existence, or published some special issue—then the experts in my press office would run up a draft and, together with the considerable volume of evening mail presented to me for my signature, these drafts and elaborations would be submitted to me. In this way it might have happened that I signed that introduction for Der Stürmer which, of course, was the paper of the local Gau. Otherwise I have no recollection of the episode.

DR. SAUTER: Consequently you cannot remember whether you drafted that short introduction yourself, or whether it was drafted by one of your experts and presented to you for signature?

VON SCHIRACH: I definitely believe that I did not draft it myself, because such short introductions—as already stated—were always submitted to me. I wrote my newspaper articles myself but never introductions of this description.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, since we have just mentioned the name of Streicher, I would remind you of a very ugly picture book which was submitted here by the Prosecution. Was that picture book distributed among the youth with your consent, or do you know anything else about it?

VON SCHIRACH: Of course this book was not distributed among the young people. It is quite out of the question that an office of the HJ (Hitler Jugend) would have transmitted that book to the youth. Besides, the picture books of the Stürmer Publishing Firm are unknown to me. I am, of course, not competent to speak on education in the schools, but I should also like to say on behalf of education in the schools that I do not believe this picture book was ever introduced into any school outside of this Gau. At any rate, that book and similar writings of the Stürmer Publishing Firm were not, as a rule, distributed among the young people and the youth organizations. What I have already said when judging Der Stürmer also holds good for these books—namely, that the leadership corps of the Hitler Youth categorically rejected writings of this description.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, you have also experienced how the anti-Semitic question actually developed and how it eventually resulted in the well-known anti-Jewish pogroms of November 1938. Did you yourself, in any way, participate in these anti-Jewish pogroms of November 1938?

VON SCHIRACH: I personally did not participate in any way, but I did participate in the Munich session...

DR. SAUTER: Which session?

VON SCHIRACH: The session which was traditionally held on 9 November of each year in memory of those who had fallen on 9 November 1923. I did not take part in all the discussions of that day. But I do remember a speech by Goebbels in connection with the murder of Herr Vom Rath. That speech was definitely of an inflammatory nature, and one was free to assume from this speech that Goebbels intended to start some action. He is alleged—but that I only discovered later—to have given detailed instructions for this action directly from his hotel in Munich to the Reich Propaganda Ministry. I was present at the Munich session, as was my colleague Lauterbacher, my chief of staff, and we both rejected the action. The HJ, as the largest National Socialist organization, was not employed at all in the anti-Jewish pogroms, of 9, 10, and 11 November 1938. I remember one incident where a youth leader, without referring to my Berlin office and carried away by some local propaganda, took part in a demonstration and was later called to account by me for so doing. After 10 November I was again in Munich for a few days and visited, inter alia, a few of the destroyed business houses and villas as well. It made a terrible impression on me at the time, and under that impression I instructed the entire Youth Leadership, the regional leaders if I remember rightly—in other words, all the highest responsible youth leaders—to come to Berlin and there, in an address to these youth leaders, I described the incidents of the 9 and 10 November as a disgrace to our culture. I also referred to it as a criminal action. I believe that all the colleagues present on that occasion will clearly remember how agitated I was and that I told them that my organization, both now and in the future, would never have anything to do with acts of this sort.

DR. SAUTER: You previously mentioned one individual case where an HJ leader, subordinate to you, participated in some action. Did you know of other cases, in November 1938 and after, where units of the HJ were factually supposed to have participated in the anti-Jewish pogroms?

VON SCHIRACH: No, I know of no other cases. The only thing I did hear was that here and there individual lads, or groups of youths, were called out into the streets by local authorities which were not of the HJ. In the majority of cases these lads were promptly sent home again by the youth leaders. The organization was never employed, and I attach great importance to the statement that the youth organization, which included more members than the Party itself with all its affiliated organizations, was never involved in these incidents.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, you saw at least, from the incidents in November 1938, that developments in Germany were taking a different trend to the course you had expected—if we are to judge by your previous description. How did you, after November 1938, envisage the further solution of the Jewish problem?

VON SCHIRACH: After the events of 1938 I realized that Jewry’s one chance lay in a state-supported emigration; for in view of Goebbels’ temper, it seemed probable to me that overnight similar actions could arise from time to time, and under such conditions of legal insecurity I could not see how the Jews could continue living in Germany. That is one of the reasons why Hitler’s idea of a closed Jewish settlement in the Polish Government General, of which he told me at his headquarters in 1940, was clear to me. I thought that the Jews would be better off in a closed settlement in Poland than in Germany or Austria, where they would remain exposed to the whims of the Propaganda Minister who was the mainstay of anti-Semitism in Germany.

DR. SAUTER: Is it true that you yourself, whenever you had a chance of approaching Hitler, gave him your own positive suggestions for settling the Jews in some neutral country, under humane conditions?

VON SCHIRACH: No, that is not true.

DR. SAUTER: Well?

VON SCHIRACH: I should like fully to elucidate this matter. I mentioned yesterday how I had reported to Hitler and how he had told me that the Viennese Jews would be sent to the Government General. Before that, I had never thought of an emigration of the Jews from Austria and Germany for resettlement in the Government General. I had only thought of a Jewish emigration to countries where the Jews wanted to go. But Hitler’s plan, as it then existed—and I believe that at that time the idea of exterminating the Jews had not yet entered his mind—this plan of resettlement sounded perfectly reasonable to me—reasonable at that time.

DR. SAUTER: But I believe that in 1942 you are supposed to have tried, through the kind offices of your friend, Dr. Colin Ross, to suggest to Hitler that the Jews from Hungary and the Balkan States be allowed to emigrate to some neutral country, taking their goods and chattels with them.

VON SCHIRACH: That was at a later date. I no longer remember exactly when, but in any case it was after the occupation of Hungary. Among the innumerable suggestions which I made to the Führer and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs through Colin Ross, was one to the effect that the entire Jewish population of Hungary be transferred to the neutral countries. If the witness Steengracht has stated here that this idea had been discussed in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and that it had emanated from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, then he probably spoke in good faith. The idea originated in discussions held between Colin Ross and myself, and Ross then put it down in the form of a memorandum. But—and this is specially important—it was reported verbally to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs who, in turn, informed Colin Ross, on the occasion of a further visit, that the Führer had definitely turned the suggestion down.

DR. SAUTER: The emigration to neutral countries abroad?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, to neutral countries abroad.

DR. SAUTER: The majority of the Viennese Jews, Witness, were—as you yourself know—deported from Vienna. In 1940, when you became Gauleiter in Vienna—or later on—did you ever receive a directive from Hitler to the effect that you yourself should carry out this deportation of the Jews from Vienna or that you should participate in the deportation?

VON SCHIRACH: I never received any such directive. The only directive which I received in connection with the deportation of the Jewish population from Vienna was a question from Hitler asking about the number of Jews living in Vienna at the time. That number, which I had forgotten, was recalled to my memory by a document put to me by the Prosecution. According to that document I reported to Hitler that 60,000 Jews were then living in Vienna. That figure probably comes from the registration office. In former times about 190,000 Jews, all told, lived in Vienna. That, I believe, was the highest figure reached. When I came to Vienna there were still 60,000 Jews left. The deportation of the Jews was a measure immediately directed, on orders from Hitler, or by Himmler; and there existed in Vienna an office of the Reich Security Main Office, or local branch office under Himmler-Heydrich, which carried out these measures.

DR. SAUTER: Who was in charge of that office?

VON SCHIRACH: The head of that office was—that I found out now; I did not know his name at the time—a certain Brunner.

DR. SAUTER: An SS Sturmführer?

VON SCHIRACH: An SS Sturmführer, Dr. Brunner.

DR. SAUTER: The one who, a few days ago, is supposed to have been condemned to death? Did you know that?

VON SCHIRACH: I heard it yesterday.

DR. SAUTER: Did you have to issue any orders to this Brunner who was an SS leader, or could you give him any kind of instructions?

VON SCHIRACH: It was entirely impossible for me to stop the deportation of the Jews or to have any influence thereupon. Once, as early as 1940, I told the chief of my Regional Food Supply Office that he should see to it that departing Jewish people be provided with sufficient food. Frequently, when Jews wrote to me requesting to be exempted from deportation, I charged my adjutant or some assistant to intervene with Brunner so that possibly an exception might be made for these persons. More I could not do. But I have to admit frankly, here and now, that I was of the opinion that this deportation was really in the interests of Jewry, for the reasons which I have already stated in connection with the events of 1938.

DR. SAUTER: Did the SS, which in Vienna too was charged with the evacuation of the Jews, send continuous reports as to how and to what extent this evacuation of the Jews was carried out?

VON SCHIRACH: No. I am, therefore, also not in a position to state when the deportation of the Jews was concluded and whether the entire 60,000 were dragged out of Vienna or if only a part of them was carried off.

DR. SAUTER: Did not the newspapers in Vienna report anything at all about these deportations of the Jews, about the extent of the deportations and the abuses occasioned in this connection?

VON SCHIRACH: No.

DR. SAUTER: Nothing? But, Witness, I must put a document to you which has been submitted by the Prosecution. It is Document Number 3048-PS, an excerpt from the Viennese edition of the Völkischer Beobachter, on a speech which you, Witness, made on 15 September 1942 in Vienna, and in which occurs the sentence—I quote from the newspaper:

“Every Jew who operates in Europe is a danger to European culture. If I were to be accused of having deported tens of thousands of Jews from this city, once the European metropolis of Jewry, to the Eastern ghetto, I would have to reply, ‘I see in that an active contribution to European culture.’”

Thus runs the quotation from your speech which otherwise contains no anti-Semitic declarations on your part. Considering your previous statements, Witness, I am compelled to ask you: Did you make that speech, and how did you come to make it despite your basic attitude which you have previously described to us?

VON SCHIRACH: First, I want to say that I did make that speech. The quotation is correct. I said that. I must stand by what I have said. Although the plan of the deportation of the Jews was Hitler’s plan and I was not charged with its execution, I did utter those words, which I now sincerely regret; but I must say that I identified myself morally with that action only out of a feeling of misplaced loyalty to the Führer. That I have done, and that cannot be undone. If I am to explain how I came to do this, I can only reply that at that time I was already “between the Devil and the deep sea.” I believe it will also become clear from my later statements that from a certain moment on I had Hitler against me, the Party Chancellery against me, and very many members of the Party itself against me. Constantly I heard from officials of the Party Chancellery who expressed that to the Gauleiter of Vienna, and from statements made in Hitler’s entourage that one was under the impression—and that this could be clearly recognized from my attitude and my actions—that I was no longer expressing myself publicly in the usual anti-Semitic manner or in other ways, either; and I just have no excuse. But it may perhaps serve as an explanation, that I was trying to extricate myself from this painful situation by speaking in a manner which today I can no longer justify to myself.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, I should like to ask you, in this connection—you have just spoken of a painful situation in which you found yourself in Vienna. Is it true that Hitler himself, on various occasions, reproached you personally and severely because your attitude in Vienna had not been sufficiently energetic, that you had become too slack and too yielding; that you should concern yourself more with the interests of the Party, and that you should adopt far stricter methods? And what, Witness, did you then do?

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, I assume that you realize that you are putting questions in the most leading form, that you are putting questions which suggest the answer to the defendant, and such questions cannot possibly carry—the answers to such questions cannot possibly carry the weight which answers given to questions not in their leading form would carry.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, did Hitler personally reproach you for your behavior in Vienna, and what attitude did you adopt?

I believe that is not a suggestive question.

THE PRESIDENT: I think it is. I should have thought it is a leading question. He says he was in a very difficult situation. You could ask him if he would explain what was the difficulty of the situation.

DR. SAUTER: Very well. Then will you answer this question, Witness?

VON SCHIRACH: Counsel for the defense, I could not, in any case, have accepted the question in the form in which you previously presented it.

The difference between Hitler and myself arose primarily over an art exhibition, and the breach between Hitler and myself in 1943 was in the beginning the result of differences of opinion over the cultural policy. In 1943 I was ordered to the Berghof where Hitler, in the presence of Bormann, criticized me violently on account of my cultural work and literally said that I was leading the cultural opposition against him in Germany. And further, in the course of the conversation he said that I was mobilizing the spiritual forces of Vienna and Austria and the spiritual forces of the young people against him in cultural spheres. He said he knew it very well indeed. He had read some of my speeches, primarily the Düsseldorf speech; he had discovered that I had authorized in Weimar and in Vienna art exhibitions of a decadent nature; and he offered me the alternative, either to end this kind of oppositional work immediately—then for the time being everything could remain as in the past—or he would stop all Government subsidies for Vienna.

This scene made a frightful impression on me, for it represented to me a breach of Hitler’s promised word, since he had granted me absolute freedom of action when he appointed me to the Vienna mission. I then recognized that he nourished an icy hatred toward me, and that behind these statements on cultural policies something else was concealed. Whether he was dissatisfied in every detail with the way I conducted my office in Vienna at the time, I do not know. He rarely expressed himself directly about such matters. From his entourage I learned only of occasional happenings.

I then—and that led to the complete and final break between Hitler and myself—a few weeks after I had received this order, if I may call it so, received a strange invitation for myself and my wife to spend some time on the Berghof. At that time I innocently believed that Hitler wished to bridge the gap between us and to let me know, in one way or another, that he had gone too far. In any case, at the end of a 3 days’ visit—I cut my stay short—I discovered that this was a fundamental error on my part. Here I will limit myself to a few points only. I had intended—and I also carried out my intention—to mention at least three points during my visit. One was the policy toward Russia, the second was the Jewish question, and the third was Hitler’s attitude toward Vienna.

I must state, to begin with, that Bormann had issued a decree addressed to me, and probably to all the other Gauleiters, prohibiting any intervention on our part in the Jewish question. That is to say, we could not intervene with Hitler in favor of any Jew or half-Jew. That too was stated in the decree. I have to mention this, since it makes matters clearer.

On the first evening of my stay at the Berghof, on what appeared to me a propitious occasion, I told Hitler that I was of the opinion that a free and autonomous Ukraine would serve the Reich better than a Ukraine ruled by the violence of Herr Koch. That was all I said, nothing more, nothing less. Knowing Hitler as I did, it was extremely difficult even to hazard such a remark. Hitler answered comparatively quietly but with pronounced sharpness. On the same evening, or possibly the next one, the Jewish question was broached according to a plan I made with my wife. Since I was forbidden to mention these things even in conversation, my wife gave the Führer a description of an experience she had had in Holland. She had witnessed one night, from the bedroom of her hotel, the deportation of Jewish women by the Gestapo. We were both of the opinion that this experience during her journey and the description of it might possibly result in a change of Hitler’s attitude toward the entire Jewish question and in the treatment of the Jews. My wife gave a very drastic description, a description such as we can now read in the papers. Hitler was silent. All the other witnesses to this conversation, including my own father-in-law, Professor Hoffmann, were also silent. The silence was icy, and after a short time Hitler merely said, “This is pure sentimentality.” That was all. No further conversation took place that evening. Hitler retired earlier than usual. I was under the impression that a perfectly untenable situation had now arisen. Then the men of Hitler’s entourage told my father-in-law that from now on I would have to fear for my safety. I endeavored to get away from the Berghof as quickly as possible without letting matters come to an open break, but I did not succeed.

Then Goebbels arrived on the next evening and there, in my presence and without my starting it, the subject of Vienna was broached. I was naturally compelled to protest against the statements which Goebbels at first made about the Viennese. Then the Führer began with, I might say, incredible and unlimited hatred to speak against the people of Vienna. I have to admit, here and now, that even if the people of Vienna are cursing me today, I have always felt very friendly toward them. I have felt closely attached to those people. I will not say more than that Joseph Weinheber was one of my closest friends. During that discussion, I, in accordance with my duty and my feelings, spoke in favor of the people under my authority in Vienna.

At 4 o’clock in the morning, among other things, Hitler suddenly said, something which I should now like to repeat for historical reasons. He said, “Vienna should never have been admitted into the Union of Greater Germany.” Hitler never loved Vienna. He hated its people. I believe that he had a liking for the city because he appreciated the architectural design of the buildings on the Ring. But everybody who knows Vienna knows that the true Vienna is architecturally Gothic, and that the buildings on the Ring are not really representative.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, I consider that this subject has little to do with the Indictment—please adhere to the Indictment.

VON SCHIRACH: I shall now conclude. I only want to say that so total a break resulted from that discussion—or, rather explosion—of Hitler’s that on that very night at about 0430 I took my leave and left the Berghof a few hours later. Since then I had no further conversations with Hitler.

I must now refer to something else in this connection. Reich Marshal Göring, in the witness box, mentioned a letter of mine which Hitler had shown him, and Herr Von Ribbentrop has stated here that he was present at a conversation during which Himmler suggested to Hitler that I be indicted before the People’s Court, which meant in reality that I should be hanged. I must add one thing more: What Göring said about this letter is mainly true. I wrote in quite a proper manner about family relations in that letter. I also wrote one sentence to the effect that I considered war with America a disaster.

DR. SAUTER: When was that letter written?

VON SCHIRACH: 1943, shortly after my stay at the Berghof. That statement contained nothing special, since Hitler even without...

THE PRESIDENT: He hasn’t given the date of his stay at the Berghof yet.

DR. SAUTER: He has said 1943, Mr. President. He has just said 1943.

THE PRESIDENT: There are 12 months in 1943.

DR. SAUTER: I believe you ought to give us the month.

VON SCHIRACH: I believe that the conversation on the Berghof was in the spring, and that the letter, though I cannot tell you precisely when, was written in the summer.

DR. SAUTER: Summer of 1943?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, 1943; but I could not say precisely when the letter was written. The letter was correct. It was written by hand, and no secretary read it. It went by courier to the head of the State.

DR. SAUTER: To Hitler personally?

VON SCHIRACH: To Hitler. It is also possible that it was addressed in care of Bormann. I cannot remember exactly. It went by courier, and that letter contained nothing else but the clarification required for replying to questions put to me in a circular which Göring mentioned in his statement here. That letter caused Hitler to have an absolute loathing for me; and at about the same time a file was started against me in the Reich Security Main Office. That was due to the fact that I had described in a small circle of political leaders—of high-ranking political leaders—the foreign political situation such as I saw it, as I was accustomed to do from the days of my youth. One of these leaders was an SS intelligence officer and reported what I said, and then the file was started. The material was compiled in order to eventually bring me to trial. That I was never brought to trial I owe solely and exclusively to the circumstance that both in the Army and at home my comrades from the Youth Leadership stood solidly behind me, and any proceedings against me would have led to trouble. After 20 July 1944 my situation became very precarious. My friends in the Army, therefore, placed a company of hand-picked men at my disposal. They were under the orders of the former adjutant of Generaloberst Fromm. The company was directly subordinate to me. It took over the protection of my person and remained with me to the end.

DR. SAUTER: Was that company of the Wehrmacht, which you have just mentioned, placed at your disposal in place of the police protection previously afforded you?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, I have to refer once more to your Vienna speech of September 1942. In that speech you speak of the deportation of tens of thousands of Jews to the Eastern ghetto. You did not speak about the extermination or the murder of the Jews. When did you discover that Hitler’s plan aimed at extermination or destruction?

VON SCHIRACH: Counsel, if I at that time had known anything about the destruction—that is the extermination of the Jews—I would not be sitting here today. As far as I can recall, I heard about an extermination of the Jews for the first time through the following incident.

Dr. Ross came to see me...

DR. SAUTER: Who?

VON SCHIRACH: Dr. Colin Ross came to Vienna in 1944 and told me that he had received information, via the foreign press, that mass murders of Jews had been perpetrated on a large scale in the East. I then attempted to find out all I could. What I did discover was that in the Warthegau executions of Jews were carried out in gas vans. These shootings in the East...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, what was the Gau that he spoke of? The Wart Gau?

DR. SAUTER: The Warthegau, My Lord.

VON SCHIRACH: The Warthegau.

DR. SAUTER: That is a Gau, a district on the Polish border. That is an area in the east of Germany,—W-a-r-t-h-e-g-a-u—in the west of Poland, near Silesia.

Please, Witness, will you continue briefly:

VON SCHIRACH: The executions, the shootings on Russian territory, mentioned in the documents submitted in the course of the cross-examination in the Kaltenbrunner case, were not known to me at that time. But at a later date—it was before 1944—I heard about shootings in the ghettos of the Russian area and connected this with developments on the front, since I thought of possible armed uprisings in the ghettos. I knew nothing of the organized annihilation which has been described to us in the Trial.

DR. SAUTER: Then, if I have heard you correctly, you were informed about these events for the first time in 1944 by your friend, Dr. Colin Ross, who knew it from reports in the foreign papers?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: Do you still remember the month?

VON SCHIRACH: That I cannot say.

DR. SAUTER: In any case it would be in 1944?

VON SCHIRACH: That again I cannot say. But I believe I have to explain something more about it. I asked myself what can one do to prevent it? And I still ask myself, day after day, what did I do to prevent it? I can only answer practically nothing, since from 1943 on I was politically dead. Beyond what I had attempted in 1943 on the Berghof, I could do nothing at all.

DR. SAUTER: Nothing?

VON SCHIRACH: Nothing.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, I should in this connection like to ask you a question of principle. You admitted yesterday that you had become an anti-Semite—and that is according to your conception—in your very early youth. You have, in the interim, heard the testimony of Hoess, the Auschwitz commander, who informed us that in that camp alone, I believe, 2,500,000 to 3,000,000 innocent people, mostly Jews, had been done to death. What, today, does the name of Auschwitz convey to you?

VON SCHIRACH: It is the greatest, the most devilish mass murder known to history. But that murder was not committed by Hoess; Hoess was merely the executioner. The murder was ordered by Adolf Hitler, as is obvious from his last will and testament. The will is genuine. I have held the photostat copy of that will in my hands. He and Himmler jointly committed that crime which, for all time, will be a stain in the annals of our history. It is a crime which fills every German with shame.

The youth of Germany is guiltless. Our youth was anti-Semitically inclined, but it did not call for the extermination of Jewry. It neither realized nor imagined that Hitler had carried out this extermination by the daily murder of thousands of innocent people. The youth of Germany who, today, stand perplexed among the ruins of their native land, knew nothing of these crimes, nor did they desire them. They are innocent of all that Hitler has done to the Jewish and to the German people.

I should like to say the following in connection with Hoess’ case. I have educated this generation in faith and loyalty to Hitler. The Youth Organization which I built up bore his name. I believed that I was serving a leader who would make our people and the youth of our country great and happy and free. Millions of young people believed this, together with me, and saw their ultimate ideal in National Socialism. Many died for it. Before God, before the German nation, and before my German people I alone bear the guilt of having trained our young people for a man whom I for many long years had considered unimpeachable, both as a leader and as the head of the State, of creating for him a generation who saw him as I did. The guilt is mine in that I educated the youth of Germany for a man who murdered by the millions. I believed in this man, that is all I can say for my excuse and for the characterization of my attitude. This is my own—my own personal guilt. I was responsible for the youth of the country. I was placed in authority over the young people, and the guilt is mine alone. The younger generation is guiltless. It grew up in an anti-Semitic state, ruled by anti-Semitic laws. Our youth was bound by these laws and saw nothing criminal in racial politics. But if anti-Semitism and racial laws could lead to an Auschwitz, then Auschwitz must mark the end of racial politics and the death of anti-Semitism. Hitler is dead. I never betrayed him; I never tried to overthrow him; I remained true to my oath as an officer, a youth leader, and an official. I was no blind collaborator of his; neither was I an opportunist. I was a convinced National Socialist from my earliest days—as such, I was also an anti-Semite. Hitler’s racial policy was a crime which led to disaster for 5,000,000 Jews and for all the Germans. The younger generation bears no guilt. But he who, after Auschwitz, still clings to racial politics has rendered himself guilty.

That is what I consider my duty to state in connection with the Hoess case.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, is this perhaps a convenient moment to break off?

THE PRESIDENT: How long is the defendant’s examination going to continue, Dr. Sauter?

DR. SAUTER: I believe it will take about 1 hour.

THE PRESIDENT: I did not hear that.

DR. SAUTER: I believe it will take about one more hour—an hour at the most. Did you hear me, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I hear you now. We have been hearing you for a very long time now.

DR. SAUTER: Yes.

[A recess was taken.]

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, after this declaration by the Defendant Von Schirach I would gladly dispense with all further questions, but the Prosecution have brought definite accusations against this defendant and I fear that, if he does not briefly voice an opinion on the subject, these accusations would be considered as tacitly accepted. I shall try to be as brief as possible.

Witness, you have just described the impressions you had gathered from the proceedings of the Tribunal. Have you yourself ever visited a concentration camp?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: When, and for what reason?

VON SCHIRACH: As the witness Höllriegel has testified before this Tribunal, I visited Mauthausen Concentration Camp in 1942. The testimony given by another witness, Marsalek, to the effect that this visit took place in 1944, is incorrect. I also mentioned it when I was interned, in June 1945 and in the course of my preliminary interrogation in Nuremberg.

DR. SAUTER: Prior to Höllriegel’s testimony?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: The translation came through “interned in June 1940.” Is that right?

DR. SAUTER: 1945, Herr Von Schirach, not 1940?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes. I went into voluntary internment in 1945.

DR. SAUTER: Then you can confidently state that you visited Mauthausen in 1942?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: For what reason and how...

VON SCHIRACH: There had been a session...

DR. SAUTER: Just one moment...

THE PRESIDENT: What does he mean by “voluntary internment”?

DR. SAUTER: The Defendant Von Schirach was, at that time, living in the Tyrol under an assumed name, and in the place where he lived—perhaps Defendant Schirach can himself, but very briefly, tell us how this voluntary internment came about.

VON SCHIRACH: I was then still at liberty and I sent a letter, through my adjutant, to the local American commander, stating that I should like to surrender voluntarily in order to be tried by an Allied court. That was in June 1945. The CIC officer who later discovered where I lived told me that I might have stayed there a good time longer. I personally am convinced that I could have remained in hiding there, and elsewhere, for years—as long as I wished.

DR. SAUTER: Herr Von Schirach, we shall now revert to your visit to Mauthausen, which you said with certainty and under oath took place in 1942. Is this right?

VON SCHIRACH: I believe the date given by witness Höllriegel is correct. I quite definitely know that the date given by Marsalek is not correct.

DR. SAUTER: Then it was not in 1944?

VON SCHIRACH: Probably 1942. I therefore confirm Höllriegel’s testimony. There was a meeting at Linz at which various departments of the Ostmark participated. There were conferences on economic or agrarian problems, and in the late afternoon we went to Mauthausen Concentration Camp at the request of Gauleiter Eigruber. At the time I was rather surprised that the Gauleiter was even in a position to invite us there. I assumed that he had previously been in touch with the SS offices, and that the reason for Eigruber’s invitation was that he wished to erect a rifle factory or something of the kind there. At any rate, though I can no longer remember exactly, it was somehow connected with the production of the Steyr Works.

DR. SAUTER: Who showed you about and what did you see?

VON SCHIRACH: We were shown about by the camp commandant.

DR. SAUTER: Whose name was?

VON SCHIRACH: His name—as has already been mentioned here—was Ziereis, or something of the kind.

DR. SAUTER: SS leader?

VON SCHIRACH: SS Camp Commandant. And I should now like to give you my first impressions. The camp area was very large. I immediately asked how many internees there were. I believe I was told 15,000 or 20,000. At any rate, the figure varied between 15,000 and 20,000. I asked what kind of internees were imprisoned there and received the reply I was always given whenever I inquired about concentration camps—namely, that two-thirds of the inmates were dangerous criminals collected from the prisons and penitentiaries and brought to work in the camp; that the remaining third was allegedly composed of political prisoners and people guilty of high treason and betrayal of their country, who, it is a fact, are treated with exceptional severity in wartime.

DR. SAUTER: Did you, in this camp, convince yourself as to the nature of the treatment meted out to the prisoners, accommodations, the food situation, et cetera?

VON SCHIRACH: I witnessed one food distribution and gained the impression that, for camp conditions, the food ration was both normal and adequate. I then visited the large quarry, once famous and now notorious, where the construction stone for Vienna had been quarried for centuries. There was no work going on at the quarry since the working day had come to an end, but I did, however, visit the works where the stone was cut. I saw a building with an exceptionally well-equipped dental clinic. This clinic was shown to me because I had questioned Ziereis about the medical assistance afforded in the camp. I would add that, during this visit, I asked in general the same questions which I had been used to ask during all my visits to the camps of the youth organizations—that is, questions pertaining to food, medical aid, the number of people in the camp, et cetera.

I was then taken to a large room in which music was being played by the prisoners. They had gathered together quite a large symphony orchestra, and I was told that on holiday evenings they could amuse themselves, each man according to his own tastes. In this case, for instance, the prisoners who wished to make music assembled in that room. A tenor was singing on that occasion—I remember that particularly.

I then inquired about the mortality rate and was shown a room with three corpses in it. I cannot tell you here and now, under oath, whether I saw any crematorium or not. Marsalek has testified to that effect. I would not, however, have been surprised if there had been a crematorium or a cemetery in so large a place, so far removed from the city. That would be a matter of course.

DR. SAUTER: Herr Von Schirach, during this official visit under the guidance of Camp Commandant Ziereis, did you discover anything at all about any ill-treatment, or atrocities, or of the tortures which were allegedly inflicted in the camp? You can answer the question briefly—possibly with “yes” or “no.”

VON SCHIRACH: Had that been the case, I would of course have endeavored to do something about it. But I was under the impression that everything was in order. I looked at the inmates, for instance, and I remember seeing, among others, the famous middle-distance runner Peltzer, who was known as a sexual pervert. He had been punished because he had, on innumerable occasions, freely committed sexual offences against youths in his charge in a country school.

I asked Ziereis, “How does one ever get out of these concentration camps? Do you also release people continuously?” In reply he had four or five inmates brought to me who, according, to him, were to be released the very next day. He asked them in my presence, “Have you packed everything, and have you prepared everything for your release?”—to which, beaming with joy, they answered, “Yes.”

DR. SAUTER: Witness, can you remember whether on this occasion you also asked Camp Commander Ziereis whether political prisoners from your Vienna district—that is, from the city of Vienna—were interned in the camp? And did you then have a group of political prisoners from Vienna brought before you?

VON SCHIRACH: You have already, Counsel, put this question to me during an interview, and I can only tell you the following under oath: I cannot remember, but you may take it for granted that, on an occasion of this kind, I would certainly ask after prisoners from my own Gau. But I cannot remember. Herr Marsalek mentioned it in his testimony, and I consider it probable.

I should, in connection with this visit, like to add the following: I have always been rather hampered in my recollections of Mauthausen...

DR. SAUTER: What hampered you?

VON SCHIRACH: After May 1945 I heard innumerable radio reports on Mauthausen and other concentration camps, and I read everything I could lay my hands on in the way of written reports about Mauthausen—everything that appeared in the press—and I always pondered on the question, “Did you see anything there which might have pointed to a mass destruction of human beings?” I was, for instance, reading the other day about running belts for the conveyance of corpses. I did not see them.

I must add that I also visited Dachau; I must not forget that. In 1935, together with the entire Party leadership group, I paid a visit to Dachau from Munich. This visit was a result of the objections against existing preventive custody measures expressed by certain political leaders to the Deputy of the Führer Hess who, in turn, passed these objections on to Himmler who subsequently sent out an invitation to inspect Dachau. I believe that there were, at that time, 800 or 1,000 internees at Dachau.

I did not participate in the entire official visit for I was conversing with some of the Gauleiter who were being shown about the camp. I saw quite excellent living quarters at Dachau and, because the subject interested me particularly, I was shown the building which housed the camp library. I saw that there were also good medical facilities. Then—and I believe this fact is worthy of mention—after the visit I spoke with many Gau- and Reichsleiter about the impression they had formed of Dachau. All impressions gained were to the effect that all doubts as to Himmler’s preventive custody measures were definitely dispersed, and everybody said that the internees in the camp were, on the whole, better accommodated than they would have been in a state prison. Such was my impression of Dachau in 1935, and I must say that ever since that visit my mind was far more at ease regarding conditions in the concentration camps. In conclusion, I feel I must add the following:

Up to the moment of the final collapse I firmly believed that we had 20,000 people in the Mauthausen Camp, 10,000 at Oranienburg and Dachau—two more large camps whose existence was known to me and one of which I had visited—and possibly 10,000 more at Buchenwald, near Weimar, a camp I knew by name but which I had never visited. I therefore concluded that we had roughly 50,000 people in the German camps, of which I firmly believed that two-thirds were habitual criminals, convicts, and sexual perverts, and one-third consisted of political prisoners. And I had arrived at this conclusion primarily because I myself have never sent a single soul to the concentration camps and nourished the illusion that others had acted as I did. I could not even imagine, when I heard of it—immediately after the collapse—that hundreds of thousands of people in Germany were considered political offenders.

There is something else to be said on the whole question of the concentration camps. The poet Hans Carossa has deposed an affidavit for me, and this affidavit contains a passage about a publisher whom I had liberated from a concentration camp. I wish to mention this because it is one of many typical cases where one exerted one’s entire influence to have a man freed from a concentration camp, but then he never tells you afterwards how he fared in the camp. In the course of the years, I have received many letters from people having relatives in the concentration camps. By establishing, in Vienna, a fixed day on which audience was granted to anybody from the population who wished to speak to me, I was able to talk to thousands of people from every class and standing.

On one such occasion I was approached by someone who requested me personally to free some friend or relative in a concentration camp. In cases like that I usually wrote a letter to the Reich Security Main Office—at first to Herr Heydrich and later to Herr Kaltenbrunner—and after some time I would be informed that the internee in question had or had not been released, according to the gravity of the charges brought against him. But the internees released never told me their experiences in the camp. One never saw anybody who had been ill-treated in the camps, and that is why I myself, and many others in Germany with me, was never able to visualize conditions in the concentration camps at all.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, this affidavit of the poet Hans Carossa, just mentioned by the defendant, is Document Number Schirach 3(a). I repeat, Schirach 3(a) of the Schirach document book. It is a sworn affidavit by the poet Carossa, and I ask the Tribunal to put the entire contents of the document into the evidence. In the last paragraph, mention is made of the case about which the defendant has just been speaking—that is, the liberation of a publisher named Suhrkamp from a concentration camp.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the page of it?

DR. SAUTER: Page 25 of the document book, Document Number Schirach 3(a)—Hans Carossa. The remainder of this document deals with the humane impression Dr. Carossa received of the defendant, and with Defendant Von Schirach’s solicitude for the victims of political persecution.

Witness, how many concentration camps did you know anything about?

VON SCHIRACH: I have just enumerated them: Oranienburg, Dachau, Buchenwald, and Mauthausen.

DR. SAUTER: Was there a concentration camp in your own Gau?

VON SCHIRACH: No.

DR. SAUTER: In connection with this entire group of questions on the treatment of the Jews, I turn to orders allegedly issued in your presence to the camp commandant of Mauthausen in March 1945. It is Document Number 3870-PS, submitted by the Prosecution. According to this document, Himmler in March 1945 is supposed to have issued a directive to the effect that the Jews from the Southeast Wall were to be sent on foot to Mauthausen. Did you have anything at all to do with this?

VON SCHIRACH: I can tell you exactly from memory what Himmler said at that time.

Himmler came to Vienna towards the middle, or the end of March, to talk to the Commander of Army Group South. On this occasion—the Commander of Army Group South was, of course, not stationed in Vienna, he had ordered all the Reichsstatthalter of the Ostmark up to Vienna and granted them full authority to enforce martial law in the future, since Vienna and some of the other Ostmark Gaue had by that time become almost front-line zones. At this conference Himmler told his adjutant to call Ziereis in, while the papers for full powers were being typed in the next room. That is how I came to meet Ziereis for the second time in my life.

And now Himmler did not, as Marsalek said, tell Ziereis that the Jews were to be marched on foot from the Southeast Wall to Mauthausen, but he did say something else which surprised me enormously. He said:

“I want the Jews now employed in industry to be taken by boat, or by bus if possible, under the most favorable food conditions and with medical care, et cetera, to Linz or Mauthausen.”

I do not quite remember whether he said they should be taken to Mauthausen, but he also said to Ziereis:

“Please take care of these Jews and treat them well; they are my most valuable assets.”

From this declaration I assumed, in the very beginning—it was my very first, fleeting impression—that Himmler wished to deceive me in some way or another, and then it became clear to me that with these instructions he was following certain foreign political intentions, in the last moments of the war, in emphasizing the excellent treatment of the Jews.

What Marsalek therefore said about making them go on foot is not correct. As I have already mentioned, Himmler, under all circumstances, wanted the best possible treatment to be given to the Jews. I gained the impression—and later on it was confirmed by other things we heard—that he wished, at the last minute, to somehow redeem himself with this treatment of the Jews.

DR. SAUTER: That was the end of March 1945?

VON SCHIRACH: That was the end of March 1945, on the occasion when authority to apply martial law was granted to the Statthalter of the Ostmark.

DR. SAUTER: Therefore, immediately before the collapse?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: In connection with your activities in Vienna there is also an accusation, Witness, brought against you by the Prosecution, to the effect that you participated in the persecution of the Church. This accusation is supported exclusively as far as I can see by Document Number R-146. I repeat, R-146, which has already been submitted by the Prosecution.

This, Witness, is a letter addressed by the witness, Dr. Lammers, who has been heard before the Tribunal, to the Reich Minister of the Interior, dated 14 March 1941, and further, a circular from Bormann, addressed to all the Gauleiter, dated 20 March 1941.

I should like to hear your comments on both of these letters, especially since Dr. Lammers’ letter speaks of property belonging to enemies of the people and the state, whereas in Bormann’s circular of 20 March 1941 mention is made of the confiscation of Church property—monastic property—et cetera. Do you know what led to these letters, and what part did you yourself play in the matter?

VON SCHIRACH: The document written by Dr. Lammers is correct. Bormann’s covering letter referred to Church property; I referred to property belonging to enemies of the people and the State, for that was a technical expression at the time. I should like to mention in this matter that when I came to Vienna in 1940 the confiscation of such property was already in full swing; an argument had arisen on the subject between the Gauleiter and the Reich Minister for Finance. The Reich Minister for Finance wanted the confiscated property taken over by the Reich, while I considered that this property should remain fundamentally the possession of the Gaue.

So far as I can remember, I was involved in this question only through the following confiscations: Prince Schwarzenberg possessed property, the greater part of which lay in the region of the Upper Danube; the smaller part was the famous Vienna Palace. Now this Prince Schwarzenberg had refused, in the presence of some German consul general, or consul abroad, to return to Germany and serve in the Army. Thereupon his property was confiscated. In the interest of the Reich I endeavored to maintain this property for the Vienna Reich Gau and to prevent it from passing over to the Reich. I have no files before me, so I cannot from memory give you any information about other, similar actions.

I am not responsible for confiscations in the other Austrian Gaue. But I may state one thing here—namely, that I put an end to all confiscations throughout the entire Reich. When, through an intermediary, women from an Austrian convent appealed to me for help, I asked my father-in-law to act behind Bormann’s back and explain to Hitler the disastrous political effects which these confiscations would have and to beg him to issue a direct order for their suppression. This was achieved, and when the order was put through, Bormann turned against my father-in-law as well. From then on I never had any further opportunity to bring this question to the Führer’s notice.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, you have not, so far, quite explained your attitude toward Dr. Lammers’ letter of 14 March 1941. To refresh your memory I should like to read out the first sentence of that letter. This letter of Lammers’ dated 14 March 1941, Document Number R-146, states, and I quote:

“The Reichsstatthalter and Gauleiter Von Schirach, together with Dr. Jury and Eigruber, has recently complained to the Führer that the Reich Minister for Finance is still of the opinion that the seizure of property belonging to enemies of the state and people should be effected in favor of the Reich, and not in favor of the Reich Gau.”

Thus runs the quotation.

And because of this incident the Prosecution have accused you of participating in the persecution of the Church in Vienna. I must request you to tell us what you really did do in the matter.

VON SCHIRACH: Well, the Church in Vienna had actually been persecuted under my predecessor, Bürckel, and this can be proved. I mentioned yesterday the demonstrations before the Archbishop’s Palace. But from the day of my arrival in Vienna, anti-Church demonstrations in the nature of a political agitation no longer took place. Immediately upon my arrival I gathered all the political officials and all my other colleagues of the Gau and demanded that they should never, either in writing or by word of mouth, express anything likely to offend the religious sentiments of other people. I believe that this is a fact which was gratefully noted by the entire population of Vienna. From that day on there were no further actions against the Church. Just how much Church property, though, was called in in compliance with the law for special war contributions, a law which likewise applied to other property—I cannot tell you without documentary evidence.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, we can see from this document that you must have spoken on the subject to Hitler personally...

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: ...because it states that the Reichsleiter and Gauleiter Von Schirach complained to Hitler on the subject. You have not said anything to us about that so far.

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, I myself, during a visit by Hitler to Vienna where he signed a southeast pact, told him I was of the opinion that the property confiscated belonged to the Gaue and not to the Reich. That was my point of view and one which I believed to be entirely correct.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, the Indictment further accuses you of having had some kind of connection with the SS, thereby promoting the SS, et cetera. Were you yourself ever a member of the SS?

VON SCHIRACH: No.

DR. SAUTER: Did Himmler, the leader of the SS, have any influence over the youth organizations and over the education of the young people?

VON SCHIRACH: No.

DR. SAUTER: Were the replacements in the SS, especially in the SS Leadership Corps, recruited from the HJ, and if so, why?

VON SCHIRACH: The replacements in all the leadership corps in Germany were recruited from the youth. Our youth organization was a state institution. You now are probably referring to an agreement which I had with Himmler on the patrol services?

DR. SAUTER: Yes, that too plays a part in this connection.

VON SCHIRACH: Agreements of that sort...

DR. SAUTER: Just one more moment, Herr Von Schirach. This agreement is entered in the documents of the Prosecution as Number 2396-PS. I repeat 2396-PS, in which a special statement occurs—and I should appreciate your comments on the subject—to the effect that the SS received their replacements from the patrol service of the HJ, allegedly by an agreement of October 1938. Please tell us about it and explain to us what actually was this patrol service.

VON SCHIRACH: The patrol service was one of the special units of the HJ which I forgot to mention yesterday. The patrol service was a youth service for keeping order. It consisted of outstandingly decent lads who had no police duties—I now refer to documentary reports which I procured—but who had to supervise the general behavior of the young people, examine their uniforms, control the visits of the boys to the taverns; and it was their duty to inspect the HJ hostels for cleanliness and neatness, to supervise the hiking expeditions of the young people and the youth hostelries in the country. They stood guard and were on order duty at mass meetings and demonstrations. They watched over encampments and accompanied the convoys. They were employed in the search for youths who were lost. They gave advice to traveling youth, attended to station service, were supposed to protect young people from criminal elements, and, above all, to protect national property—that is, woods, fields, for instance—and to see that they were safe from fires, et cetera.

Since Himmler might make trouble for this section of the youth organization, I was interested in having the Police recognize my patrol service; for in my idea of the State youth as a youth state, the Police should not be employed against the youth, but these young people should keep order among themselves. That this principle was a sound one can be judged from the immense decline in juvenile delinquency from 1933 up to the outbreak of the war.

DR. SAUTER: Witness...

VON SCHIRACH: One moment, I have not yet finished. After this agreement...

THE PRESIDENT: Surely, Dr. Sauter, we have heard enough about this unit. The whole point of the document was that they were used for recruiting for the SS, wasn’t it? That is the complaint of the Prosecution.

DR. SAUTER: Yes, the patrol service...

THE PRESIDENT: We have heard, at considerable length the description of what they did in the way of the protection of the youth. Surely we have heard enough about that.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, these so-called special units were specially mentioned by the Prosecution as a means for preparation for war—that is, as a means for the military training of the young people. In this connection all these special units were mentioned, and therefore we considered it necessary that the defendant inform you what this patrol service really was. But I can, Mr. President, set this topic aside immediately.

THE PRESIDENT: We have heard what they were at some considerable length.

DR. SAUTER: Very well.

Witness, from which departments did the SS mainly recruit its leader replacements?

VON SCHIRACH: In order to assure its leader replacements, the SS founded its own training schools which were entirely outside my influence. They were the so-called National Socialist Training Institutes.

DR. SAUTER: In connection with the SS, the Prosecution, Witness, mentioned a further agreement between you and Reichsführer SS Himmler, an agreement of December 1938, submitted as Document Number 2567-PS, the so-called “Landdienst” of the HJ. Why was this agreement concluded with the Reichsführer SS?

VON SCHIRACH: It is very hard to give a brief answer. The Reichsführer SS was a farmer with an agronomical degree. In his student days he had belonged to the so-called “Artaman Movement,” whose program it was to prevent the flight from the land, and he was particularly keen to collaborate within the SS with the farm labor service groups of the HJ who were doing the same work as the “Artaman” groups in the past.

In conclusion, I should like to say about the “Landdienst” and the patrol service, that no coercion was ever brought to bear on the young people to enter the SS. Any lad from the patrol service was, of course, free to become a member of the SA or of the NSKK—and frequently did so—or else become a political leader just like any other boy from the farm labor service or the Hitler Youth.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, the Indictment states, inter alia, that a directive was addressed to the political leaders demanding that the Hitler Youth Leaders—that is, the leaders subordinate to you—be employed on their staffs. What can you say to that?

VON SCHIRACH: I can only say in reply that this is one of many attempts by the Party Chancellery to bring the Youth Leadership into the political leadership. The practical result of the directive was that a number of youth leaders were given insignificant duties as adjutants. They complained to me, and I withdrew them from these posts. It is a historical fact that in Germany there was no real flow of people from the youth organization into the political leadership. I can personally name those youth leaders who came into the political leadership, there were so few of them.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, the Soviet Prosecution have submitted a document, Document Number USSR-6, which is a report from the Lemberg Commission. Herein the following fact is mentioned. A French woman, Ida Vasseau, the head of an asylum for old people in Lemberg, testified in writing—I am only quoting the gist of the affidavit—that ghetto children were handed over as presents to the Hitler Youth and that these children were then used as living targets by the HJ for their drill practice. In all the time that you were active in the Reich Youth Leadership, did you ever hear of such misdemeanors or excesses?

VON SCHIRACH: No. We are dealing here with the first and, so far, the only accusation of crimes committed by the HJ which has been brought to my notice. There were no HJ commandos, either in the East or in the West, capable of committing such crimes. I consider the statements in this affidavit as absolutely untrue, and that is all I can say on the matter.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, in the course of his examination your fellow-Defendant, Dr. Schacht, mentioned that a suggestion had been made in his time to Mr. Eden, to divest the SS, the SA, and the HJ of their military character if the other powers would consent to disarm. What do you know of such proposals or negotiations?

VON SCHIRACH: I know of no such offer, as far as the Hitler Youth is concerned. I consider it entirely out of the question that any such offer could have been received by Mr. Eden regarding the HJ; for Hitler himself did not consider the HJ as a military or even a semimilitary organization. The disarming of the HJ could factually never have taken place since the only weapon carried by the Hitler Youth was the camping knife, the equivalent of a Boy Scout’s bowie knife of the Jungvolk Pimpfe (boys of 10-14 years of age).

DR. SAUTER: Witness, the Prosecution further charge that you, in 1933, concluded an agreement with the VDA—an abbreviation for the “Verein für das Deutschtum im Ausland.” Is that true? And what was your intention in concluding this agreement?

VON SCHIRACH: That is true. I do not wish to express an opinion on the aims and objects of the VDA. I believe that counsel for the Defendant Frick has already done so. I refer to these statements and merely state that it was my perfectly natural wish to incorporate in the HJ the numerically powerful group of lads belonging to the VDA. The majority of these youths, moreover, had graduated from the public schools, and it was my second intention to place some of my collaborators on the board of the VDA so as to be currently informed about the young people abroad.

DR. SAUTER: The Prosecution further accuse you of having founded the so-called Adolf Hitler Schools where the training of young leaders for the National Socialist State and for the Party was carried out. What have you to say to this accusation?

VON SCHIRACH: There is a lot that I could say about that accusation, but I shall limit myself to essential remarks only.

The Adolf Hitler Schools were founded as scholastic units of the HJ. They were founded with the means which Dr. Ley placed at my disposal when I told him of my plans for the training I had envisaged. These schools were not intended to train leaders for the Party exclusively but served to prepare the youth for all the professions. I myself often talked to these boys on their graduation and I always told them “You can choose any profession you like. Your training in this school carries no obligation, either moral or otherwise, to become a political leader.” De facto, relatively few political leaders emerged from the Adolf Hitler Schools. Very many of the boys became doctors, officials, et cetera. I cannot quote any figures from memory, but the communications I have received from the young people, including statements from teachers in the Adolf Hitler Schools, show their attitude towards this point of the Indictment. And I should like to ask that at least 50 to 60 of these numerous affidavits, which confirm all that I have said, be submitted in support of my declarations.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, one more question on a different topic. Did you ever receive any so-called endowment funds, or anything of that kind, from Hitler or from other sources?

VON SCHIRACH: No, I never received any endowment funds.

DR. SAUTER: Did you ever receive gifts in kind, such as valuable paintings or other costly gifts?

VON SCHIRACH: The only thing Hitler ever gave me was his photograph on the occasion of my thirtieth birthday.

DR. SAUTER: His photograph—presumably with a few words of dedication?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: Now I have a few final, very brief questions to ask you—they refer to the last days of your activities in Vienna. You have already mentioned, in connection with Himmler’s visit to Vienna at the end of March 1945, that you had at that time received from Himmler the so-called authority for the proclamation of martial law. If I have understood you correctly, you, in your function of Reich Defense Commissioner, were authorized to convene a drumhead court martial?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes, and that made me lord of life and death.

DR. SAUTER: As far as I know, this drumhead court martial was only supposed to pass death sentences?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: Did you ever convene this drumhead court martial in Vienna, and did you appoint the members?

VON SCHIRACH: I appointed the members of the court martial. An outstanding lawyer was the president. I never convened the drumhead court martial and I never once imposed a death sentence. If I remember rightly, the military court martial of the local military commandant passed four death sentences on four military traitors. My court martial never met and never passed a death sentence.

DR. SAUTER: Had you any connection with the military drumhead court martial?

VON SCHIRACH: No. The Vienna commandant was, of course, president of that particular court, and I was the head of court martial “Schirach.”

DR. SAUTER: You said you had a distinguished lawyer as your president?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: What was his profession?

VON SCHIRACH: I think he was president of a district court, of something of the kind. I cannot quite remember; I have forgotten.

DR. SAUTER: So he was an official Viennese judge?

VON SCHIRACH: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: Did you give the order, in Vienna, to have certain vitally important factories either blown up or destroyed as so often happened in other Gaue, as for instance, here in Nuremberg?

VON SCHIRACH: No. It has escaped my knowledge, that much I must admit, how far crippling and destructive measures were executed in the military and armament sectors, pursuant to direct instructions from the Reich Government. For instance, the dynamiting of bridges was a military precaution. The order could never have emanated from me. Hitler reserved for himself the right to issue the orders for blowing up the bridges over the Danube. The Chief of Army Group South, Generaloberst Rendulic, prior to giving the order for blowing up these bridges, had to consult the Führer’s headquarters by telephone.

DR. SAUTER: When did you yourself leave Vienna?

VON SCHIRACH: I left Gau Vienna after the withdrawal of the last troops from the city and after the command post of the 2d corps of the 6th SS Panzer Army had been moved to the region of the Lower Danube.

DR. SAUTER: When was that?

VON SCHIRACH: That was—sorry, I cannot remember the date offhand. It was toward the end of the battle for Vienna.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us